HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.18.23 CC Meeting Paperless Packet1
COMMON COUNCIL
MEETING AGENDA
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 – 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE
1. CALL TO ORDER 2. AGENDA APPROVAL
3. INVOCATION
4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
5. RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS 6. RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL 7. COUNCIL AND MAYORAL COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS 8. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approval of Minutes 1. August 21, 2023 Regular Meeting 2. August 31, 2023 Special Meeting
b. Claims 1. Payroll $3,460,696.12 2. General Claims $1,479,132.86
3. Retirement $107,695.97
4. Wire Transfers $1,962,732.73 9. ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES 10. COMMITTEE REPORTS a. Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee b. Land Use and Special Studies Committee c. All reports designated by the Chair to qualify for placement under this category.
11. OTHER REPORTS – (at the first meeting of the month specified below): a. Carmel Redevelopment Commission (Monthly)
2
b. Carmel Historic Preservation Commission (Quarterly – January, April, July, October) c. Audit Committee (Bi-annual – May, October) d. Redevelopment Authority (Bi-annual – April, October) e. Carmel Cable and Telecommunications Commission (Bi-annual – April, October) f. Economic Development Commission (Bi-annual – February, August)
g. Library Board (Annual – February) h. Ethics Board (Annual – February) i. Public Art Committee (Annual – August) j. Parks Department (Quarterly – February, May, August, November) k. All reports designated by the Chair to qualify for placement under this category.
12. OLD BUSINESS a. Second Reading of Ordinance Z-683-23; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the
City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Conner Prairie Innovation District Planned Unit
Development District; Sponsor: Councilor Aasen. Remains in the Land Use and Special Studies Committee (9/26/23 Meeting Date). Synopsis:
Ordinance Establishes the Conner Prairie West Innovation District Planned Unit
Development Ordinance (the “Conner Prairie PUD”). The Ordinance would rezone the real estate from S-1 Residential and Legacy PUD (Ordinance Z-501-07) to a Planned Unit Development district allowing the expansion of the Conner Prairie Museum onto the site in a style and character as depicted on the attached Concept Plan and Character Imagery.
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
14. NEW BUSINESS
a. First Reading of Ordinance D-2676-23; An Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Authorizing and Approving an Appropriation of Grant Funds from the Operating Balance of the General Fund to the 2023 Parks Department Budget;
Sponsor: Councilor Rider. Synopsis: This ordinance appropriates $1,759.34 in grant funds received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the General Fund (#101) into the 2023 Parks
Department budget line item 4239000 – Miscellaneous Supplies.
b. Resolution CC-09-18-23-01: A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Approving a Transfer of Funds from the Grant Fund (#900) into the General Fund (#101), the Non-Reverting Parks and Recreation Extended School
Enrichment Fund (#108) and the Non-Reverting Parks and Recreation Monon Center
Operating Fund (#109); Sponsor: Councilor Rider. Synopsis: Transfers $16,951.78 from the Grant Fund (#900) into the General Fund (#101), the Non-
reverting Parks and Recreation Extended School Enrichment Fund (#108) and the Non-
3
reverting Parks and Recreation Monon Center Operating Fund (#109) so that grant funds received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency can reimburse Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation. c. Resolution CC-09-18-23-02: A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of
Carmel, Indiana, Approving an Increase of the Guaranteed Maximum Price for the Police Headquarters Expansion and Court Addition Project; Sponsor: Councilor Worrell. Synopsis: Approves a $60,000.00 increase to the guaranteed maximum price of the Police
Headquarters Expansion and Court Addition Project for a floor plan re-design and buildout that was requested by the Carmel Police Department. d. Resolution CC-09-18-23-03: A Resolution of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Adopting the City of Carmel Fire Department Standard of Cover;
Sponsor: Councilor Worrell. Synopsis: Resolution approves and adopts the Carmel Fire Department’s 2023-2027 Standard of Cover.
15. AGENDA ADD-ON ITEMS 16. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Approval of CRC Purchase of 444, 506 and 508 S. Rangeline Rd. 17. ANNOUNCEMENTS
18. ADJOURNMENT
1
1
COMMON COUNCIL 2
MEETING MINUTES 3
MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2023 – 6:00 P.M. 4
COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE 5
6
7
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 8
9
Council President Jeff Worrell; Council Members: Laura Campbell, Sue Finkam, Kevin D. 10
Rider, Adam Aasen, Anthony Green, Miles Nelson, Teresa Ayers and Deputy Clerk Jacob 11
Quinn were present. 12
13
Councilor Timothy Hannon was not present. 14
15
Council President Worrell called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 16
17
AGENDA APPROVAL 18
19
The agenda was approved unanimously. 20
21
INVOCATION 22
23
Pastor Ben Snyder, Carmel Friends Church, delivered the Invocation 24
25
Councilor Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 26
27
RECOGNITION OF CITY EMPLOYEES AND OUTSTANDING CITIZENS 28
29
Council President Worrell and Chief Jim Barlow welcomed Police Officers from Jelgava, 30
Latvia. 31
32
Boy Scout Evan Manders was recognized for being the Highest Earner in Popcorn Sales in 33
the Carmel Community 34
35
Council President Worrell recognized the Carmel Fire Department Auxiliary for a Achieving 36
a World Record for most people wearing red plastic fire helmets at once. 37
38
RECOGNITION OF PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL 39
40
Darin Johnson, who’s running for Mayor in Carmel, asked Council to provide the dates land 41
was purchased by the CRC, the total price paid for each parcel, the assessed value at time of 42
purchase, source of public funds used to make the purchases, and finally the sale for price 43
2
which parcel was purchased after it was transferred to a developer. The CRC is tax exempt 44
so when the CRC buys a parcel, it’s no longer taxable. 45
46
COUNCIL AND MAYORAL COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS 47
48
There were none. 49
50
CONSENT AGENDA 51
52
Councilor Rider moved to approve the consent agenda. Councilor Finkam seconded. There 53
was no Council discussion. Council President Worrell called for the vote. The motion was 54
approved 8-0. 55
56
a. Approval of Minutes 57
58
1. August 7, 2023 Regular Meeting 59
60
b. Claims 61
62
1. Payroll $3,540,480.08 63
2. General Claims $3,684,645.94 64
3. Retirement $107,695.97 65
4. Wire Transfers $6,121,420.99 66
67
ACTION ON MAYORAL VETOES 68
69
There were none. 70
71
COMMITTEE REPORTS 72
73
Council President Worrell reported that the Finance, Utilities and Rules Committee had not 74
met. 75
76
Councilor Campbell stated that the Land Use and Special Studies had not met. 77
78
OTHER REPORTS – (at the first meeting of the month specified below): 79
80
There were none. 81
82
OLD BUSINESS 83
84
PUBLIC HEARINGS 85
86
Councilor President Worrell announced the First Reading of Ordinance Z-683-23; An 87
Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, Establishing the Conner 88
Prairie Innovation District Planned Unit Development District. Councilor Aasen moved to 89
introduce the item into business. Councilor Nelson seconded. Councilor Aasen introduced 90
the item to Council. Andrew Bradford, Vice- President and Chief Advancement Office for 91
3
Conner Prairie, presented the item to Council. Councilor Finkam asked the petitioner to be 92
prepared to present in committee how this project will truly benefit residents. Ken 93
Alexander, Site Master Plan Project Manager, stated that this project will be built out over 94
25 years, with some aspects moving quicker. Mr. Bradford stated that the Food, Farm and 95
Energy will come to life in the next 5 years. The White River Education and Ecology Center 96
will come online in the next 5 years as well as the trails that would be in partnership with 97
Carmel Clay Parks & Recreation. He did not have a timeline for the office building proposed 98
as it’s relative to partners coming on board. The office building would be done by land lease. 99
Everything except the Ecology Center and Food Farm and Energy will likely be a land lease. 100
Councilor Finkam asked for the sq footage, the usage and the number of employees daily for 101
the office building to be presented at committee. Mr. Alexander stated that they will work 102
with the City and an arborist to exceed or at least provide areas of proper plantings along 103
River Road. Councilor Finkam stated she wanted to talk about what kind of events they are 104
planning to have and what kind of growth they are expecting from visitors. Councilor 105
Finkam stated the building is too large and 300 employees everyday is too many. She will be 106
a “no vote” if the office building remains at this scope. Councilor Campbell asked to see the 107
studies that were cited that indicate a 20% increase to nearby property value. The American 108
Alliance of Museum Study was where that number came from. If and when the bridge does 109
get finished, shuttling across the campuses is something they would want to explore. 110
Council President Worrell opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. 111
112
Brenda Myers, Hamilton County Tourism, spoke in favor of the project because of equity, 113
economy and environment. 114
115
Steve Baughman, resident of the Overlook at the Legacy, stated he is not opposed to the 116
project, but he believes the 15% max coverage is misleading. His biggest objection is the 3-117
story office building. 118
119
Paul Zale, resident of the Overlook at the Legacy, thanked Conner Prairie for taking a lot of 120
the comments to heart. Building height in Zone 2 is the biggest objection. Right now, in the 121
PUD, Conner Prairie can subdivide without Council approval. In Zone 1, the windmill looks 122
like it could be up to 125 ft. 123
124
Jim Roehrdanz, resident of the Overlook at the Legacy and the 2023 President of the HOA, 125
stated they need more of a buffer at the Cherry Creek Blvd roundabout. 126
127
Matt Rummel, Carmel resident, works in the water resource business and believes they 128
have done a nice job putting it together; it’s environmentally sound. 129
130
Russ Jones, resident of the Overlook at the Legacy, stated they appreciate Conner Prairie’s 131
work so far, but they need more of a buffer. 132
133
Mike Hannigan, resident of the Overlook at the Legacy, says it has been a pleasure 134
watching the city grow since he moved here 40 years ago. He asked Council to make sure 135
they keep an eye on the details and ensure it’s a beautiful project. 136
137
Chrstine Altman, Hamilton County Commissioner, sits on the board of Conner Prairie and 138
is a Clay Township resident, stated that she is excited to bring Conner Prairie to our side of 139
4
the river. Carmel has been successful because we are thoughtful about placemaking, and 140
this offers opportunities for Conner Prairie to be successful. 141
142
Karen Arland, Carmel resident, is excited about the recreation opportunities this project 143
provides for her grandchildren. 144
145
Jack Russell, President of OneZone on behalf of the Business Issues Committee of OneZone, 146
spoke in favor of the proposal. They believe this will be a transformational asset to the 147
community. 148
149
Reggie Henderson, Carmel resident, President of the Board of Directors for Conner Prairie, 150
and employed by Telamon Energy, stated Conner Prairie is approaching this as a partner 151
and he’s been impressed with how well Conner Prairie has worked with residents. He spoke 152
in favor of the project. 153
154
Mike Cloud, resident of the Overlook at the Legacy, is supportive of the conservative and 155
educational aspects of the project. He is concerned about the proximity of the hotel to the 156
