City Council Memorandum
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JULY 14, 2026 FROM: FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENT WARDS: ALL
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.60 – EXTRAORDINARY RESPONSES TO CERTAIN EMERGENCY INCIDENTS AND DANGEROUS PROPERTIES ISSUE:
Receive an update on the implementation of the recently adopted amendments to Chapter 9.60 of the Riverside Municipal Code, which establishes liability for extraordinary Police and Fire Department responses to certain emergency incidents and dangerous properties. The report also provides an overview of how properties are currently identified for review under the program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the City Council:
Receive an update and provide input on the implementation of the amendments to Chapter 9.60 of the Riverside Municipal Code related to extraordinary responses to certain emergency incidents and dangerous properties.
BACKGROUND:
City departments are frequently required to respond to incidents that demand a significantly greater level of service than what is typically provided during routine emergency responses. These responses may involve repeated emergency calls to the same property, large-scale incidents, dangerous conditions, or circumstances that require multiple departments and extended operational resources.
When certain properties or businesses repeatedly generate emergency calls for service, those responses can exceed what Riverside taxpayers reasonably expect as part of normal public safety operations. In these situations, public safety resources—including police, fire, ambulance, code enforcement, and building department services—may be diverted from other critical emergency’s in the City to address recurring issues at a single location.
To address these circumstances, the City Council adopted amendments to Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 9.60 to establish a mechanism for the City to recover costs associated with extraordinary responses to certain emergency incidents and dangerous properties.
The intent of the ordinance is to promote accountability for property owners and occupants who utilize a disproportionate amount of public safety resources, while ensuring that the City maintains its ability to respond timely and effectively to emergencies throughout the community.
DISCUSSION:
The Riverside Fire Department and Riverside Police Department administer Chapter 9.60 of the Municipal Code in coordination with other City departments when incidents occur that may qualify as extraordinary responses or involve dangerous properties.
Under the ordinance, the City may recover costs associated with emergency responses that significantly exceed the scope of routine public safety services.
Riverside Fire Department Response Data
Under Chapter 9.60, the Riverside Fire Department is responsible for:
Tracking repeated Fire and EMS responses to properties
Identifying incidents that meet the “extraordinary fire service” threshold Providing incident data and operational analysis
Assisting with determining response costs
Supporting the City in addressing properties that repeatedly require emergency services The Riverside Fire Department currently tracks these incidents through its data management software (FirstWatch), utilizing two primary indicators to identify potential extraordinary responses. This process is still under development and does not yet automatically generate the necessary information.
Even after automation is implemented, the process will require significant staff time and ongoing review of incident data and call closing codes to ensure accuracy and consistent alignment with the requirements outlined in the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC). To effectively implement and maintain this program, dedicated personnel will be necessary to perform data analysis, monitor system outputs, and adjudicate incidents in accordance with RMC 9.60.
Additionally, the Department recognizes the importance of distinguishing between locations generating “extraordinary” emergency responses, as defined under the ordinance, and properties that legitimately require a high level of Fire and EMS services due to the nature of their operations. Facilities such as hospitals, shelters, dialysis centers, schools, and large commercial occupancies may naturally generate elevated call volumes that are not necessarily associated with nuisance activity, dangerous property conditions, or misuse of emergency resources. As implementation moves forward, additional review criteria and adjudication standards may be necessary to ensure equitable and consistent application of the ordinance.
To assist Council in understanding the operational and financial impacts associated with repeated emergency responses, this report includes sample response cost calculations based on actual incident activity. These calculations demonstrate the cumulative impact associated with apparatus commitment time, staffing costs, and dispatch expenditures related to repeated Fire and EMS responses.
Excessive False Medical Alarm Responses
The response of Fire/EMS crews to five or more false medical alarms within a one-year period
Incident Type
Address
Number of Responses
Unintentional Transmission of Alarm
3993 10th Street
54 *Data Set 6/11/25-12/31/25
The table below summarizes the cumulative operational impact associated with repeated false medical alarm responses at a single location. While the average incident duration for each response was relatively short, the total time commitment exceeded eleven hours of frontline emergency resource availability over the one-year period for this one location.
