## Meeting Overview On the afternoon of October 31, 2025, Bellingham Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a vehicle impound appeal hearing in the case of Alex Westbrook versus the City of Bellingham. The proceeding, conducted via Zoom with participants joining by video and phone, centered on Westbrook's challenge to both the validity of his pickup truck's impoundment and the associated $710.14 in towing and storage fees. The case arose from the October 21, 2025 Bellingham Bay Marathon, when Westbrook's vehicle was among numerous cars towed from downtown streets to clear race routes. What began as a routine administrative hearing soon revealed the complex intersection of public safety planning, municipal signage practices, and the real-world challenges faced by out-of-town visitors navigating temporary parking restrictions during major civic events. The hearing brought together city parking enforcement officers, a police lieutenant, a towing company owner, and a frustrated motorist from Snohomish, each offering their perspective on what constitutes adequate notice for parking restrictions that carry severe financial consequences. ## The Marathon Morning Clearing Operation The foundation of the city's case was presented by Greg Coulter, a Parking Code Compliance Officer who painted a picture of extensive pre-event preparation for the Bellingham Bay Marathon. "A few times a year for some of the larger-scale events that are put on through the Permits Office with the City of Bellingham, we are contacted, or in contact with the police department, primarily Lieutenant Dante Alexander with City of Bellingham Police, to arrange for assistance in clearing routes prior to events happening," Coulter explained. The marathon route included East Laurel Street between Railroad and North State Street, a one-block section that connected to the South Bay Trail and would see approximately 1,500 racers pass through twice during the event. According to Coulter, temporary no-parking signs were posted 72 hours in advance, with 11 signs placed on this particular block using existing paid parking poles as fixture points. But nature had other plans. Coulter described arriving at 6 AM on race morning to discover that a significant weather event had occurred overnight. Weather data from Bellingham International Airport showed wind gusts that escalated throughout the night, with pink numbers indicating gusts reaching concerning levels. "When we arrived on site, we did notice that the signage had been affected by the wind," Coulter testified. The city's response relied on what Coulter called "over-signing" – placing temporary event signs on every available fixture to create redundancy. "By over-signing, the hope with the Permits Department, by suggesting that events do that, is to provide as much notice as possible that this is going to be a no-parking zone," he explained. Even after the storm damage, Coulter noted that four signs remained standing on the affected side of the block. ## The Safety Imperative Lieutenant Dante Alexander of the Bellingham Police Department's Special Operations unit provided the law enforcement perspective on the clearing operation. As the official who reviews city permits for race events and other large gatherings, Alexander emphasized the paramount concern driving the impound decisions: runner safety. "The concern is the safety of the racers, so we want to make sure that there's not vehicles or people aren't trying to get to their vehicles and leave as the race is going on to endanger the lives of the racers," Alexander testified. He described a predetermined meeting at 6 AM in the 1100 block of Railroad Avenue to coordinate the clearing operation. Alexander's testimony revealed the human dimension of the enforcement effort. He and Sergeant Craig Johnson attempted to contact as many registered vehicle owners as possible before authorizing tows, using license plate returns to obtain owner information. While the Department of Licensing doesn't provide phone numbers, officers could sometimes find contact information through previous police interactions. On the 200 block of East Laurel, Alexander made direct contact with several vehicle owners. One interaction proved particularly illuminating regarding the timeline of the storm damage. A vehicle owner told Alexander he had parked "late Saturday night, early Sunday morning," estimated between 11 PM Saturday and 1 AM Sunday. When Alexander arrived to investigate, he found that "the sign had blown un stuck on his driver's side front tire," suggesting the signage remained intact until at least after 11 PM Saturday night. Alexander's experience also highlighted the emotional challenges of enforcement during public events: "Sometimes when people are parked and they want to leave, emotions can get the better of them, and they make poor decisions to leave. I've had situations even when we try to close streets and people try to drive through barricades. They just get in their mind that