nearby elementary school and is also concerned about the traffic this project will bring. 157
Seeing no one else who wished to address Council, Council President Worrell closed the 158
public hearing at 7:26 p.m. 159
160
Jon Dobosiewicz, Nelson and Frankenberger, stated that they have added additional 161
buffering to the PUD. He said they met on the site with a group of Plan Commissioners and 162
he believed it was helpful for them. He invited Council to come out as well. C 163
164
Council President Worrell referred the item to the Land Use and Special Studies 165
Committee. 166
167
NEW BUSINESS 168
169
AGENDA ADD-ON ITEMS 170
171
OTHER BUSINESS 172
173
City Council Appointments 174
175
Carmel Advisory Committee on Disability (Completing a Term that Expires on 12/31/23); 176
One appointment. Jim Probst was appointed by Council unanimously. 177
178
ADJOURNMENT 179
180
Council President Worrell adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. 181
182
Respectfully submitted, 183
184
____________________________________ 185
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 186
187
5
Approved, 188
189
190
____________________________________ 191
Jeff Worrell, Council President 192
ATTEST: 193
194
195
__________________________________ 196
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 197
198
1
1
COMMON COUNCIL 2
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 3
THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 2023 – 8:00 A.M. 4
COUNCIL CHAMBERS/CITY HALL/ONE CIVIC SQUARE 5
6 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 7 8
Council President Jeff Worrell, Council Members: Laura Campbell, Teresa Ayers, Miles Nelson, Kevin 9 Rider and Deputy Clerk Jacob Quinn were present. 10 11 Councilors Adam Aasen, Sue Finkam, Anthony Green, Timothy Hannon were not present. 12 13
Councilor President Worrell called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 14 15 CLAIMS 16 17 Councilor Rider moved to approve Claims. Councilor Nelson seconded. There was no Council 18
discussion. Council President Worrell called for the vote. Claims were approved 5-0. 19 20 1. Payroll $3,497,784.92 21 2. General Claims $3,607,860.73 22 23
ADJOURNMENT 24 25 Council President Worrell adjourned the meeting at 8:01 a.m. 26 27 Respectfully submitted, 28
29
30 ____________________________________ 31 Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 32 33
Approved, 34
35 36 ____________________________________ 37 Jeff Worrell, Council President 38
ATTEST: 39
40 41 __________________________________ 42 Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 43
44
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 1
CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 2023 REPORT
REPORTING ON JULY 2023 FINANCES
AUGUST 2023 ACTIVITIES
STRATEGIC HIGHLIGHTS
• Construction progressing on the following projects:
o Hamilton West in City Center
o Me lange
o The Signature
o First on Main
o Magnolia
o The Muse (The Corner)
o The Wren
o The Windsor
o Republic Airways (Hamilton Crossing)
o Proscenium II
o North End
• RFQ for Palladium PA System
• Preparation of Palladiscope
FINANCIAL SNAPSHOT
July Beginning Balance $ 6,954,994
July Revenues $ 571,319
July Transfers $ (223,782)
July Expenditures $ 282,788
July ending Balance Without Reserve Funds $ 7,019,743
Supplemental Reserve Fund $ 3,900,498
City Center Bond Reserve $ 363,299
Midtown Bond Reserve $ 708,338
Midtown West Bond Reserve $ 482,810
July Balance With Reserve Funds $ 12,474,687
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 2
Financial Statement
JULY MONTH-END FINANCIAL BALANCE
Ending Balance without
Restricted Funds
$ 7,019,743
Ending Balance with
Restricted Funds
$ 12,474,687
SUMMARY OF CASH
For the Month Ending July 2023
DESCRIPTION ACTUAL
MONTHLY
PROJECTION VARIANCE
Cash Balance 7/1/23
1101 Cash $ 4,671,352.71 $ 4,671,352.71 -
1110 TIF $ 2,283,641.76 $ 2,283,641.76 -
Total Cash $ 6,954,994.47 $ 6,954,994.47 -
Receipts
1101 Cash $ 571,318.68 $ 110,935.00 $ 460,383.68
1110 TIF $ - $ - $ -
Developer Payments $ - $ - $ -
Transfers to Reserves (TIF) $ 133,394.92 $ 133,394.92 $ -
Transfers to Reserves (non-TIF) $ (357,177.30) $ 74,962.27 $ (432,139.57)
Transfer to SRF $ - $ - $ -
Total Receipts $ 347,536.30 $ 319,292.19 $ 28,244.11
Disbursements
1101 Cash $ 88,914.96 $ 163,273.27 $ 74,358.31
1110 TIF $ 193,873.17 $ 133,394.92 $ (60,478.25)
Total Disbursements $ 282,788.13 $ 296,668.19 $ 13,880.06
1101 Cash $ 4,796,579.13 $ 4,693,976.71 $ 102,602.42
1110 TIF $ 2,223,163.51 $ 2,283,641.76 $ (60,478.25)
Cash Balance 7/31/23 $ 7,019,742.64 $ 6,977,618.47 $ 42,124.17
Total Usable Funds $ 7,019,742.64 $ 6,977,618.47 $ 42,124.17
$0.00
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
JULY
MONTH END BALANCE
Actual Budget Variance
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 3
FUND BALANCES AND OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES
As of month-end July 2023
RESTRICTED FUNDS
Supplemental Reserve Fund $3,900,498
City Center Bond Reserve $363,299
Midtown Bond Reserve $708,338
Midtown West Bond Reserve $482,810
Sub-total: $5,454,945
UNRESTRICTED FUNDS
TIF $2,223,164
Non TIF $4,796,579
Sub-total: $7,019,743
Total Funds $12,474,687
OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES
N/A $ -
TOTAL OUTSTANDING RECEIVABLES $ -
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY
MONTH END: JULY 2023
DESCRIPTION REVENUE EXPENSES
Total Receipts (TIF) $ 133,394.92
Total Receipts (Non-TIF) $ 214,141.38
Expenditures (TIF) $ 193,873.17
Expenditures (Non-TIF) $ 88,914.96
FINANCIAL UPDATE
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 4
Financial Update
TIF REVENUE AND DEBT
Estimated 2023 TIF revenue and PIATT payments available for CRC use is $33,004,655.
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
20
1
7
20
1
8
20
1
9
20
2
0
20
2
1
20
2
2
TIF Revenue
Debt Service
DEBT PAYMENTS
Month Payment
June 2023 $15,921,642
December 2023 $16,071,526
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 5
Project Updates
CITY CENTER
Developer Partner: Pedcor Companies
Allocation Area: City Center
Use: Mixed-Use
Project Summary: Mixed Use development, multiple buildings
Figure 1 City Center Master Plan, provided by Pedcor City Center Development Company
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 6
1) Project Status – (changes noted below.)
CRC Contract Amounts:
City Center Bond: $ 16,214,875.00
2016 TIF Bond: $ 2,598,314.00 (5th Floor of Park East garage)
Site Construction Contract Amounts: $1,442,962 – Smock Fansler, contractor - Complete
Veterans Way Extension Project Amounts: $3,403,000 – Hagerman, contractor – Complete
Parcel 73 Site work: $149,600 – Smock Fansler, contractor
PROJECT USE PROJECT
DATES
DESIGN RENDERINGS PROVIDED BY PEDCOR
Veterans
Way
Garage
A five-story parking
structure with 735
parking spaces
Open to the public on
9/22/17
Completed
in
May 2017
Contract
Amt.
$13,954,68
3
Baldwin/
Chambers
A four-story building,
of approximately
64,000 square feet,
which will include
luxury apartments and
commercial retail/
office space.
Approx. 26
Apartments
Hagerman is the
contractor.
Completed
in June
2018
Pedcor
Office 5
A two-story building,
of approximately
20,000 square feet,
which will include
office space.
Start: Fall
2015
Completed
Q4 2017
Tenants have moved into the new building
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 7
Kent A three-story building,
of approximately
111,000 square feet of
luxury apartments.
Site drawings were
approved by the CRC
Architectural
Committee.
Start:
Summer
2018
Complete:
June 2021
Site Construction – Start: Spring 2018
Site Work Awarded – Spring 2018
Building Construction – Start: Summer 2018
Building Complete June 2021
- Pool and Site work is still under construction
Hamilton
(Park East
commerci
al/reside
ntial
buildings
Hamilton East: 5
ground floor
residential two-story
townhomes; 7,954 SF
of ground floor
commercial space
Hamilton West: 13,992
SF of ground floor
commercial space
Start:
Summer
2018
Hamilton East - Construction commenced: Summer 2018,
completed Summer 2019
Hamilton West – Construction commenced: Summer 2020, currently under construction
Playfair
and
Holland
A five-story building,
of approximately
178,000 square feet,
which will include 112
luxury apartments and
commercial
retail/office space.
Start:
September
2019
Complete:
Spring
2022
Approx.
112
Apartment
s
Windsor A four-story building,
of approximately
64,000 square feet.
Start:
Summer
2022
Complete:
May/June
2024
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 8
Wren A six-story building of
approximately
157,000 square feet,
which will include
luxury apartments and
commercial
office/retail space.
Start:
Summer
2020
Complete:
June 2024
Currently under construction
Note: All completion dates indicated above are per the Completion Guaranties executed between the CRC and Pedcor.
Should Pedcor miss these dates they are obligated to cover the debt obligations.
2) Council and/or CRC Action Items
ACTION ITEM CITY COUNCIL CRC
3) CRC Commitments
An overview of commitments has been uploaded to the CRC website.
Most significantly, the CRC committed to publicly bid a four-story parking garage with not less than
620 parking spaces which has been completed and is available for public use. The CRC also
commits to coordinate any significant site plan changes requested by Pedcor with City Council.
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 9
PROSCENIUM
1) Developer Partner(s): Novo Development
Group
2) Economic Development Area: 126th Street
3) Project Summary: Mixed-use development,
multiple buildings.
1) 197 Apartments; 22 for-sale condos
2) Approx. 140,000 SF of office and retail
space
3) Approx. 450 parking spaces (public and
private)
Total project budget: $60,000,000
4) Anticipated Project Schedule
Design Start 2016
Construction Start 2018
Construction Complete 2022
Tavern Construction Start Estimated Fall 2023
Tavern Construction Complete Estimated
5) Construction Milestones: Construction is ongoing.
6) Council and/or CRC Action Items
ACTION ITEM CITY COUNCIL CRC
7) CRC Commitments
No commitments by the CRC have been made.
The City will be relocating and burying Duke Energy’s transmission line and completing road
improvements adjacent to the development.
September 2022
September 2022
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 10
MELANGE
1)Developer Partner(s): Onyx + East
2)Economic Development Area: Firehouse
3)Project Summary: 45 for-sale townhomes
and approximately 12 for-sale flats
4)Total project budget: $30,000,000
5)Anticipated Project Schedule
Construction Start May 2021
Complete Estimated
October 2023
6)Construction Milestones: Construction is
underway.
7)CRC Commitments
CRC contributed land to the development of this project, relocated the CFD generator, and is funding
infrastructure, road work, and utility relocations with TIF.
8)Council and/or CRC Action Items
ACTION ITEM CITY COUNCIL CRC
Rendering
September 2023 September 2023
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 11
CIVIC SQUARE GARAGE
1) CRC Design-Build Project
2)Economic Development Area: Carmel City
Center/Carmel City Center Amendment
3)Project Summary:
- 303-space parking garage
- 255 spaces will be open to the public
- 48 spaces are reserved for owner-occupied condos
that will line the west and north sides of the garage (to
be developed as part of a future CRC project)
4)Total project budget: $9,700,000
5)Anticipated Project Schedule
Construction Start January 2022
Construction End Opened
Summer 2022
6)Construction Milestones: Garage is now open for
public use.
7)CRC Commitments
The CRC will be involved with development and construction of the parking garage
8)Council and/or CRC Action Items
ACTION ITEM CITY COUNCIL CRC
September 2022 Rendering
March 2023
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 12
FIRST ON MAIN
1)Developer Partner(s): Lauth Group, Inc.
2)Economic Development Area: Lot One
3)Project Summary:
- 310-space public parking garage
- Four-story, 73,000 SF Class-A office building with first floor restaurant space and a private rooftop terrace
- 8 condominiums
- 35 apartments
- Community gathering plaza featuring the City’s Rotary Clock
4)Total project budget: $35,000,000
5)Anticipated Project Schedule
Construction Start Fall 2021
Construction End Estimated Fall 2023
6)Construction Milestones: Construction is underway.