Excessive False Medical Alarm Responses Operational Impact Number of Responses
Average Incident Time
Total Time Impact
54 12 min 33 sec
11 hours 17 min 18 sec
The table below provides an estimated cost analysis associated with repeated false medical alarm responses. The calculation includes apparatus staffing costs, unit commitment time, and dispatch expenditures, illustrating the cumulative financial impact repeated responses can have on public safety resources.
Excessive False Medical Alarm Responses Cost Per Hour Impact Unit
Time on Call
Cost per Hour
Total
Squad 1
7:31:31
$205.00
$1,542.69
Engine 1
2:48:33
$526.00
$1,477.64
Truck 1
0:57:14
$574.00
$547.54
Dispatch Cost ($26.48 per call) @ 54 calls
$1,429.92
Total
$4,997.79
Estimated False Medical Alarm Cost (1 year@1 location)
$8,942.12
Repeated Emergency Responses to a Single Location
The response of Fire/EMS crews to the same property or business five or more times within a 30-day period
Location
Address
Number of Responses
Path of Life Shelter
2840 Hulen Place
18 Illumination Foundation
3024 Franklin Avenue
14 Family Services
9890 County Farm Road
13 Riverside City College
4800 Magnolia Avenue
11 Galleria at Tyler
1299 Galleria at Tyler
10 County of Riverside
4000 Orange Street
10 Sobering Center
10003 County Farm Road
9 Pacific Grove Hospital
5900 Brockton Avenue
8 California Baptist University
8432 Magnolia Avenue
8 University California Riverside
900 University Avenue
8 Franklin Residential Care Facility
3021 Franklin Avenue
7 Jefferson Point Apartments
3758 Jefferson Street Apt 25
6 Riverside Community Hospital
4445 Magnolia Avenue
6 Poly High School
5450 Victoria Avenue
6 ETS
9990 County Farm Road
6 Target
3520 Tyler Street
5 DaVita Dialysis
4361 Latham Street
5 Sierra Villa Apartments
5350 La Sierra Avenue Apt 2
5 Neighborhood Health Clinic
7140 Indiana Avenue
5 * Data Set 30-day period – 1/29/26-2/28/26
The table below illustrates the distribution of incident types associated with the analyzed responses. Medical aid calls represent the majority of incidents (70%), demonstrating that emergency medical responses are the primary driver of Fire Department service demand and a significant factor in repeated responses evaluated under Riverside Municipal Code Chapter 9.60.
Top Individual Problems
Problem Type
Calls
Percent
Medical Aids
117
70%
Fire Alarm
16 10%
Public Assist
10 6%
Fire
2 1%
Others
21 13%
The table below shows the units most frequently dispatched to the identified incidents. Squad 2, Squad 1, and Engine 4 experienced the highest number of responses, demonstrating how repeated calls can disproportionately impact specific frontline resources and affect overall system availability.
Most Impacted Units
Unit
Number of Responses
S2
27 S1
26 E4
23 E3
13 E1
12 The table below illustrates the total time units were committed to these incidents. Squad 1, Engine 4, and Squad 2 recorded the highest operational time, highlighting the cumulative resource commitment associated with repeated emergency responses and the potential system impacts consistent with the intent of Chapter 9.60.
Total Time Committed by Unit
Unit
Total Minutes Committed
S1
528
E4
518
S2
515
E3
297
E12
204
The table below provides an estimated cost analysis associated with repeated emergency responses to a single location during the one-month study period. The calculation includes staffing costs, apparatus commitment time, and dispatch expenditures to demonstrate the operational and financial impacts associated with recurring emergency incidents.
Repeated Emergency Responses to a Single Location Cost Impact Unit
Time on Call
Cost per Hour
Total
Squads
18:41:53
$205.00
$3,833.10
Engines
33:31:57
$526.00
$17,638.10
Trucks
6:21:01
$574.00
$3,644.43
Dispatch Cost ($26.48 per call)
$4,395.68
Repeated Emergency Responses to a Single Location Cost
(1 month)
$29,511.31
Prior to initiating any formal cost recovery process, the City must ensure compliance with the notification, administrative review, and appeal procedures required under Chapter 9.60. Development of consistent procedures and documentation standards will be necessary to ensure due process and uniform application across departments.
Additionally, staff continues to evaluate whether current data collection and records management systems can adequately distinguish nuisance properties and extraordinary responses from legitimate high-service locations. As implementation progresses, additional performance metrics, analytical tools, or software enhancements may be necessary to ensure the ordinance is administered consistently and in alignment with Council intent.
