City of Bellingham Hearing Examiner

## Meeting Overview On June 25, 2025, Bellingham Hearing Examiner Sharon Rice convened a virtual impound hearing to consider an appeal filed by Weston Warfel challenging the validity of his vehicle's impound and associated towing and storage fees. The hearing, conducted via Zoom, addressed the impoundment of Warfel's 1999 Subaru Forester from a residential permit parking zone near Western Washington University on May 8, 2025. What began as a routine parking violation had evolved into a costly ordeal for Warfel, who worked out of state and claimed he had no reasonable way of knowing his vehicle had been towed until nearly two weeks after the fact. Rice, who serves as contract hearing examiner for Bellingham and nine other jurisdictions in Western Washington, opened the proceedings by carefully explaining the legal framework and order of testimony. The case file, designated HE.25-VI-016, would unfold in measured stages: first the city would establish its prima facie case for the impound, then the towing operator would explain the charges, and finally Warfel would present his challenge. By the time of the hearing, 48.5 days after the initial tow, storage fees alone had pushed the total bill to $5,775.37 — a sum that represented both the longest storage period Rice had encountered in an impound appeal and a financial burden that prompted Warfel to fight for his vehicle rather than abandon it. ## The City's Case: Residential Permit Zone Enforcement Code Compliance Officer Stephanie Mays took the witness stand first, methodically building the city's case through both testimony and photographic evidence. Her account traced back to April, when the wheels of enforcement had begun turning in response to citizen complaints about unauthorized parking in the residential permit zone near WWU. "It is very common for our parking staff to receive complaints in this area, because it is located so close to Western Washington University," Mays explained, setting the context for what would become an eight-vehicle sweep on May 8. The enforcement action hadn't happened immediately. Complaints came in on April 11 and April 17, but staffing constraints — the department was in the process of hiring additional officers — delayed the initial response until April 28. "At the time there was only 2 of us," Mays noted, explaining the gap between complaint and action. The first visit resulted in tickets; the second, on May 8, escalated to impoundment for vehicles that remained in vio…