Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverside presents data on repeated emergency responses; council seeks automation and outreach
Summary
Police and fire presented RMC 9.60 implementation data showing hundreds to thousands of repeat responses to individual addresses and projected monthly cost impacts; council asked staff to pursue better automated reporting, refine address‑level thresholds and coordinate outreach to high‑call properties.
City fire and police leaders presented implementation updates to Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 9.60 on July 13, laying out how the city will identify properties that generate extraordinary public‑safety responses and recover costs when appropriate.
Deputy Fire Chief Brian Gazzetta explained the two fire data thresholds the ordinance uses: five or more false medical alarms within a 12‑month period at a single address, and five or more fire/EMS responses to the same address within 30 days. Gazzetta noted the data set was abbreviated (collected from June 11, 2025 through March 19, 2026 after the ordinance took effect). “During that period we had one property, 393 10th Street, with 54 false‑medical‑alarm responses,” Gazzetta said, and showed a one‑month snapshot where repeated responses to various properties totaled roughly 160 calls impacting the busiest units and costing an estimated $30,000 for that month.
Captain Brian Crawford of the Riverside Police Department presented parallel police metrics. He reported that between January and March 2026, 474 calls matched the 'three or more officers plus a supervisor' extraordinary‑response threshold and 3,028 calls met the criterion of a second emergency response to the same address within 30 days. High‑frequency locations included the Galleria and Riverside Community Hospital. Crawford described the limits of current police RMS/CAD systems: the database cannot automatically flag addresses meeting RMC 9.60 criteria without significant modification, so staff now conduct manual searches and run end‑of‑month reports.
Councilmembers asked about automation to flag problem addresses earlier in the process, distinctions between inherently high‑call facilities (hospitals, campuses) and nuisance properties, and how to preserve due‑process and appeals. Councilmember comments emphasized the tool’s use for awareness and remediation rather than immediate cost recovery: the city will focus on working with owners to implement mitigations and, where appropriate, pursue cost‑recovery measures that are appealable under the municipal code.