Riverside Police Department Response Data
Under Chapter 9.60, the Riverside Police Department is responsible for:
Tracking repeated police responses to properties
Identifying incidents that meet the “extraordinary police service or response” threshold Providing incident data and operational analysis
Assisting with determining response costs
Supporting the City in addressing properties that repeatedly require emergency services The Riverside Police Department has developed a method to track these incidents through its Records Management System (RMS) called Motorola Premier One. This data, while captured, is not automatically tracked and requires an analyst to extract, compile, and analyze the data upon request. The data provided herein is based upon the excessive police response criteria identified in RMC 9.60:
The response of three or more police officers and a supervisor to a single emergency response; or The second emergency response to the same business or property within a 30-day period; or The third emergency response to the same business or property within a 90-day period.
If automation could be implemented, the process would still require significant staff time and ongoing review of incident data and call closing codes to ensure accuracy and consistent alignment with the requirements outlined in the Riverside Municipal Code (RMC). Most of the locations that, based on response numbers alone, would fall within the criteria in RMC 9.60, are businesses or residences calling for legitimate police assistance and do not fall within the RMC’s findings regarding nuisance activity or misuse of police resources. Currently, this analysis is done on a case-by-case basis for particular addresses when the police department receives complaints of nuisance activity at a location.
To effectively implement and maintain an automated and recurring analysis of police response data, dedicated personnel will be necessary to perform data analysis, monitor system outputs, and adjudicate incidents in accordance with RMC 9.60.
The response of three or more police officers and a supervisor to a single emergency response Month
Total Responses
January 2026
173
February 2026
146
March 2026
155
3-MONTH TOTAL
474
Of those 474 incidents, 39 locations had two or more such responses, and 11 locations had three or more such responses within the 3-month period analyzed. Among those were:
Location
Common Place
Total Responses
Call Types
7600 AMBERGATE
THE JAMES APTS.
5 3 DV. Assist CPS, Welfare Ck.
1299 GALLERIA AT TYLER
GALLERIA AT TYLER
4 Assault, Shoplifting, 2 Robberies
4747 JURUPA
JURUPA ROYALE APTS.
4 Assist RFD, Assist CPS, DV
11711 COLLETT
ESPLANADE AT RIVERWALK
3 911 Open Line, 2 DV
3865 JACKSON ST
PCH
3 3 Subject Bothering
3RD ST
RESIDENCE ON 3RD ST.
3 5150, Subj w/knife, Welfare Check
4250 VAN BUREN BLVD
IOWA GARDENS APTS.
3 2 Assault, Supplemental Rpt
MANX CT.
RESIDENCE ON MANX
3 Assault, Welfare Ck, AOD
4445 MAGNOLIA AVE.
RCH
3 Assist RFD, Subj Bother, Susp Subj
9225 MAGNOLIA AVE.
STATER BROS.
3 Assault, Resist/obstruct Ofc, Injury
3993 IOWA AVE.
IOWA GARDENS APTS.
3 2 Assault, Supp Rpt.