7)CRC Commitments
CRC contributed the land for this development. Future commercial taxes from the project (TIF) are being
used to fund infrastructure improvements that may include the garage, utility relocations, and roadway
improvements.
8)Council and/or CRC Action Items
ACTION ITEM CITY COUNCIL CRC
Rendering September 2023
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 13
THE SIGNATURE
1)Developer Partner(s): Tegethoff Development and Great Lakes Capital
2)Economic Development Area: Main and Old Meridian
3)Project Summary:
- 8 owner-occupied flats/condos
- 295 luxury apartments
- 15k sf of office/retail
- 374 structured parking spaces
- Dedication of land for future street
4)Total project budget: $78,000,000
5)Anticipated Project Schedule
Construction Start November 2021
Construction End Estimated December 2023 w/ retail buildouts ongoing through
Spring 2024
6)Construction Milestones: Construction is underway.
7)CRC Commitments:
Future commercial taxes from the project (TIF) are being used to fund infrastructure improvements that
may include the garage, utility relocations, and roadway improvements.
8)Council and/or CRC Action Items
ACTION ITEM CITY COUNCIL CRC
Rendering September 2023
2023
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 14
MAGNOLIA
1)Developer Partner(s): Old Town Companies
2)Economic Development Area: Magnolia
3)Project Summary: Multi-phase development that will
include six condominium buildings with five units per
building, for a total of 30 for-sale condos, and future multi-
family residential on the corner of City Center Drive and
Rangeline Road.
4)Total project budget:
5)Anticipated Project Schedule
Construction Start April 2022 (Building 1)
Construction End Estimated 2025 (Buildings 4-6)
6)Construction Milestones: Construction is underway.
7)CRC Commitments: CRC contributed the land for the development of this project.
8)Council and/or CRC Action Items
ACTION ITEM CITY COUNCIL CRC
Rendering
September 2023
September 2023
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 15
THE MUSE
1)Developer Partner(s): Kite Reality Group
2)Economic Development Area: The Corner
3)Project Summary: mixed-use project consisting of 278 apartments, 25,000 square feet of office/retail
space, and a free 364-space public parking garage
4)Total project budget: $69,000,000
5)Anticipated Project Schedule
Construction Start Late 2021
Construction End
Bldg A/Garage: Estimated December 2023
Bldg B: Estimated April 2024
6)Construction Milestones: Construction is underway.
7)CRC Commitments
Future commercial taxes from the project (TIF) are being used to construct the public parking garage,
utility relocations, and streetscape improvements.
8)Council and/or CRC Action Items
Rendering September 2023
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 16
HAMILTON CROSSING
1)Developer Partner(s): Kite Reality Group and Pure Development, Inc.
2)Economic Development Area: Amended 126th Street
3)Project Summary: New home of Republic Airways. 105,000 square-foot training facility with 20
classrooms, 94 workstations, two cabin trainers, and eight flight simulators. The hotel adjacent to the
training center will be expanded to 274 rooms. 1,900 jobs brought/created with Republic alone.
4)Total project budget: $200,000,000 investment for Phase 1 and II
5)Anticipated Project Schedule
Construction Start HQ/Corporate Housing: Winter 2021 (Complete)
Garage: Winter 2022
Construction End HQ/Corporate Housing: Completed
Garage: Estimated April 2024
6)Construction Milestones: Construction is underway.
7)CRC Commitments
Future commercial taxes from the project (TIF) are being used to fund infrastructure improvements that
may include the garage, utility relocations, and roadway improvements.
8)Council and/or CRC Action Items
Rendering
Rendering
September 2023
PROJECT UPDATES
September 8, 2023 CRC Report for September 18, 2023, City Council Meeting P a g e | 17
PROSCENIUM II
1) Developer Partner(s): Novo Development Group
2) Economic Development Area: Amended 126th Street
3) Project Summary: Mixed-use development
i. 120 parking spaces
ii. 48 Apartments; 7 for-sale condos
iii. Approx. 15,000 SF of office and retail space
iv. Approx. Total project budget: $18,000,000
4) Anticipated Project Schedule
Design Start 2021
Construction Start 2022
Construction Complete Estimated August 2024
5) Construction Milestones: Site work is underway.
6) Council and/or CRC Action Items
ACTION ITEM CITY COUNCIL CRC
7) CRC Commitments
No commitments by the CRC have been made.
Respectfully submitted,
Henry Mestetsky
Executive Director
Carmel Redevelopment Commission/Department
September 8, 2023
Prepared for City Council and the Redevelopment Commission
-End Report-
September 2023
SPONSOR: Councilor Rider
This Ordinance was prepared by Jon A. Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on 9/6/2023 at 10:55 a.m. No subsequent revision to this Ordinance has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
ORDINANCE NO. D-2676-23 1 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, 3 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AN APPROPRATION OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE 4 OPERATING BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO THE 2023 PARKS DEPARTMENT 5 BUDGET 6 7 Synopsis: This ordinance appropriates $1,759.34 in grant funds received from the Federal Emergency 8 Management Agency from the General Fund (#101) into the 2023 Parks Department budget line item 9 4239000 – Miscellaneous Supplies. 10 11
WHEREAS, the Carmel Clay Department of Parks and Recreation (“CCPR”) has received grant funds 12 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) in the amount of $1,759.34 that were transferred 13 from the Grant Fund into the General Fund (the “Grant Funds”); and 14
15 WHEREAS, in order for CCPR to expend the Grant Funds in accordance with the terms and conditions 16 of the FEMA reimbursement grant, the Carmel Common Council must appropriate the Grant Funds into the 17
CCPR’s 2023 budget pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-18-7.5; and 18 19
WHERAS, the General Fund currently has excess funds in the amount of One Thousand Seven 20 Hundred Fifty Nine Dollars and Thirty Four Cents ($1,759.34) to appropriate to Parks Department budget line 21 item 4239000 – Miscellaneous Supplies. 22
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, that the 24 following sum of money is hereby appropriated out of the General Fund Operating Balance and for the purposes 25
specified, subject to applicable laws, as follows: 26 27 $1,759.34 from the GENERAL FUND OPERATING Balances 28 29 To 30 31 Parks Department (#1125): Line item 4239000 – Miscellaneous Supplies $1,759.34 32 33
34 35 36 37 38
39 40 41 42
43
44 45 Ordinance D-2676-23 46 Page One of Two 47 48 49 50
SPONSOR: Councilor Rider
This Ordinance was prepared by Jon A. Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on 9/6/2023 at 10:55 a.m. No subsequent revision to this Ordinance has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
51 PASSED, by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this ____ day of ________, 52
2023, by a vote of _____ ayes and _____ nays. 53 54 COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL 55 56
57
___________________________________ 58 Jeff Worrell, President Laura Campbell, Vice-President 59 60 ___________________________________ ____________________________________ 61 Kevin Rider Sue Finkam 62 63 ___________________________________ ____________________________________ 64 Anthony Green Adam Aasen 65
66
___________________________________ ___________________________________ 67
Tim Hannon Miles Nelson 68 69 ___________________________________ 70 Teresa Ayers 71
72 ATTEST: 73 74 __________________________________ 75
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 76
77 Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this ____ day of 78 _________________________ 2023, at _______ __.M. 79 80
____________________________________ 81 Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 82 83 Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this _____ day of 84 ________________________ 2023, at _______ __.M. 85
86 ____________________________________ 87 James Brainard, Mayor 88 ATTEST: 89
___________________________________ 90
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 91
92 Ordinance D-2676-23 93 Page Two of Two Pages 94 95
SPONSOR(S): Councilor Rider
This Resolution was prepared by Jon Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on September 5, 2023 at 10:36 a.m. No subsequent revision to this Resolution has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
RESOLUTION CC 09-18-23-01 1 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, 3 INDIANA, APPROVING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE GRANT FUND (#900) 4 INTO THE GENERAL FUND (#101), THE NON-REVERTING PARKS AND 5 RECREATION EXTENDED SCHOOL ENRICHMENT FUND (#108) AND THE NON-6
REVERTING PARKS AND RECREATION MONON CENTER OPERATING FUND 7 (#109) 8 9 Synopsis: Transfers $16,951.78 from the Grant Fund (#900) into the General Fund (#101), 10 the Non-reverting Parks and Recreation Extended School Enrichment Fund (#108) and the 11 Non-reverting Parks and Recreation Monon Center Operating Fund (#109) so that grant 12 funds received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency can reimburse Carmel 13 Clay Parks and Recreation. 14 15 WHEREAS, Carmel Clay Parks and Recreation has received reimbursement grant funds 16
in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty One Dollars and Seventy Eight Cents 17
($16,951.78) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) that were deposited 18 into the Grant Fund (#900); and 19 20 WHEREAS, it is necessary to transfer the sum of Sixteen Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty 21 One Dollars and Seventy Eight Cents ($16,951.78) from the Grant Fund (#900) into the General 22
Fund (#101), the Non-reverting Parks and Recreation Extended School Enrichment Fund (#108) 23 and the Non-reverting Parks and Recreation Monon Center Operating Fund (#109) so that they 24 can be reimbursed in accordance with the terms of the FEMA grant. 25 26
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of 27
Carmel, Indiana, that the Controller is authorized to transfer funds from the Grant Fund into the 28 General Fund (#101), the Non-reverting Parks and Recreation Extended School Enrichment 29 Fund (#108) and the Non-reverting Parks and Recreation Monon Center Operating Fund (#109) 30 as follows: 31 32 $16,951.78 from the GRANT FUND (#900) 33 34 To 35 36
GENERAL FUND (#101) - $1,759.34 37 NON-REVERTING PARKS AND RECREATION EXTENDED SCHOOL 38 ENRICHMENT FUND (#108) – 3,343.16 39 NON-REVERTING PARKS AND RECREATION MONON CENTER OPERATING 40 FUND (#109) - $11,849.28 41 42
43 CC 09-18-23-01 44 Page One of Two Pages 45 46
SPONSOR(S): Councilor Rider
This Resolution was prepared by Jon Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on September 5, 2023 at 10:36 a.m. No subsequent revision to this Resolution has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
SO RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this ____ day 47 of ____________, 2023 by a vote of _____ ayes and _____ nays. 48
49 COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL 50 51 ___________________________________ 52 Jeff Worrell, President Laura Campbell, Vice-President 53
54 ___________________________________ ____________________________________ 55 Kevin Rider Sue Finkam 56 57 ___________________________________ ____________________________________ 58
Anthony Green Adam Aasen 59
60 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ 61 Tim Hannon Miles Nelson 62 63
___________________________________ 64 Teresa Ayers 65 66 ATTEST: 67 68
__________________________________ 69
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 70 71 Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this ____ day of 72 _________________________ 2023, at _______ __.M. 73
74 ____________________________________ 75 Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 76 77 Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this _____ day of 78
________________________ 2023, at _______ __.M. 79
80 ____________________________________ 81 James Brainard, Mayor 82 ATTEST: 83
84 ___________________________________ 85 Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 86 87 Resolution CC 09-18-23-01 88
Page Two of Two Pages 89 90
SPONSOR: Councilor Worrell
This Resolution was prepared by Jon A. Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on 9/7/23 at 11:13 p.m. No subsequent revision to this Resolution has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
RESOLUTION NO. CC 09-18-23-02 1 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, 3 APPROVING AN INCREASE OF THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE FOR THE POLICE 4 HEADQUARTERS EXPANSION AND COURT ADDITION PROJECT 5 6
Synopsis: Approves a $60,000.00 increase to the guaranteed maximum price of the Police 7 Headquarters Expansion and Court Addition Project for a floor plan re-design and buildout that 8 was requested by the Carmel Police Department. 9 10 WHEREAS, on March 18, 2021, the Carmel Common Council ("Council") approved Ordinance 11 D-2562-20, which authorized the issuance of bonds (the “Bonds”) in an amount not to exceed Thirty 12
Eight Million Dollars ($38,000,000) to finance an expansion of the existing police headquarters and 13 relocation of the IT facilities, along with a related financing lease with the Carmel Municipal Facilities 14 Building Corporation; and 15 16
WHEREAS, Ordinance D-2562-20 further specified that the Build-Operate-Transfer (“BOT”) 17
construction procurement method was to be utilized for the Carmel Police Headquarters Expansion and 18 Court Addition Project (“BOT Project”), with Council reserving the right to approve the guaranteed 19 maximum price (“GMP”) of the BOT Project, as well as any amendments to the BOT agreement that 20 would increase the GMP; and 21 22 WHEREAS, on March 7, 2022, the Council approved Resolution CC 03-07-22-01, which 23 approved the terms of an agreement with Envoy Construction Services, LLC (“Envoy”) to construct the 24 BOT Project for a GMP of Twenty Five Million Three Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred 25 Seventy Dollars ($25,388,670.00); and 26
27 WHEREAS, the City and Envoy are currently close to successfully completing the BOT project 28 within the original GMP budget; and 29 30 WHEREAS, the Carmel Police Department (“CPD”) and Envoy have recently discovered an 31 opportunity to re-position CPD’s growing crisis intervention team from a secure location in the new 32
building to a location where they are more accessible to the public and will have the use of a conference 33 room to meet with local citizens and family members; and 34 35 WHEREAS, re-positioning the CPD’s crisis intervention team requires a floor plan re-design and 36
buildout that would increase the GMP by Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00); and 37
38 WHEREAS, CPD recommends re-positioning the crisis intervention team because it will better 39 serve the community and help to “future-proof” the new building; and 40 41 WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Carmel to approve an increase of $60,000 42
to the BOT Project GMP. 43 44 45 Resolution CC 09-18-23-02 46
Page One of Three Pages 47
SPONSOR: Councilor Worrell
This Resolution was prepared by Jon A. Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on 9/7/23 at 11:13 p.m. No subsequent revision to this Resolution has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, 48 Indiana, that: 49
50 Section 1. The foregoing Recitals are incorporated herein by this reference. 51 52 Section 2. The Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana hereby approves an increase of 53
$60,000.00 to the guaranteed maximum price for the Police Headquarters Expansion and Court Addition 54
Project in order to re-position CPD’s crisis intervention team, such that the GMP will be $25,448,670.00. 55 56 Section 3. The Council encourages the Board of Public Works and Safety to approve and execute 57 an amendment to the BOT Agreement at its earliest convenience. 58 59
60 61 62 63
64
65 66 67 68 69
70 71 72 73
74
75 76 77 78 79
80 81 82 83
84
85 86 87 88 89
90 91 Resolution CC 09-18-23-02 92 Page Two of Three Pages 93 94 95
SPONSOR: Councilor Worrell
This Resolution was prepared by Jon A. Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on 9/7/23 at 11:13 p.m. No subsequent revision to this Resolution has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
96 97 SO RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this ____ day of 98 ____________, 2023 by a vote of _____ ayes and _____ nays. 99
100 COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL 101 102
___________________________________ 103 Jeff Worrell, President Laura Campbell, Vice-President 104 105 ___________________________________ ____________________________________ 106 Kevin Rider Sue Finkam 107
108
___________________________________ ____________________________________ 109 Anthony Green Adam Aasen 110 111
___________________________________ ___________________________________ 112
Tim Hannon Miles Nelson 113 114 ___________________________________ 115 Teresa Ayers 116 117
ATTEST: 118 119 __________________________________ 120
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 121
122
Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this ____ day of 123 _________________________ 2023, at _______ __.M. 124 125 ____________________________________ 126
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 127 128 Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this _____ day of 129 ________________________ 2023, at _______ __.M. 130
131
____________________________________ 132 James Brainard, Mayor 133 ATTEST: 134 135
___________________________________ 136
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 137 138 Resolution CC 09-18-23-02 139 Page Three of Three Pages 140 141
SPONSORS: Councilor Worrell
This Resolution was prepared by Jon A. Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on 9/12/23 at 2:28 p.m. No subsequent revision to this Resolution has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
1 RESOLUTION CC 09-18-23-03 2
3 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA, 4 ADOPTING THE CITY OF CARMEL FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OF COVER 5 6 Synopsis: Resolution approves and adopts the Carmel Fire Department’s 2023-2027 Standard of 7
