With over 100 open violations in 2011; 348 violations now in 2016; City of Eureka outlines the deplorable conditions, including case laws and civil codes why Budget request should be denied

"This owner had had more than a fair shake" said Eureka City Attorney Cyndi Day Wilson. "The City has a long history with the Budget motel."

Ms. Day-Wilson mentioned that the City has been tracking this property since 2006. "There are currently nine outstanding cases dating back to June 10, 2010."

Disputing that the owners had not received notice, Ms. Day-Wilson cited many dates from 2011 to 2014, prior to the recent notice that had been served on the Budget Motel informing them of the issues.

There were over "100 open violations" cited in 2011.





Ms. Day Wilson referred to the inspection warrant signed by Judge Dale Reinholtsen, himself,  on September 7, 2016 which was a result of numerous complaints the City had received.

On September 13, the inspection that was held resulted in 348 violations.

Ms. Day-Wilson asked Judge Reinholtsen to look at the pictures in City Code Enforcement Program Manager Brian Issa's declaration which showed "the conditions that currently exist." This is from the recent inspection.

"Numerous faulty and exposed electrical wires; extreme rotten fire damage and rotten elements"; extensive mold; unsanitary conditions such as "severe human excrement, urine and needles" inside rooms and "severe infestation of cockroaches and bed bugs" were some of the violatons Ms. Day-Wilson mentioned in court.

"As a result of this inspection," the Chief Building Official felt he had no other option. Ms. Day-Wilson cited Eureka Municipal Code which contains language that the property presents eminent danger and is hazardous to the community."

"This motel cannot be reformed while the people are there." She said there were legal issues with allowing the owners to continue renting.

"The plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies," she said. They did not file a notice of appeal.


Ms. Day-Wilson cited case law and civil codes stating that the only reason given by the plaintiffs was financial hardship and that the City was "prepared to cut a check" and that this was not reason enough to issue a TRO.

"She even invited Judge Reinholtsen to tour the site.

"The owners have had a lot of time to address these issues and they haven't. "He has had five years," mentioning the 2011 violations, "It's time to take this action."

"These people should not be living in these conditions."

She ended her argument saying that "I am not even hearing Mr. Floyd say this can be addressed in 45 days, its just give us a chance."