The second emergency response to the same business or property within a 30-day period Analysis showed 3,028 total calls matching this criterion for the months of January through March 2026. Monthly totals were as follows:
January 1,036 responses
February 922 responses
March 1,070 responses
Locations with 20 or more responses matching this criterion were as follows:
Response Month
Location
Common Place
Monthly Responses
Jan-26
1299 GALLERIA AT TYLER
GALLERIA AT TYLER
38 Jan-26
4445 MAGNOLIA AVE
RCH
35 Jan-26
10357 MAGNOLIA AVE
WSS
30 Jan-26
4250 VAN BUREN BLVD
FOOD 4 LESS
27 Jan-26
10725 MAGNOLIA AVE
ALTURA CREDIT UNION
25 Jan-26
10540 MAGNOLIA AVE
RPD MAGNOLIA STATION
24 Jan-26
3865 JACKSON ST
PCH
23 Jan-26
4102 ORANGE ST
RPD ORANGE ST STATION
23 Feb-26
3865 JACKSON ST
PCH
34 Feb-26
4445 MAGNOLIA AVE
RCH
31 Feb-26
10540 MAGNOLIA AVE
RPD MAGNOLIA STATION
28 Feb-26
10725 MAGNOLIA AVE
ALTURA CREDIT UNION
23 Feb-26
1299 GALLERIA AT TYLER
GALLERIA AT TYLER
23 Feb-26
4250 VAN BUREN BLVD
FOOD 4 LESS
22 Feb-26
6250 VALLEY SPRINGS PKWY
WALMART SUPERCENTER
20 Mar-26
3520 TYLER ST
TARGET
43 Mar-26
4445 MAGNOLIA AVE
RCH
36 Mar-26
10725 MAGNOLIA AVE
ALTURA CREDIT UNION
31 Mar-26
10540 MAGNOLIA AVE
RPD MAGNOLIA STATION
25 Mar-26
1299 GALLERIA AT TYLER
GALLERIA AT TYLER
24 Mar-26
6250 VALLEY SPRINGS PKWY
WALMART SUPERCENTER
24 Mar-26
5225 CANYON CREST DR
STARBUCKS
23 Mar-26
2335 14TH ST
OASIS SENIOR VILLAS
22 Mar-26
4661 TYLER ST
STONEBROOK APTS
22 Mar-26
5130 ARLINGTON AVE
YUM YUM DONUTS
22 Mar-26
10800 MAGNOLIA AVE
KAISER URGENT CARE
21 Mar-26
1745 UNIVERSITY AVE
WALGREENS
21 Mar-26
4102 ORANGE ST
RPD ORANGE ST STATION
21 Mar-26
4250 VAN BUREN BLVD
FOOD 4 LESS
21 Mar-26
3865 JACKSON ST
PCH
20 *Omitted from these addresses is a single-family residence with frequent responses related to a habitual runaway juvenile.
The third emergency response to the same business or property within a 90-day period Analysis showed 1,489 total calls matching this criterion for the months of January through March 2026.
Locations with 40 or more responses matching this criterion are as follows:
Location
Common Place
Total Responses
4445 MAGNOLIA AVE
RCH
102
1299 GALLERIA AT TYLER
GALLERIA AT TYLER
85 10725 MAGNOLIA AVE
ALTURA CREDIT UNION
79 10540 MAGNOLIA AVE
RPD MAGNOLIA STATION
77 3865 JACKSON ST
PCH
77 3520 TYLER ST
TARGET
76 4250 VAN BUREN BLVD
FOOD 4 LESS
70 4102 ORANGE ST
RPD ORANGE STATION
63 5130 ARLINGTON AVE
YUM YUM DONUTS
58 6250 VALLEY SPRINGS PKWY
WALMART SUPERCENTER
56 5225 CANYON CREST DR
STARBUCKS
55 2335 14TH ST
OASIS APTS
50 4790 JACKSON ST
WHISPERING FOUNTAINS
49 10357 MAGNOLIA AVE
WSS
48 10800 MAGNOLIA AVE
KAISER URGENT CARE
45 4747 JURUPA AVE
JURUPA ROYALE APTS
45 10391 MAGNOLIA AVE
NORTHGATE MARKET
43 2755 CANYON SPRINGS PKWY
TARGET
43 3990 REYNOLDS RD
GEEL PLACE APTS
42 *Omitted from these addresses is a single-family residence with frequent responses related to a habitual runaway juvenile.
Police Processes for Implementing RMC 9.60:
The City of Riverside is currently divided geographically into four area commands, known as “Neighborhood Policing Centers” (NPC). Each NPC is overseen by an Area Commander with the rank of Lieutenant. Currently, properties reported or suspected of falling within the RMC 9.60 criteria are identified by police personnel due to high numbers of police responses for nuisance activity, or by residents who call to complain of nuisance activity at a particular location in their community. That information is analyzed by the Area Commander, who pulls historical call activity for the location and verifies whether it fits the criteria in RMC 9.60. If the activity at a reported location doesn’t meet the RMC 9.60 criteria for Extraordinary Police Service, the Area Commander informs the reporting party.
If the calls for service at the reported location meet the RMC 9.60 criteria, the Area Commander attempts to resolve underlying issues by meeting with the property owner or occupant to discuss potential solutions or mitigations. This may include the implementation of a safety plan devised in accordance with RMC 9.60.050, the execution of a Trespass Arrest Authorization, or other mitigation measures.