Cover. 8 9 WHEREAS, the Carmel Fire Department (“CFD”) is applying for re-accreditation through the 10 Commission on Fire Accreditation International (“CFAI”), which requires the implementation of a 11 Standard of Cover (“SOC”); and 12
13
WHEREAS, the 2023-2027 SOC analyzes and assesses data for each planning zone within the 14 City of Carmel and details the various aspects of CFD’s responses to emergencies within the Carmel 15 community; and 16 17 WHEREAS, in addition to the above, the CFAI accreditation process requires the Common 18
Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana (“Common Council”), to affirmatively indicate its support for the 19 CFD’s 2023-2027 SOC; and 20
21 WHEREAS, the Common Council hereby adopts and approves the CFD’s 2023-2027 Standard of 22 Cover, the same being attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 23 24 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, 25
Indiana, as follows: 26
27 Section 1. The foregoing Recitals are incorporated herein by this reference. 28
Section 2. The Carmel Fire Department’s 2023-2027 Standard of Cover is hereby approved and 29 adopted pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. 30
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 31
32 33 34
35 Resolution CC 09-18-23-03 36 Page One of Two Pages 37 38
39
40
SPONSORS: Councilor Worrell
This Resolution was prepared by Jon A. Oberlander, Corporation Counsel, on 9/12/23 at 2:28 p.m. No subsequent revision to this Resolution has been reviewed by Mr. Oberlander for legal sufficiency or otherwise.
SO RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this ____ day of 41 ____________, 2023 by a vote of _____ ayes and _____ nays. 42
43
COMMON COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CARMEL 44
45 ___________________________________ 46 Jeff Worrell, President Laura Campbell, Vice-President 47 48
___________________________________ ____________________________________ 49
Kevin Rider Sue Finkam 50 51 ___________________________________ ____________________________________ 52 Anthony Green Adam Aasen 53
54
___________________________________ ___________________________________ 55 Tim Hannon Miles Nelson 56 57 ___________________________________ 58
Teresa Ayers 59
60 ATTEST: 61 62 __________________________________ 63
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 64
65 Presented by me to the Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana this ____ day of 66 _________________________ 2023, at _______ __.M. 67 68
____________________________________ 69
Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 70 71 Approved by me, Mayor of the City of Carmel, Indiana, this _____ day of 72 ________________________ 2023, at _______ __.M. 73
74
____________________________________ 75 James Brainard, Mayor 76 ATTEST: 77 78
___________________________________ 79 Sue Wolfgang, Clerk 80 81 Resolution CC 09-18-23-03 82 Page Two of Two Pages 83
Carmel Fire Department
Carmel, Indiana
Standard of Cover
Developed and Created by: David G. Haboush, Fire Chief
The Dedicated Members of the Carmel Fire Department
Adopted by the Carmel City Council
3
The following document serves as the Carmel Fire Department’s Community Risk Assessment: Standard of
Cover. It is the culmination of extensive research and analysis into all aspects of the organization and the
community that it serves.
To ensure that a thorough assessment took place the department utilized the guidelines found in the Center for
Public Safety Excellence Quality Improvement for the Fire and Emergency Services accreditation model. The
assessment has been an ongoing project for the last five years despite the fact that over those years many
changes have occurred both internally and externally.
The stated goal of the organization is to provide the highest quality customer service of any fire department in
the State of Indiana. Therefore, the organization not only needs to examine how it goes about the business of
caring for its customers but also has to examine what local, regional, and national best practices are currently
in use. By comparing the department’s current practices with the best practices, a kind of “map” was
established that illustrated how the Carmel Fire Department compares to other great organizations.
Furthermore, by comparing the current “map” to the best practices a “route” was established to illustrate the
changes that are necessary to undertake in order to fulfill the vision of providing the highest quality customer
service.
The Carmel Fire Department would like to thank the elected officials, the members of other departments within
the City of Carmel, the citizens of Carmel who contributed to the development of the plan, and the members
of the Carmel Fire Department who work diligently every day to provide great service to our customers.
4
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Documentation of Area Characteristics ................................................................................................................. 8
Developments within the Service Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
Population/Demographics ............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Topography .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Climate .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Department History and Milestones ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
Staffing Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
Area Boundaries ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Station Locations and Apparatus Assignments ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Steven A. Couts, Fire Headquarters, (Station 341) .................................................................................................................................... 21
Station 342 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Station 343 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Station 344 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Station 345 Douglas Callahan Fire Station ................................................................................................................................................ 23
Station 346 .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Maintenance and Training Facility............................................................................................................................................................. 24
Mutual and Automatic Aid Service Areas .................................................................................................................................................. 25
Out of District Runs ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Water Supply ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Hamilton County Public Safety Communication Communications Equipment ...................................................................................... 28
Dispatching Protocols .................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Communications Personnel ......................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Description of Agency Programs and Services .................................................................................................... 29
Community Risk Reduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Formalized Public Education ...................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Informal Public Education .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Community Outreach Programs ................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Mobile Integrated Healthcare Program ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
Public Information Office ............................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Plan Review - Inspections ............................................................................................................................................................................ 32
5
Fire Investigations, Origin and Cause ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
Fire Suppression ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Emergency Medical Services ....................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Technical Rescue .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
All-Hazard Risk Assessment of the Community ................................................................................................. 38
Community Expectations ............................................................................................................................................................................ 38
Community Fire and Non-Fire Risk Assessment ....................................................................................................................................... 38
All Hazard Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................. 39
Fire Detection and Building Construction Impact on Deployment ................................................................... 39
Insurance Industry Impact on Deployment ............................................................................................................................................... 39
Deployment ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Building Hazard Risk Analysis Scores ....................................................................................................................................................... 44
Civilian Fire Related Injuries and Deaths .................................................................................................................................................. 45
Firefighter Fire Related Injuries and Deaths ............................................................................................................................................. 45
Fire – Loss versus Saves............................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Historical Data.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Overview of Community Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................................................. 50
Risk Methodology .................................................................................................................................................. 50
Risk Legend .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 54
Fires: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 55
Hazardous Materials: .................................................................................................................................................................................. 56
Technical Rescue: ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Response Time Components ....................................................................................................................................................................... 57
On Scene Operations, Critical Tasking and Effective Response Force ............................................................ 59
On Scene Operations .................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
Fire Suppression: ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Significance of Flashover ............................................................................................................................................................................. 62
Critical Task Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Structure Fire ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) ............................................................................................................................................................ 66
6
Emergency Medical Services Critical Tasking ........................................................................................................................................... 67
Hazardous Materials (Haz-Mat)/Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) ................................................................................................ 69
Hazardous Materials Response Critical Tasking ....................................................................................................................................... 69
Technical Rescue: ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
Establishment of an Effective Response Force .................................................................................................... 72
Distribution ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Concentration ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
Reliability ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Performance Goals, Objectives, and Measures ................................................................................................... 83
Statistical Review ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 83
Incidents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 83
Outliers ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84
Call Processing Times .................................................................................................................................................................................. 84
Turnout Response Times ............................................................................................................................................................................. 85
Fire Travel Time Response – Moderate Risk Fires ................................................................................................................................... 86
Fire Travel Time Response – High Risk Fires ........................................................................................................................................... 87
Emergency Medical Services Travel Time Response ................................................................................................................................ 87
Emergency Medical Services Travel Time Response – Moderate Risk ................................................................................................... 87
Emergency Medical Services Travel Time Response – High Risk ........................................................................................................... 88
Hazardous Materials Travel Time Response ............................................................................................................................................. 88
Hazardous Materials Travel Time Response – Moderate Risk ................................................................................................................ 89
Hazardous Materials Travel Time Response – High Risk ........................................................................................................................ 89
Technical Rescue Travel Time Response ................................................................................................................................................... 90
Technical Rescue – Moderate Risk ............................................................................................................................................................. 90
Technical Rescue – High Risk ..................................................................................................................................................................... 90
Fire Benchmark Performance Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 91
EMS Benchmark Performance Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 93
EMS Response Baseline Performance Measures: ...................................................................................................................................... 94
Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Benchmark Performance: ...................................................................................................................... 95
Hazardous Materials Baseline Performance Measures: ........................................................................................................................... 96
Technical Rescue Benchmark Performance Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 97
Technical Rescue Baseline Performance Measures: .................................................................................................................................. 98
Performance Charts ............................................................................................................................................... 100
7
Compliance Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 111
Compliance Model ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 112
Maintenance of Effort Compliance Model ............................................................................................................................................... 112
Step 2: Evaluate Performance ................................................................................................................................................................... 112
Step 3: Develop Compliance Strategies .................................................................................................................................................... 113
Step 4: Communicate Expectations to Organization and Stakeholders ................................................................................................. 113
Step 5: Validate Compliance ..................................................................................................................................................................... 113
Step 6: Make Adjustments/Repeat Process .............................................................................................................................................. 114
Annual Response Maps and Planning Zone Maps & Analysis
Annual Response Maps............................................................................................................................................................................ 114
Planning Zone Maps & Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................... 136
8
Executive Summary
The Carmel Fire Department is committed to providing the highest quality of service to the public as possible.