they need to get to a place, or need to leave, and sometimes that leads to very poor decision-making, and we don't want to put racers and buyers in jeopardy." ## The Business of Towing Chris Heston, owner of Heston Hauling and Heston Towing, participated by phone to explain the financial breakdown that had brought the parties to the hearing room. His testimony was methodical and matter-of-fact, reflecting the regulated nature of the towing industry. "The impound date, time and route, time on scene, time in tow, and time completed" – these details form the backbone of every impound invoice, Heston explained. For the marathon clearing operation, his company brought in additional drivers, knowing the volume would be substantial. Due to the hectic nature of the morning, "the guys were not very good about keeping track of their times, so we just went with a blanket one-hour charge." The fee structure Heston outlined was dictated by state regulation: "$400 for a Class A tow truck, automatically billed out in an hour, whether it takes 2 minutes or 59 minutes." Storage fees followed a similar pattern – $101 per day, but since Westbrook's vehicle was retrieved within 12 hours, only half that amount was charged. An after-hours fee of $201 was added because the vehicle was released on Sunday when the office was typically closed. "The rates are set by the state of Washington under our registered tow truck operator license," Heston emphasized. "If you're a company that is contracted with a municipality, police departments, you have to follow this rate sheet, so the price would be the same as any other tow company within the state." The total came to $710.14 after taxes – a significant sum that underscored why Westbrook had chosen to challenge the impound. ## A Visitor's Perspective Alex Westbrook's testimony introduced a different narrative – that of an out-of-town visitor caught in circumstances beyond his reasonable expectation to anticipate. Driving up from Snohomish, about an hour south of Bellingham, Westbrook had arrived around 9 PM on Saturday night to visit a friend, well before most residents would have known about the impending street closures. "It was already dark. If I do recall, it was raining, it was a little bit windy, I guess maybe a precursor to that storm that everyone is mentioning," Westbrook recounted. Having visited his friend many times before, he parked in the same spot he usually used, seeing nothing to indicate that anything had changed. Westbrook's account highlighted the practical challenges of nighttime parking enforcement signage: "Looking at these pictures after the fact, the signage does kind of blend in with the existing postings that are already there." He emphasized that the sign was "unreflective" and questioned whether it was "unreasonable to expect that I would notice that and assume that it applies to that spot" given the dark, rainy conditions. The morning brought an unwelcome surprise. Westbrook didn't receive a direct call from police – instead, his father in Arizona received the notification, creating additional confusion and alarm. "My father actually got a call, he lives in Arizona, so he had reached out to me a couple hours after the fact and said, hey, I have a message from the police department, what's going on?" Westbrook noted that his friend, who lived in the building, had informed him that parking meters were installed at every spot following the incident. This observation led to his speculation that "maybe there's a correlation there due to the inadequate posting of this signage here" – a theory that city staff would later address. ## The Technical Standards Debate The hearing's most detailed technical discussion centered on federal signage standards and their real-world application. Coulter provided extensive testimony about the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the federal guidelines governing traffic signage. "It's primarily for traffic engineers to be able to determine how and where to sign effectively," Coulter explained. He cited section 2B.53, which relates to no parking signs, specifically the R8 series that includes the R83 non-arrowed no parking sign used in this case. The MUTCD language Coulter quoted seemed to support the city's position: "The R8 series signs may be used where sufficient notice of parking prohibition is satisfied by the use of single signs and are not needed to designate the beginning and end of a zone in which parking is prohibited or restricted." Under these guidelines, Coulter explained, "only one of these types of signs is necessary to cover an area of parking, whether that is one individual stall or an entire city block." The standards are intentionally broad, he noted, allowing municipalities to adopt their own specific guidelines within the federal framework. When Hearing Examiner Rice pressed on the practical application – asking how a driver parking in one stall was supposed to understand that a sign in front of an adjacent stall applied to