Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council repeals first‑responder fee after public outcry over lift‑assist bills
Summary
Following sustained public comment and concerns about bills for lift‑assist responses, the Redding City Council voted to repeal the municipal first‑responder fee ordinance, temporarily rescind issued bills and direct staff to return with options and analysis.
The Redding City Council on Aug. 18 voted to repeal the city’s first‑responder fee ordinance and to rescind (refund or cancel) bills that had been issued under the ordinance after significant public comment and council discussion.
The ordinance, originally placed in Redding Municipal Code Chapter 6.18 and first implemented in 2021, had been put into billing in 2025 for select calls (initially lift assists and later expanded to other emergency medical calls). The fee had been set on the master fee schedule (staff noted it had risen from $326 in an earlier budget to $489 in the most current fee schedule). City staff explained that projected revenue estimates in 2021 used conservative collection assumptions and that the fee calculation considers personnel hourly rates, fuel and maintenance costs.
During public comment, many residents described personal and family situations in which emergency responses for falls or lift assists resulted in bills that they said they could not afford; speakers said the fee discourages 911 calls, could harm vulnerable residents and penalizes people who already pay taxes. Councilmembers expressed concern about the equity of the fee, the public response, and the speed of implementation; several members also noted the need for clearer communication and a hardship‑waiver process.
After public testimony, the council moved to repeal the ordinance, suspend the fees and direct staff to rescind existing billings and return with options, including potential carve‑outs, revised billing practices and legal analysis of whether the city could structure fees differently (for example, targeting institutional or commercial users). Council also directed staff to prepare public messaging about the repeal and how residents could seek assistance.
City staff noted that California cities have used first‑responder fees in varied ways and that the city will research alternatives and legal constraints and report back. The council’s repeal will be brought back as required for formal ordinance repeal readings; staff said they would coordinate a public announcement promptly.