In an effort to assess this goal, the Carmel Fire Department has employed a comprehensive approach to
analyzing the department and the community it serves. In such a comprehensive approach, the Carmel Fire
Department has assessed the level of risk within the community and weighed that risk with current response
capabilities. The elements studied are the community expectations and performance goals, a community risk
assessment, and performance objectives and measures.
Documentation of Area Characteristics
On April 13, 1837, John Felps, Alexander Mills, Seth Green, and Daniel Warren laid out the Town of
Bethlehem, Indiana, which consisted of 14 plots of land, and was inhabited by Delaware Indians and Quakers.
That same year, the first general store was constructed, with the first schoolhouse being constructed in 1845.
One year later the post office was established; however, the residents were soon notified that there was already
another town registered with the name of “Bethlehem” in Indiana. Consequently in 1874, by a referendum
vote 33 to 12, the town was officially incorporated and adopted the name of “Carmel”. Carmel existed as a
town until 1976 when it was reorganized to operate as a third-class city under Indiana State statute. The elected
body is comprised of the mayor, seven city councilors, clerk treasurer, and a city court judge. These members
preside over the four branches of government: The Executive Branch (I.C., 36-4-5), the Legislative Branch
(I.C. 36-4-6), the Fiscal Branch (I.C. 36-4-10), and the Judicial Branch (I.C. 33-35-1) (Ord. D-362, § I, 3-22-
83). Prior to January of 2016, the city was a third-class city and had been incorporated as such since 1976. In
January of 2016, the common council voted to upgrade the City of Carmel to a Class 2 City. However, not all
changes took effect immediately. In 2019, voters elected a city clerk and two additional council members.
Additionally, the clerk treasurer’s position was eliminated, and the mayor appointed a city controller. The City
of Carmel operates on a Council-Mayor form of local government.
9
Developments within the Service Area
The City of Carmel is home to many varieties of business, medical facilities, and apartment complexes. There
are 1,631 total buildings that are pre-planned. This figure does not include residential homes. There are 528
apartment buildings throughout the city. The remaining 1,103 include: 3 hospitals, 20 extended care facilities,
45 schools, 20 healthcare facilities, 17 hotels, 31 government owned buildings, and 115 strip malls. There are
16 buildings not yet pre-planned due to currently incomplete construction. Lastly, according to the US Census
Bureau there are 39,158 residential homes throughout the city of Carmel. More information can be found on
the above in the All-Hazard Risk Assessment, specifically the Building Hazard Risk Analysis Scores.
Population/Demographics
In 1900 the population of Carmel/Clay Township was approximately 550 people. By 2000 the population had
swelled to 37,733. The latest US Census Estimated Resident Population for Carmel, Indiana is 101,964 as of
July 2022. The department assesses the community by planning zones annually and takes into consideration
10
the population density and has developed the total response time standards while considering National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 1710. The department has been able to use population density forecasting to
anticipate increased run load in certain areas. For example, the construction of several new extended care
facilities prompted a change in primary medic response areas. This area ended up transferring to another
station’s district all together after the completion of a new bridge. The changes allowed the department to
better distribute run load between apparatus that were essentially the same drive time from the affected area.
The department recently met with the redevelopment commission to review forecasted large-scale
developments. The meeting proved to be beneficial and will continue annually at a minimum. The planning
zones are reviewed annually at a minimum per policy. The geographical information systems (GIS)
department has assisted in creating population density maps within the planning zone borders to assist in
developing the planning zones.
11
The charts below are based on data from the United States Census Bureau
12
13
Topography
Carmel is situated within Hamilton County in central Indiana. The
land in central Indiana is characterized primarily by low, gently
rolling hills and shallow valleys. Indiana has a humid continental
climate, with cool winters and warm, summers. Carmel is in
USDA Planting Zone 5.
Due to recent annexations, Carmel encompasses all of Clay
Township, which is geographically located in the southwest corner
of Hamilton County. Its boundaries include Boone County line
(Zionsville) on the west, white river on the east, 96th street (Marion
County/Indianapolis) on the south, and 146th street on the north.
The total land area is approximately 50 square miles, and the July
2022 population was 101,964 residents, although its daytime
population adds an additional 10,000 people to the jurisdiction.
Climate
Carmel is located in the Midwest and is fortunate to experience all four seasons. The last few years, the
14
weather has affected Carmel in many ways, from the remnants of various hurricanes, ice storms, and severe
drought.
Month
Average
High
Average
Low Record High Record Low
Average
Rainfall
Average
Snowfall
January 36°F 22°F 71°F (1950) -24°F (1994) 1.7″3.7″
February 40°F 25°F 77°F (2018) -21°F (1982) 1.6″3.9″
March 51°F 34°F 85°F (1981) -7°F (1980) 2.6″1.8″
April 63°F 44°F 90°F (1942) 18°F (1997) 3.7″0.2″
May 73°F 54°F 96°F (1911) 27°F (2020) 4.0″0.0″
June 81°F 63°F 104°F (2012) 37°F (1992) 4.1″0.0″
July 84°F 66°F 106°F (1936) 46°F (1947) 3.5″0.0″
August 82°F 63°F 103°F (1918) 41°F (1965) 3.0″0.0″
September 76°F 56°F 100°F (2011) 30°F (1899) 2.9″0.0″
October 64°F 45°F 92°F (2019) 20°F (1981) 2.8″0.0″
November 51°F 36°F 81°F (1950) -5°F (1880) 2.9″0.4″
December 40°F 27°F 74°F (1982) -23°F (1989) 2.4″2.9″
Monthly Averages & Records
15
Department History and Milestones The Carmel Fire Department was established in 1900 as a volunteer department. In 1913, after a major fire,
the town purchased a two-wheeled soda/acid chemical tanks and then placed Pyrene® pump fire extinguishers
on several porches around town. In 1921, the town purchased Carmel’s first motorized Model T fire truck
with 3 chemical tanks and hose.
In 1927, the State legislature passed a law empowering the township trustees to purchase and maintain a fire
truck. Under the leadership of R.J. Follett, a meeting of the town board of Carmel, trustees of Clay and
Delaware townships, and representatives from two leading insurance companies met and purchased the first
joint town-township owned fire truck (without a pump) in the state of Indiana. The volunteer fire department
of Carmel/Clay was housed within a garage located on west Main Street. The building was transformed into
a firehouse, open 24 hours a day, and became the first fire station in the area. Rue Hinshaw was the first
volunteer fire chief for the Town.
In 1945, Donald Swails Jr. was appointed as the volunteer fire chief, at which time the town acquired its first
pumper fire truck. In 1950, Carmel firefighters constructed a new fire station located at 210 1st Avenue S.W.,
which was located two blocks south of the downtown district. The construction was completed with many
hours donated by firefighters and a large portion of the building materials were also donated. Firefighters
received $2.00 for responding on each run and to help defray the cost of the construction, many of them gave
the money back to the fire department.
In 1956, the Town Board appointed volunteer Chief Donald Swails Jr. as the first full-time “paid” member
with its first annual budget of $11,500.00. Chief Swails was promoted to chief after serving eleven years with
the all-volunteer department.
In 1963, James Martin Sr.’s Garage (auto repair) at 102nd and U.S. 421 on the far west side became Carmel’s
second fire station known as Station 42. It remained in service for over 7 years, until the town built its own
building. In 1965, the beginning of EMS was formed for the town/township with the conversion of a 1965
Dodge Van for its first ambulance. Five years later, four firefighters became the first state of Indiana certified
Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT’s) for the department.
16
In 1971, a new Station 42 was constructed to protect the western portion of the township at 2410 W. 116th
Street. In 1975, Station 43 was built and dedicated at 3242 East 106th Street. John Hensel who owned several
farming acres in the area donated the property to the city. 1979 saw the beginning of a more advanced EMS
program under the combined leadership of Chief Swails and Clay Township Trustee John Hensel.
In 1981, the transition from a volunteer department to a paid career department became a reality. At that time,
the department employed 42 members. Along with this achievement, Station 44 was constructed and opened
at 5032 East Main Street. On June 23, 1982, Chief Donald Swails Jr. died. On August 2, 1982, Assistant
Chief Steven A. Couts was named Carmel’s new fire chief by Mayor Jane Reiman. In 1987, the new fire
headquarters and Station 41 was constructed on South Rangeline Road at 2 Civic Square. This building was
built to replace the undersized station that was located in the downtown area. Constructed by the city of
Carmel; new station 41 houses the departments’ administrative offices as well as on duty personnel. This was
the first of three buildings to be constructed in the area that is now known as Civic Square, which also includes
Carmel City Hall and the Carmel Police Department. The department’s annual operating budget for 1987 was
$2,055,394.00.
In 1995, the focus of the department broadened to provide
additional services to the community. With that (8)
FF/Paramedics were hired which allowed the department to
provide Advance Life Support (ALS) to the citizens of
Carmel. The department currently employs 41 paramedics.
September 3, 1995, after serving for over 30 years, Fire
Chief Steven A. Couts retired from the Carmel Fire Department. January 1, 1996, Mayor James Brainard
appointed Assistant Chief Douglas Callahan as the new fire chief. In 1997, the Clay Township Trustee opened
and dedicated station 45 located at 10701 North College Avenue.
Station 42 was relocated once more in 2002, when the Clay Township Trustee built a new 15,000 square foot
fire station at 106th and Shelborne Road. Additionally, the same year, the Township funded the construction
of the sixth fire station located at 540 West 136th Street. On September 16, 2003, retired Fire Chief Steven A.
Couts passed away. Subsequently fire headquarters was dedicated as the Steven A. Couts Fire Headquarters.