their space – Coulter drew parallels to other signage: "That same question could be asked about the other no parking sign that's on that pole, or the paid parking that's on that pole. It seems like a pretty reasonable assumption to say that the paid parking sign would apply to all of those spaces." ## The Storm's Impact and Signage Survival The weather event that occurred between Saturday night and Sunday morning became a central element in the case. Coulter's testimony revealed that city staff had verified sign placement on Saturday during an overtime shift, but the overnight storm had damaged some signage by the time enforcement began at 6 AM Sunday. Photographs entered as evidence showed one temporary no parking sign that had survived the storm, attached to a permanent parking sign post in front of the space adjacent to where Westbrook had parked. The surviving sign was clear and legible in the close-up photograph, though less distinct in the broader context shots taken from the vehicle's position. "Unfortunately, you know, the weather event started to clear, and it was actually pretty beautiful at 9 o'clock," Coulter observed. "But, the winds maintained, and I think that that is a lot of the reason why, even though we have photos of signage and a lot of our photos at the ticket issuance time, those signs may not have been still up later in the day. Once a water sign gets soaked in, its structural integrity disintegrates pretty darn quickly." The timing was particularly unfortunate for anyone who, like Westbrook, had parked Saturday night after what appeared to be adequate signage was in place, only to have enforcement occur Sunday morning after storm damage had reduced the visible warnings. ## The Parking Infrastructure Evolution Westbrook's observation about new parking meters prompted additional testimony from city officials about the evolution of Bellingham's downtown parking management. Raul Murillo, the Parking Operations Supervisor, clarified that the meter installation was part of a long-term plan unrelated to the impound incident. "All of State Street has been restriped, and also the meters, we slowly, we've been removing pay stations. They seem to be a little more confusing for customers to use," Murillo explained. The transition from digital-only pay stations to individual space meters was part of an effort to provide "complete coverage throughout the entire city" and make parking payment more intuitive for users. Coulter added context about the challenges of temporary event signage on blocks that lack physical parking meters: "Because this block does not have any physical meters, it's all digital payment systems here, we put them on the existing paid parking poles." Without individual meters to serve as natural attachment points, event organizers had fewer options for sign placement, contributing to the spacing issues that became central to Westbrook's appeal. ## Comparative Enforcement Experiences Both Coulter and Westbrook offered perspectives on how other communities handle similar situations, highlighting different approaches to temporary parking restrictions. Coulter noted that regular weekly street sweeping enforcement on similar blocks typically results in "an average of 20 to 30 vehicles" towed and "100 to 150 tickets" written, despite permanent retroreflective signage that's visible at night. "Unfortunately, you know, the signs are placed strategically to be as visible as possible. Oftentimes, we can take photos with two to three of those signposts in our circumference of a vehicle, and even so, we still have a lot of people that don't see those," Coulter testified, suggesting that sign visibility remains challenging even under optimal conditions. Westbrook contrasted Bellingham's approach with his hometown experience: "In my small town that I live in, Snohomish, we have regular closures of our main street, for car shows, for vendor events, and each individual spot is, they have one of those tall orange cones with signage on the top. Each individual spot, something that I would reasonably notice if I was driving through town." This comparison highlighted fundamentally different philosophies about temporary event signage – one prioritizing comprehensive individual space marking versus another seeking to avoid "over-cluttering" through strategic placement of fewer signs covering larger areas. ## The Human Cost of Municipal Efficiency Throughout the hearing, the tension between municipal operational efficiency and individual fairness remained palpable. The city's approach reflected legitimate concerns about public safety during a major athletic event, combined with federal guidelines emphasizing strategic rather than comprehensive signage placement. Yet Westbrook's experience illustrated the real-world impact when those systems encounter unexpected circumstances – a visitor unfamiliar with local events, overnight weather that damages temporary signage, and the significant financial consequences of a $710 mistake. Hearing