If nuisance activity persists at a location, despite efforts to mitigate or resolve the conditions causing such activity, the property owner and/or occupant may be liable for the cost of public safety responses to address ongoing nuisances. Those costs vary greatly according to the type and number of personnel and equipment involved as well as duration of the incident, but are estimated below as follows:
Personnel and Assets
Hourly Rate
Total Comp
Police Lieutenant
$115.72
$253.37
Police Sergeant
$79.04
$173.42
Police Detective
$68.30
$143.18
Police Officer
$61.94
$146.77
Community Svc Ofc
$35.58
$58.68
Dispatcher II
$43.74
$79.26
Police Pilot
$75.32
$143.63
Police Helicopter Operating Cost
$1,000.00
$1,290.40
*Personnel hourly rate based on top-step salary without potential salary premiums. Total compensation includes fringe benefits, based on exemplar employes. Helicopter hourly rate based on fuel and amortized maintenance costs. Total compensation includes operating costs, along with total compensation for one police pilot and one tactical flight officer.
Considering the minimum deployment of personnel to a single incident, triggering RMC 9.60 criteria, one sergeant and three or more officers, the minimum charge for a single hour-long incident would be as follows:
Minimum 9.60 Single Response
Hourly Cost (Total Comp)
Police Sergeant
$173.42
3 Police Officers
$440.31
Dispatcher II
$79.26
Total
$692.99
A large-scale response requiring a significant number of personnel and equipment over an extended period of time could result in costs incurred equaling up to $10,000 or more.
Assessable costs are calculated based upon the total compensation of employees involved in responding to an extraordinary emergency incident at the location, as well as both direct and indirect costs of providing extraordinary response. Costs are levied by the City as a civil assessment and are due within 30 days of billing. A ten percent penalty, as well as interest are assessed for delinquent amounts.
Any assessments for extraordinary emergency responses are appealable in accordance with RMC 1.17.400.
As noted above, many of the locations which would fall within a plain reading of the RMC 9.60 criteria are businesses, hospitals, and public facilities which understandably generate a high number of calls for service. Others are private properties where the owners or occupants initiate a higher-than-usual number of calls for legitimate police services. Current data collection and retention methods can be partially automated to retrieve all data meeting the excessive police response criteria in RMC 9.60. However, the software is unable to distinguish between legitimate users of police services, and nuisance properties which are generating extraordinary responses as contemplated by RMC 9.60 and intended by Council when the RMC was passed into law.
An employee would be required to initiate the search on a regular basis, which is estimated to be around three hours of work. The employee would then be required to manually search through thousands of incidents, opening and reviewing individual call records to verify what happened on each incident, whether the reporting party was the owner or occupant calling for assistance, and whether the incident met the criteria in RMC 9.60. This process would take multiple days or weeks to verify details of individual incidents for a blanket search and compare each against the RMC 9.60 criteria. Any properties identified through such a process would still be referred to an Area Commander for further vetting and attempts to achieve voluntary cooperation with the owner or occupant.
Currently, the RMC is administered in alignment with the intent of the ordinance and Council’s priorities in passing it. The Lieutenant Area Commander responsible for the area where a reported nuisance property is located, is responsible for vetting the information and personally working with the owner/ occupant to resolve issues causing excessive responses, as they are reported. Property owners who eventually fall within the cost recovery provisions of RMC 9.60 have had ample time and opportunity, as well as the ability to collaborate with the Area Commander on solutions before any cost recovery efforts are contemplated.
The current process has successfully resulted in resolving most issues successfully and has created positive experience for affected residents. In those cases where cost recovery efforts have become necessary, the owner or occupant can’t say they were unaware, caught off-guard, or that no one tried to help them mitigate the problem.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact associated with this report. Should the Public Safety group be directed to fully implement Chapter 9.60 of the Riverside Municipal Code a significant investment in the form of additional software and personnel costs would be required for ongoing automated data retrieval and analysis. Staff would return at a future date with additional budget impacts.
Prepared by: Brian Guzzetta, Deputy Fire Chief
Charles Payne, Deputy Police Chief
Approved by: Steve McKinster, Fire Chief
Larry V. Gonzalez, Police Chief
Certified as to
availability of funds: Julie Nemes, Interim Finance Director Approved by: Edward Enriquez, Acting City Manager Approved as to form: Rebecca McKee-Reimbold, Interim City Attorney Attachments:
Presentation
RMC Chapter 9.60 Update ● Page 2