January 1, 2007, Fire Chief Douglas Callahan retired after serving the city of Carmel for 34 years. Two days
later, Mayor James Brainard appointed Keith D. Smith as the new fire chief. In June 2010, the Carmel Fire
Department took delivery of its first tractor drawn aerial unit. This Tiller is housed at Station 41. On December
31, 2012, Fire Chief Keith D. Smith officially retired from the Carmel Fire Department and on January 1, 2013,
the Mayor appointed Matthew D. Hoffman as Carmel’s Fire Chief.
17
In March of 2015, Fire Chief Matthew
Hoffman resigned from his position and
returned to the crews and Mayor Brainard
appointed Captain David G. Haboush as the
new Fire Chief. Beginning in July of 2015,
Station 44, located at 5032 E. Main Street
was demolished and a new, larger station
was built by the Township. The station was
opened in August of 2016. Groundbreaking
began on the new training and maintenance
facility at the end of 2015 and the new
facility was opened in July of 2016.
In March of 2021, the CFD administrative
personnel moved out of the Fire
Headquarters building while the
headquarters is undergoing a major
renovation. Upon completion of the
renovation the headquarters building will
house only firefighters. A new
administration building is under construction
with an anticipated completion date of spring of 2023. As of December 2022, the Carmel Fire Department
employs 164 sworn firefighting personnel, 13 civilian personnel and has 6 fire stations serving a population of
approximately 101,964 citizens. December 31, 2022, found the administrative staff still housed in its
temporary facilities as the new administrative building is still under construction. All construction projects at
the fire stations are completed.
In April of 2023 the administration moved into its new headquarters located in the heart of midtown Carmel.
210 Veterans Way now serves as not only the new headquarters but also a link to the past as this was the
location of the original Carmel Fire Headquarters built in 1950. The new location houses the fire department
administration, a firefighting museum, and the Stay Alive Family Education (SAFE) house for fire and safety
education. The museum and SAFE house are still under construction as of July 2023.
Staffing Resources
The Carmel Fire Department utilizes the Kelly work schedule. Meaning personnel are assigned to 1 of 3 shifts,
18
either “A”, “B”, or “C”. A particular shift works 24 hours on duty, off 24 hours, on duty 24 hours, off 24
hours, on duty 24 hours and then off for 96 hours. The work schedule then repeats. The Carmel Fire
Department division chiefs, administrative and civilian personnel work Monday through Friday, 8:00 – 4:30
pm.
Shift Organization Chart
19
Area Boundaries
The city of Carmel is located in Clay Township of Hamilton County, Indiana, due north of the city of
Indianapolis and southwest of the city of Westfield. Carmel is located in the Eastern Time zone and utilizes
daylight savings time. The current jurisdiction for the Carmel Fire Department follows 96th street to the south,
146th street to the north, River Road to the east and U.S. 421/Michigan Road to the west and encompasses
approximately 50 square miles. Traffic flow through Carmel is substantial with four major north and south
roadways running through the city; US-421 on the western edge of the city, US-31 divides the city down the
middle and Keystone Parkway (formerly US-431) further east. Hazel Dell Parkway on the far eastside also
carries a great deal of north/south traffic, relieving congestion on Keystone Parkway. Keystone Parkway, US-
31 and US-421 all interchange with I-465, which runs along Carmel’s southern boundary.
20
Station Locations and Apparatus Assignments
The department maintains 6 strategically located fire stations, a maintenance, and training facility within its
jurisdiction. Additionally, one of the fire stations holds the new Emergency Operations Center. Funding for
these physical resources is accomplished through the annual budgetary process and is consistent with the
department’s strategic plan. All plans for improvement to physical resources are reflected in the department’s
annual budget and strategic plan.
The department involves the governing body, local township government, administrative staff, as well as line
personnel in the planning process for physical facilities. Administrative staff and line personnel are involved
in the planning, design, and construction phases of each capital project in an effort to develop a feeling of
ownership of the facility. Administrative and staff members are involved in the project to ensure its costs are
within budgetary allocations.
All 6 fire stations, the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) at Station 344, the maintenance and training
facility, and the newly constructed administrative building provide adequate space and storage for the
department’s needs.
Carmel Fire Department Administrative
Building
210 Veterans Way
Carmel, Indiana 46032
21
Steven A. Couts, Fire Headquarters, (Station 341)
2 Civic Square
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Station #341’s response area covers approximately 4.4
square miles and responds to 71% of all calls for service.
This area consists of residential, light commercial and
redeveloped downtown district. Station #341 is staffed by five officers and nine firefighter/paramedics
including: an engine company, a ladder company, an ambulance company, an EMS duty officer, a battalion
chief, and an executive officer.
Station 342
3610 West 106th Street
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Apparatus Percent of calls responded
Engine 342 11%
Reserve
Medic/Ambulance 0.10%
Total Personnel 4
Station #342 response area is mostly residential
covering approximately 12.1 square miles,
responding to 24% of all calls. Station 342 houses
an engine company with one officer and three
firefighters/paramedics.
Apparatus
Percent of calls
responded
Engine 341 27%
Ladder 341 13%
Battalion 304 13%
Medic 341 34%
Utility/Boat 341 0.06%
EDO 304 (partial year) 4%
Total Personnel 14
22
Station 343
3242 East 106th Street Carmel, Indiana 46033
Apparatus Percent of calls responded
Engine 343 12%
Total Personnel 4
Station #343’s response area is mostly residential
covering approximately 6.6 square miles and responds
to 24% of all calls for service. The station is staffed
with an officer and three firefighters/paramedics responding on a single engine company.
Station 344
5032 East Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46033
Apparatus
Percent of calls
responded
Engine 344 15%
Medic 344 20%
Command Vehicle 0.01%
Total Personnel 6
Station #344’s response area is mostly residential,
covers approximately 11.6 square miles and responds to 38% of all calls for service. Station #344 is staffed
by an officer and five firefighters/paramedics, including an engine company and medic/ambulance.
23
Station 345 – Douglas Callahan Fire Station
10701 North College Avenue Carmel, Indiana 46280
Apparatus Percent of calls responded
Engine 345 24%
Medic 345 33%
Ladder 345 13%
Safety 304 9%
TSU 345 (cross staffed) 0.27%
Total Personnel 12
Station #345’s response area includes both residential and commercial structures, covers approximately 5.5
square miles and responds to 57% of all calls for service includes the southern portion of Carmel. Station 345
is staffed by three officers, and nine firefighter/paramedics, including an engine, ladder, medic/ambulance,
safety officer, and cross manned tactical support unit.
Station 346
540 West 136th Street Carmel, Indiana 46032
Apparatus Percent of calls responded
Engine 346 25%
Medic 346 31%
Total Personnel 6
Station #346’s response area, which is mostly
residential covers approximately 10.4 square miles and responds to 67% of all calls for service includes the
northwestern portion of Carmel. One officer and five firefighters/paramedics staff station #346.
24
Maintenance and Training Facility
4925 East 106th Street Carmel, Indiana 46033
Reserve Engine E340
Reserve Engine 348
Reserve Engine 349
Reserve Ladder L340
Ambulance 340
Ambulance 349
Air Cart
8 Reserve Staff Cars
3 EMS Carts
RSU 304
The maintenance and training facility was completed in 2016. This allows the department to perform any and
all training including command school, recruit training, auto extrication training, fire training evolutions and
EMS training evolutions. The facility also houses the extractor machines and drying racks for cleaning and
drying contaminated turnout gear. The reserve apparatus is also stored at this facility.
25
Mutual and Automatic Aid Service Areas
The department develops and maintains both formal and informal relationships with outside agencies to
support its mission. The department has mutual and automatic aid policies in place with Zionsville,
Indianapolis, Pike Township, Hamilton County Emergency Management, Fishers, Noblesville, Sheridan, and
Westfield. The automatic and mutual aid is pre-determined by specific incident run cards and in the event the
agencies apparatus is unavailable or is requested by Incident Command. Additionally, the department has
demonstrated the ability and willingness to provide reasonable aid to any agency that requests such aid. The
formal automatic and mutual aid agreements are reviewed and updated annually. The department has
developed many informal relationships that support its mission including those with the Carmel Police
Department, local media outlets, local hospitals, and local civic organizations such as the Rotary Club. The
department has established strong informal ties with local media outlets via a well-run and staffed Public
Information Office. The local hospitals have signed formal agreements with the department to partner in
offering public health aid in the form of Mobile Integrated Health Paramedics. The informal arrangements are
by nature more ephemeral and therefore not necessarily subjected to the annual review.
The department’s command staff has the responsibility to manage, review, and revise agreements with the
assistance from the City of Carmel Department of Law.
The department tasks its Operations Chief or the designee with the responsibility of managing, reviewing, and
revising the external agreements. The colored areas below on the map detail when automatic aid will be called
upon.
26
The department has utilized geographical information systems (GIS) to identify and document each of the 64
reporting districts (quadrants) and 19 planning zones which are used to facilitate emergency responses. Each
zone is analyzed for risk factors, considering the size of the area, target hazards, population, and incident
history. Through analysis, the department has solicited the assistance of the city’s GIS department in
identifying parcels that are located in excess of 2,000 feet from the nearest fire hydrant. Very few parcels
qualified however, those that did were placed into two tanker quadrants. This allows the computer aided
dispatch (CAD) system to send mutual aid and tanker trucks to those locations upon the initial dispatch.
Out of District Runs
8% of 2023 run through June 30th, were out of district responses assisting mutual aid departments.
3% of Carmel’s 2023 runs through June 30th, received mutual or automatic aid from our mutual aid partner departments.
The Carmel Fire Department is an active participant in the Hamilton County Mutual Aid system and with the
Statewide Mutual Aid system in place; the Carmel Fire Department is ready to respond as needed to assist any
agency throughout the state of Indiana.
Water Supply
The majority of the department’s service area is protected by a domestic water supply that is provided and
maintained by the City of Carmel Utilities Water Division (CCUWD). There are also a limited number of fire
hydrants provided by Citizens Energy Group. The domestic water supply provided is more than adequate to
27
meet the projected fire flow requirements for structural firefighting. Areas outside the domestic supply system
have been identified and fire suppression in these areas is augmented through automatic and mutual aid
agreements with surrounding jurisdictions to supply static water sources. The department also has established
tanker operations and water shuttle standard operating procedures are in place in the event an incident occurs
in an area without hydrants.
The placement of hydrants within the jurisdiction meets the requirements of the adopted 2012 International
Fire Code with 2014 amendments/Indiana Fire Code and Carmel City Code. Hydrant placement for all new
development is evaluated by the prevention division through the plans review process. Standard hydrant
spacing within the jurisdiction is a minimum of 1 hydrant every 500 feet.
There are more than 5,740 fire hydrants in service within the jurisdiction. There are at least an additional 280
hydrants that are privately maintained, and the sole responsibility of their service is the responsibility of the
owners. The department nor the authority having jurisdiction has any authority for enforcing the testing of or
servicing of any private hydrant..
28
Hamilton County Public Safety Communication Communications Equipment
The Hamilton County Public Safety Communications Center in Noblesville, Indiana (HCPSC) is responsible
for dispatching all fire and rescue calls for the department. The 9-1-1 telephone system is capable of handling
fourteen 9-1-1 trunk lines, 8 administrative lines, two fire dispatch lines and one telecommunication device for
the deaf (TDD) line. The radios operate on an 800 MHz band trunked radio system that utilizes fifteen (15)
separate frequencies efficiently. All of the radios are programmed with each of the public safety answering
points (PSAP’s) talk groups to allow interoperability with all county fire and emergency medical service
agencies. Each radio has P25 capability which allows both Marion County
radio system talk groups as well as the State’s SAFE-T network to be
programmed into the Motorola® radios. This allows for direct communications
on their systems.