Examiner Rice acknowledged this human dimension, noting that having Westbrook's father in Arizona receive the impound notification "would be kind of alarming for everybody. Sorry that everybody had to go through that. Glad there was no worse news." ## Final Arguments and the Standard of Proof In his closing remarks, Westbrook returned to the question of proportionality: "For something as severe as a tow that cost me $700, I would expect to see ample signage to indicate that this is a no-parking zone." He emphasized that given the nighttime parking conditions and the non-reflective nature of the temporary signage, "I do think it was a bit unreasonable to expect me to notice that signage, given the conditions as well, and the timing in which I arrived." The city's position remained anchored in federal standards and practical necessities. As Coulter had explained, the MUTCD guidelines considered the single surviving sign sufficient notice, and the operational demands of clearing 1,500 runners' worth of route required decisive action even when weather had complicated the signage situation. ## Closing and What's Ahead The hearing concluded with Hearing Examiner Rice taking the matter under advisement, noting she had 10 business days to issue a written decision. With November 11th being a legal holiday, the decision was due by November 17th. The case would turn on whether Westbrook could demonstrate error in either the impound authorization or the fee structure – a legal standard that required showing the city's actions fell outside reasonable enforcement practices. As participants logged off the Zoom call, the fundamental questions remained: In an era of major civic events requiring extensive coordination, what constitutes adequate notice to vehicle owners? How should municipalities balance operational efficiency against individual fairness when weather or other circumstances complicate enforcement? And when temporary restrictions carry permanent financial consequences, what standards should govern the visibility and placement of warning signs? The Bellingham Bay Marathon had concluded months earlier, but its administrative aftermath continued to raise questions about the intersection of public safety, municipal authority, and citizen rights in an increasingly complex urban environment. Westbrook's $710.14 appeal had become a window into these larger tensions, awaiting a hearing examiner's decision that would provide clarity for future similar situations.

### Meeting Overview On October 31, 2025, Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice conducted a vehicle impound appeal hearing for Alex Westbrook, who challenged the impound of his 2008 pickup truck during the Bellingham Bay Marathon on October 21, 2025. The hearing addressed both the validity of the impound and $710.14 in towing and storage fees charged by Heston Towing. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Hearing Examiner:** An attorney who works on contract to hear and decide vehicle impound appeals and other administrative matters for the City of Bellingham and other jurisdictions. **MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices):** Federal guidelines that establish standards for traffic signage, including placement, visibility, and coverage requirements for no-parking zones. **R8-3 Sign:** A non-arrowed "No Parking" sign that can cover multiple parking spaces or an entire block under MUTCD guidelines, without needing to designate specific beginning and end points. **Class A Tow Truck:** The largest category of tow truck, which commands a $400 minimum charge for the first hour under Washington State's registered tow truck operator fee schedule. **Police Impound:** A vehicle towing authorized by law enforcement or parking enforcement, which qualifies for specific state-regulated fee structures. **Registered Tow Truck Operator:** A towing company licensed by Washington State that must follow official fee schedules set annually through the Consumer Price Index. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Sharon Rice | Hearing Examiner | | Alex Westbrook | Appellant (vehicle owner) | | Greg Coulter | Parking Code Compliance Officer, City of Bellingham | | Lt. Dante Alexander | Special Operations Lieutenant, Bellingham Police | | Chris Heston | Owner, Heston Hauling and Heston Towing | | Raul Murillo Delgado | Parking Operations Supervisor, City of Bellingham | ### Background Context The Bellingham Bay Marathon required extensive street closures for runner safety, with approximately 1,500 racers using the route twice. East Laurel Street was part of this route, connecting to the South Bay Trail. The city coordinates with event organizers to post temporary no-parking signs 72 hours in advance, but a significant storm the night before the marathon knocked down some signage while leaving others intact. This case highlights the tension between public event logistics and individual parking rights. The city must balance clear notification