The Hamilton County Public Safety Communications (HCPSC) Radio System
operates on a Motorola® Astro P25 800-megahertz system. Interoperability is
achieved by utilizing console patching and simulcasting. HCPSC’s radio
system shares a core with Marion County Department of Public Safety. The
link to the core is redundant, via leased fiber and via a direct microwave link. This allows both Counties
seamless communications between all agencies. All Hamilton County radios have IDs for the State of
Indiana’s SAFE-T radio system for interoperable communications statewide. All of the department’s radios
are capable of communicating directly with all surrounding agencies without the use of a radio patch.
The HCPSC has 18 consoles that are capable of answering 9-1-1 calls and administrative phone lines. All
consoles are equipped with console radios with each console having a back-up radio. Each console is equipped
with a computer that has CAD (computer-aided dispatch) software and Internet access. The CAD system was
upgraded to the newest platform available from New World® Systems by Tyler Technologies in March of
2017. All telephone calls made and received to and from HCPSC and primary law, fire dispatch talk groups,
and operations talk groups are recorded. The recorder software is called NICE. The CAD system has an
electronic map which is maintained by the GIS/911 personnel and updated as necessary. Each console is also
equipped with aerial photography that can be used in conjunction with the CAD map. Dispatch is lit with
several fluorescent lights that point toward the ceiling for indirect lighting.
Dispatching Protocols
Hamilton County Public Safety Communications (HCPSC) utilizes Priority Dispatch’s protocols for a formal
and recognized Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) system, which allows for pre-arrival instructions and
adequate triaging of medical calls for service. A flip-card file or tablet containing Priority Dispatch System
29
(PDS) protocols for Emergency Dispatching is provided in HCPSC for International Academies of Emergency
Dispatch (IAED) ED certified users. A software program containing PDS protocols for Emergency
Dispatching – ProQA – is loaded at each call-taking position. These protocols provide standardized
interrogation questions, post-dispatch instructions, pre-arrival instructions, and priority determinant codes.
Communications Personnel
HCPSC employs 72 full time communications officers, 4 part-time communications officers, 8 supervisors, 15
full time admiministrative staff, 6 IT personnel and 2 radio personnel.
Description of Agency Programs and Services
The department provides many programs relating to the all hazards response model. Those services include:
Community Risk Reduction
Public Education
Fire Inspection – Plan Review
Fire Investigation, Origin and Cause
Fire Suppression
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Technical Rescue
Hazardous Materials
Mobile Integrated Healthcare Program (MIHP).
Community Risk Reduction
The division consists of fire prevention, fire investigation, public education, and a community liaison officer.
All members of the division are cross-trained, allowing all members to be able to perform all the duties. Duties
of this division include: fire pre-plans, new and existing construction change plan review, code enforcement,
fire inspections, fire investigations, and public education for all residents from school age children to senior
citizens in the Carmel/Clay jurisdiction.
Formalized Public Education The public education program has identified targeted audiences by analyzing department statistical data and
by attending training outside the department. These audiences include: school aged youth, senior citizens, the
deaf community, and residents of multi-family dwelling residents. The department has chosen to focus its in-
school education activities on pre-school (ages 3-4), kindergarten (age 5), second grade, and fourth grade.
Indiana, like many other states, has significantly tightened its curriculum standards which inhibits the ability
of the department to interact with grade school children on a more frequent basis. The public education division
30
has a member who focuses exclusively on education initiatives for the aging population in the community.
Recently, the department has begun to reach out to the deaf community by providing hearing impaired smoke
detectors. The department also performs annual fire drills for business, schools, etc. within the jurisdiction.
The department’s Public Education Division provides children and adults of Carmel and surrounding areas
quality educational programming and information designed to reduce and prevent the loss of life, injury, and
property damage resulting from fires, accidents, and natural disasters.
Fire and Life Safety Education continues to be a very active part of the department’s annual activities and is
increasing each year.
Informal Public Education
The department has two popular programs that provide fire and
safety education that spans all age groups. The “Carmel Firefighter
for a Day Camp” provides additional educational opportunities for
school aged children. Over a three-day period, different groups of
children learn about fire safety and what firefighters do in a fun
setting. The second event is the “Carmel Public Safety Day”. This
one-day event invites community members of all ages to learn more
about fire safety. As an added benefit the department has invited in
other outside agencies such as the Carmel Police Department,
Indiana State Police, Hamilton County Emergency Management
Agency, and others to provide additional learning opportunities for
attendees. In 2019, we were fortunate to have the Kasey Fire & Life
Education Program join CFD, which enhances the departments
Education Outreach Program nationwide.
Community Outreach Programs
An ongoing smoke detector and carbon monoxide detector program is in place for families that are without the
means to provide for themselves. The prevention division targets low-income housing areas with a smoke
detector blitz. A program called Community Assistance Program has been hosted for over 20 years where
children in need, as determined by school resource personnel are provided with assistance. This list is used to
make follow-up calls and determine the need for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. In some cases, rental
properties where insufficient smoke detectors are found; education is provided to the property owner. The
department utilizes the city’s police department as a resource for bicycle safety, child restraint seat education,
31
and child restraint seats/installation for families without means to provide for themselves. Mobile Integrated
Healthcare Program
In 2015, the department created the mobile integrated healthcare program (MIHP) which brings back home
doctors’ visits through the use of department paramedics. The program paramedics receive referrals from the
emergency room physicians and provide the patients with a detailed assessment, home safety inspections,
medication understanding, blood pressure monitoring, nutritional support, and social interaction to avoid
hospital re- admittance incidents. This program is a follow-up response after discharge from hospital.
The department utilizes a paramedic to run the mobile integrated healthcare program (MIHP) program. This
is where Medicare/Medicaid patients are visited post hospital to see if the return visits can be mitigated. During
this time, the MIHP officer does a brief safety survey to determine if there are other issues that need to be
corrected to prevent injuries within the home. They will communicate with the fire prevention division in the
event prevention services are needed.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the
department began the COVID Information
Booths to disseminate educational
information and hand sanitizer and masks
to the public. These events were held at
local stores. The popularity of these
booths have since morphed into the CFD
Information Booth and this booth is at
many city-sponsored events throughout
the year.
Public Information Office
The department has an active public information office that provides current and relevant public education
through multiple social media platforms including Twitter™, Facebook™, Instagram™, and YouTube™.
Additionally, the public
information officers
actively interact with
local media outlets to
ensure that public safety
and fire safety initiatives
are kept on the forefront of the viewer’s minds.
32
Plan Review - Inspections The department has adopted
the 2012 International Fire and
Building code with the Indiana
Amendments, known as the
2014 Indiana Building and Fire
Code. The department ensures
fire protection compliance by
conducting inspections and
pre-plan reviews on all
businesses, educational facilities, and churches within its jurisdiction; these buildings are inspected annually.
The plan review process along with the relationship the department has with the Department of Community
Services ensures that all new and remodeled construction meets the current codes.
Fire Investigations, Origin and Cause The department’s investigation program operates under the State of Indiana code IC 36-8-17-5 section 5 which
states, (a) The fire chief and the designees of the fire chief in every fire department are assistants to the state
fire marshal. Indiana law
requires every fire to be
investigated as arson.
However, this alone is not
the only concern for
investigating fire. In
order to achieve this, the
investigation division is
staffed by 3 full-time
employees and 16 shift
investigators. The
department investigators
determine origin, cause, and preliminary loss assessment. The demographics that make up the vast majority
of Carmel do not tend to produce the arson fires that other similar populated cities produce. The department
employs the scientific method as outlined in National Fire Protection Association 921, 2017 Edition Guide for
Fire and Explosion Investigations and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1033, Standard for
Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator, 2014 Edition.
435
388
306 302
147
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Plan Reviews
15 16
10 12
4
36 37
51
41
29
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Investigated Fires
Car Fires Investigated Building Fires Investigated
33
Fire Suppression
Through the analysis of staffing, response times, and pumping
capacity, the department meets its stated objectives for fire
suppression for each type and magnitude of fire suppression
emergency incidents identified. The operations division of the
department maintains an accepted daily minimum staffing level of
44 on-duty personnel in order to provide the continuous delivery
of core services throughout the jurisdiction. The current
deployment is as follows: 6 engine companies, 2 tractor-drawn
aerial companies, 4 ambulances, 1 battalion vehicle, 1 hazardous
materials unit, 1 water rescue unit, 1 mobile command vehicle, 1
EMS duty officer vehicle, 1 mobile healthcare paramedic, 2 rescue boats, a rehab support unit and 7 reserve
apparatus along with numerous miscellaneous and administrative staff vehicles.
Emergency Medical Services
The Carmel Fire Department provides both Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advance Life Support (ALS) to the
citizens of Carmel. With the department run average above 66% being of the medical nature, the department
saw the importance of maintaining the service for the community. All members of the department are required
to become State of Indiana
Emergency Medical
Technician (EMT‐B) and shall
maintain the classification
throughout their career. Any
members wishing to advance
their career have the
opportunity to receive the
additional education to become
a State of Indiana licensed
paramedic. Daily minimum
staffing requirements are that
all six engine companies are
ALS staffed. On any given day it is possible that all four of the ambulances may also be ALS staffed. The
department’s ambulances have been strategically located at Station 341 located in the center of Carmel, Station
34
344 (to the northeast), Station 345 (south central), and Station 346 (to the northwest). Other support may come
from any staff member who may be certified as a paramedic. Each of the assigned paramedic staff vehicles
has been certified by the State of Indiana EMS Commission to carry ALS equipment. The minimum apparatus
response for EMS incidents consists of an (ALS) engine with a minimum staff of four, three firefighters and
one EMT-P, and an ambulance with a minimum of two (EMT-B’s) but can have EMT-P’s when staffing
allows. The EMS Duty Officer is included on critical or high-risk responses such as stroke, cardiac arrest,
chest pain, etc. If necessary, the EMS division chief, and the EMS Captain can respond as an additional non-
transporting ALS unit if needed.
The department has a cardiopulmonary resuscitation program in place. The department contracts with the
former EMS director to continue this program. The department has continued to provide widespread access
to automated external defibrillators (AED’s), particularly in public locations where sudden cardiac arrest is
likely including several locations along the Monon Trail in midtown Carmel and in parks. There have been 9
AED Stations installed to date. This is achieved by the collaborative efforts of the City of Carmel, CFD,
various other city departments and donations through not for profit organizations. Additionally, we encourage
public facilities with a high likelihood of cardiac arrest to incorporate AED programs into more comprehensive
emergency response plans that are linked with Carmel Fire Departments Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
system. The department also tracks the outcomes of patients relating to STEMI, Stroke, Return of Spontaneous
Circulation, and trauma calls. See charts below.
35
Counts
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
Community Heart and Vascular 3 3
Community Hospital North 1 1
Indiana University North Hospital 7 7 5 7 4 30
Indiana University Saxony Hospital 1 1
Riverview Hospital 1 1
St. Vincent Hospital Carmel 4 2 2 8
St. Vincent Hospital Heart Center 19 12 24 21 8 84
St. Vincent Hospital Indianapolis 7 8 9 3 4 31
St. Vincent's Heart Center 6 1 6 13 13
The Indiana Heart Hospital 1 1 2 2
Total 44 33 46 35 16 174
Injury by Mechanism
36
37
Technical Rescue
The department provides for vehicle/machinery rescue, extrication as well as surface level water rescue
capabilities through continuous staffing of apparatus that are distributed across the jurisdiction. Provisions for
rope rescue, confined space rescue, trench rescue, and structural collapse rescue are through existing mutual
aid agreements with surrounding departments that have technical rescue teams.