requirements with practical limitations of downtown signage infrastructure, especially when weather events can compromise temporary signs. The hearing process provides due process for citizens to challenge impounds they believe were improper. ### What Happened — The Short Version Alex Westbrook parked his truck on East Laurel Street around 9 PM on October 20, visiting a friend from out of town. He didn't notice the temporary no-parking sign for the marathon route closure. A storm overnight knocked down some signs, but not the one near his vehicle. City parking enforcement and police arrived at 6 AM on October 21 to clear the marathon route, finding Westbrook's truck and others still parked. The vehicle was towed by Heston Towing at 8:21 AM and charged $710.14 total. Westbrook's father in Arizona received a police contact call, not Westbrook directly. Westbrook challenged both the validity of the impound and the fees, arguing the signage was inadequate given nighttime, rainy conditions and that the sign didn't clearly apply to his specific parking space. ### What to Watch Next - Hearing Examiner Rice's written decision due November 17, 2025 - Whether the decision sets precedent for signage adequacy standards in weather events - Potential policy changes regarding temporary event signage placement downtown ---

**Q:** Who conducted this vehicle impound appeal hearing? **A:** Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice, an attorney who works on contract for the City of Bellingham and 9 other jurisdictions. **Q:** What event caused the vehicle impounds on East Laurel Street? **A:** The Bellingham Bay Marathon on October 21, 2025, which required street closures for approximately 1,500 racers using the route twice. **Q:** How much did Alex Westbrook's impound cost in total? **A:** $710.14, including $400 for towing, $50.50 for half-day storage, $201 after-hours release fee, plus tax. **Q:** What weather event affected the temporary signage? **A:** A significant storm overnight on October 20-21 with strong wind gusts that knocked down some no-parking signs while leaving others intact. **Q:** What time did parking enforcement begin clearing the marathon route? **A:** 6 AM on October 21, 2025, with the last vehicles impounded just before the 9 AM race start. **Q:** Who got contacted about Westbrook's impounded vehicle? **A:** His father in Arizona received a call from police, not Westbrook directly, despite the vehicle being registered in Westbrook's name. **Q:** What federal guidelines govern no-parking sign placement? **A:** The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), specifically section 2B.53 for R8 series no-parking signs. **Q:** Who authorized the vehicle impounds on marathon morning? **A:** Lieutenant Dante Alexander coordinated with parking enforcement, while individual officers authorized specific impounds as they found violations. **Q:** How far in advance were no-parking signs posted? **A:** 72 hours before the marathon, as required for temporary event signage. **Q:** What type of tow truck was used and what's the minimum charge? **A:** A Class A tow truck with a $400 minimum charge for the first hour under Washington State's official fee schedule. **Q:** Where is Alex Westbrook from? **A:** Snohomish, Washington, about an hour south of Bellingham. He was visiting a friend downtown. **Q:** How many no-parking signs were originally placed on East Laurel Street? **A:** 11 temporary no-parking signs, placed on existing paid parking poles since the block lacks physical parking meters. **Q:** What's the storage fee structure for impounded vehicles? **A:** $101 per day, charged in half-day increments, so $50.50 for vehicles stored less than 12 hours. **Q:** When is the hearing examiner's decision due? **A:** November 17, 2025 (10 business days from October 31, accounting for the November 11 legal holiday). **Q:** What permanent signage already exists on the same pole? **A:** Street sweeping no-parking signs and paid parking information, which are retroreflective for nighttime visibility. **Q:** Why were new parking meters installed after this incident? **A:** Part of an ongoing plan to replace pay stations with individual meters throughout downtown, not in response to this impound incident. **Q:** What time was Westbrook's vehicle photographed and towed? **A:** Photos taken and tow authorized at 8:21 AM, making it one of the last vehicles cleared before the 9 AM race start. **Q:** What's the main safety concern driving route clearance? **A:** Runner safety, preventing vehicle-pedestrian conflicts as approximately 3,000 individual runner passages occurred on the route. **Q:** What burden of proof applies in impound appeals? **A:** The appellant (vehicle owner) bears the burden to show error in the impound and/or towing and storage fees. **Q:** How does the MUTCD allow signage coverage? **A:** One R8-3 no-parking sign can cover multiple spaces or an entire block, without needing signs at the beginning and end of zones. ---