The department currently requires everyone to be trained to the awareness level in all technical rescue
disciplines. This training helps to ensure rescuer safety. Training is provided to all members to be consistent
and to utilize the training platform that is consistent with the requirements of National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 1670 (2009 Ed.) Chapter 8 as it pertains to Vehicle Search and Rescue Training, as well
as NFPA 1006 (2009 Ed.) Chapter 10. The department follows NFPA 1670 (2009 Ed.) for Water Rescue
Training standards found in Chapter 9, Sections 9.1, 9.2, 9.3.1-5, and 9.3.9 as it pertains to Surface and Swift
Water Rescue Training as well as NFPA 1006 (2009 ed.) Chapter 11, Section 11.1-11.1.15.
Hazardous Materials
The Carmel Fire Department provides technician level hazardous materials response for the department’s
response area. 100% of the department members are trained to at least the operations response level.
Additionally, the department has 84 members of the shift personnel trained at the technician level. The
technician level personnel can take offensive actions toward leak mitigation. The department provides hazmat
personnel in two ways. All apparatus are staffed with operations level personnel at a minimum and many have
technician level personnel as well.
Small incidents (natural gas calls, small fuel spills, etc.) are handled by engine and ladder companies. The
Tactical Support Unit (TSU) responds from Station 345 and provides the required tools, personnel protective
equipment (PPE), and supplies necessary for larger hazardous materials incident mitigation. The distribution
of hazardous materials technicians to stations other than 345 has created a situation that does not easily allow
for Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) planning.
The department maintains a set of General Operating Guidelines (GOGs) specific to the hazmat response
program, that exist to provide guidance for the most likely scenarios that may be encountered. These GOGs
were established to seek compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response standard 29CFR1910.120 specifically section q and
appendices c and e.
38
All-Hazard Risk Assessment of the Community
This component is the overall hazard risks for the community in which CFD serves. CFD has evaluated its
jurisdiction utilizing historical data in relation to incidents, injuries, services provided and the impact on the
community. Data has been compiled from the Building and Other Hazards Risk Analysis along with data from
the records management software (RMS), the National Risk Index, the US Census Administration, and input
from the personnel serving on the street.
Community Expectations The goal of the Carmel Fire Department is to provide the highest caliber of service possible to the customers
(citizens) and to exceed all expectations they may have.
This level of service is made possible with highly trained fire service personnel, sufficient apparatus, and the
best equipment available. These components are brought together allowing the Carmel Fire Department the
opportunity to mitigate and diffuse any emergency safely and in a timely fashion to have the best chance for a
positive outcome.
The Carmel Fire Department, through an extensive planning process, has strategically placed its fire stations,
personnel, and equipment to enhance and deliver this service. The department may not have sought public
input for these placements, but the process has achieved the established response goals.
The service area for the Carmel Fire Department is comprised mostly of a densely populated assortment of
single and multi-family residences that is host to 101,964 plus customers.
Community Fire and Non-Fire Risk Assessment
The Carmel Fire Department conducts and analyzes the fire and non-fire risk assessment of the community.
This encompasses a wide variety of potential incidents that have occurred and may have a potential of occurring
within the response area. The City of Carmel is divided into reporting districts with each being assessed so
that it receives the appropriate response level to accommodate the potential hazard risk. Response levels have
been modified over the years due to the increased staffing levels and relocation of fire stations.
The department identifies calls by service type in each planning zone during annual statistical reporting. This
is accomplished by utilizing reports in the fire records management system (FRMS) as well as Crystal
Reports® software. The department utilizes many reports for monthly and year end statistical data. This
allows for planning review of increased or decreased run load in certain areas as well as identifying trends that
can be used for forecasting. These reports are then plotted using geographical information systems (GIS)
39
mapping for ease in identifying areas of concern, frequency of incidents, high frequency response areas, trends,
and each type of response provided in each planning zone, (quadrant) within the jurisdiction. These statistics
have sometimes resulted in the change of response plans.
All Hazard Risk Assessment
Fire Detection and Building Construction Impact on Deployment
The Carmel Fire Department uses the 2012 International Fire and Building Code, with 2014 Indiana Fire and
Building Code Amendments. The Carmel Fire Department also has several local fire and life safety ordinances
incorporated into the existing ordinances. The fire prevention division is very aggressive in reviewing plans
of new construction and inspections of existing businesses within the response area to ensure life safety and
property conservation.
Insurance Industry Impact on Deployment
Prior to the self-assessment and the accreditation process, there was only one method of rating a fire
department’s level of readiness and deployment capabilities. The Insurance Service Office (ISO) designed a
rating system known as the fire suppression rating schedule or more commonly called the ISO Grading
Schedule. For over a century, the insurance industry has been evaluating the fire defenses of cities throughout
the United States. This evaluation process was an important element in establishing fire insurance rates for
individual properties.
The basic objective of the Insurance Service Office was to provide a tool for the insurance industry to measure
quantitatively the major elements of an entity’s fire suppression system. Three basic elements are considered
in the grading schedule: receiving and handling fire alarms (10%), fire department (40%), and water supply
(50%). These elements placed a fire department/city in a Public Protection Class on a relative scale from 1 to
10, with 10 representing less than the minimum recognized protection. Following the ISO Public Protection
Classification (PPC) survey of the department in 2007, the city of Carmel, and Clay Township received a
public protection class 3. The department requested a review by ISO and was awarded a rating of “2/2y”
public protection class rating in 2017. ISO was out and reevaluated the department in spring of 2023 and we
40
are currently awaiting those results.
The Carmel Fire Departments current deployment standards were created using all of the above information.
This standard of cover/risk hazard plan has utilized additional methods of exacting deployment standards that
will evaluate and enhance current practices, some of which are internal criteria, National Fire Protection
Association, and budget performance measures.
Deployment The Carmel Fire Department’s deployment practices require the move up of apparatus to vacated stations by
using mutual-aid resources. This is based off incident type and available resources in the district.
The move up procedure does not only pertain to
fires but is also used during medical emergencies
and multiple incidents (stacking) where the
demand on existing resources reaches a minimum
threshold, which is determined by the battalion
chief (shift commander). The existing practice is
to cover stations with mutual aid companies as
deemed necessary by the battalion chief, while
existing resources are committed to an incident or
otherwise unavailable.
The department uses the adopted planning zone
methodology to create and monitor established
response area boundaries. The zones are reviewed
on an annual basis at a minimum per department
policy. Many factors are taken into consideration for response areas (planning zones), these include:
population density, land use, statistical run load, occupancy type, access, hazards/risks, and service demands.
The City of Carmel and Clay Township consists of a mixture of business, office, retail, restaurant, and
recreational types of companies. The area also contains many different residential areas that range from small
one family residences to very large residences including multi-family apartment/condo structures. The
department does not utilize special responses based on socio-economic and demographic characteristics such
as blighted areas and population earning statistics. Responses are based on occupancy type and location (in
relation to automatic aid areas & water supply). High life hazard buildings receive an additional engine and
ladder company on the initial response for any structure fires. The department has identified critical
infrastructure within its planning zones that if destroyed would be a critical or essential economic loss to the
41
community.
The city of Carmel is divided into 64 reporting districts and 19 planning zones. The reporting districts were
created and are maintained after analyzing geographical location, risk factors, automatic aid areas, response
recommendations, and historical incident data. Once the data is analyzed reporting districts are modified as
needed with each being assessed so that it receives the appropriate response level to accommodate the potential
hazard risk.
Response levels have been modified over the years due to the increased staffing levels and relocation of fire
stations; this is also to accommodate the addition of another ambulance in the western portion of the response
area.
The response area has no industrial manufacturing facilities or high levels of hazardous materials present. With
the overall community being of modern construction, the department relies on automated fire alarms and
sprinklers
systems that are monitored by private agencies for early detection, notification and to lower the impact of the
incident.
Fire station locations and staffing patterns must be prepared to respond to worst-case scenarios. Many
factors make up risk:
occupant mobility,
construction features,
fire protection,
fire flow,
nature of the occupancy or its contents,
age of the building,
severity of the medical emergency,
While risk factors all have some common thread, the rationale of placing occupancy within any risk assessment
category is to assume the worst case based on historical incidents. The level of service provided should be
based on the factors of a worst-case scenario.
The objective of the risk assessment is to reduce the probability of a truly serious loss occurring in a very
unusual event. This involves keeping routine emergencies from becoming serious loss situations. Resources
must arrive quickly with sufficient strength to stop the escalation of the emergency.
Given that risk is related to how a fire department responds, fire agencies over the years have attempted to
42
match an appropriate response to risks. Prior to the accreditation process, there was no standardized method
for identifying risk and appropriate response models.
Target hazards were known to the fire service and insurance industry to confront firefighters with extreme
challenges, such as those found in lumberyards, woodworking shops, and businesses using combustible fuels
or solvents. Additionally, the Insurance Service Office (ISO) used a “fire flow” calculation to determine how
much firefighting water such a target hazard would need and from that calculated how many firefighters would
be required, the size of the fire pumps, and the capabilities of the water main systems.
Building Hazard Risk Analysis Evaluation
The Carmel Fire Department fire marshal’s office had developed a Building Hazard Risk Analysis Evaluation
(BHRAE) form to assist in putting commercial structures into an identified risk category. If needed personnel
and equipment arrive too late, the fire will grow beyond the ability of the initial assignment to stop the fire
spread. The incident then grows to multiple alarms, draining down the community’s resources. Therefore, the
balancing act is to have a deployment plan that does not require frequent greater alarm fires.
For the BHRAE analysis, all personnel were introduced to the methodology and building information was
collected. The information from the evaluation forms was entered into a spreadsheet that performed building
fire risk scoring calculations automatically. The risk score produced for each commercial structure was placed
into reporting districts, which were determined utilizing the Carmel fire reporting districts map with the help
from city of Carmel GIS department.
The BHRAE process calculates the following areas:
building area,
height,
construction type,
fire flow,
access,
exposure separation,
hazards,
fire load,
fire protection systems,
occupancy type,
occupant load,
occupant mobility
43
economic impact The hazard score is utilized to determine the values exposed to loss, the probability of an event occurring, and
the consequence of such an event on the community.
The desired outcome of the BHRAE process is an accurate and current description of the values-at-risk (VAR)
in the community. VAR is the inventory of a community’s potential fire problems arrayed from the most
valuable and vulnerable risk to the least valuable and vulnerable risk, which the fire department is deployed to
protect. If used as proposed, BHRAE will enable users to identify and evaluate important factors of individual
buildings, reporting districts and an overall community profile with respect to the need for fire and emergency
service deployment.
The model begins with demographics, an assessment of the overall threat potential to the community. This
includes but is not limited to most catastrophic events that could occur to a community. This determination is
based on historical, climatic, geographic, or other conditions.
For an area to be classified as high risk it should be of substantial size and should contain a predominating
concentration of properties presenting a high risk of life loss, loss of economic value to the community, or
large loss damage to property in the event of fire, and a high fire flow area. Normally these structures lack
built-in fire protection features and/or contain occupants not capable of self-preservation. The BHRAE score
from such buildings is 46 or greater. The objective in these structures is to stop the escalation of a major fire.
This would involve conducting search and rescue and confining the fire to the floor of origin with the rapid
deployment of resources. Currently, there are 69 “high risk” commercial occupancies within the Carmel Fire
Department districts.
A moderate risk area contains average build-up and the risk of life loss or damage to property in the event of
a fire (in a single occupancy) is usually limited to the occupants, although in certain areas, such as small
apartment complexes the risk of death or injury may be relatively high. Concentrations of property may vary,
but generally will be of limited extent. (This risk classification is often the greatest factor in the distribution
of fire stations for assuring fair and equitable access to initial attack capability.) The BHRAE score for such a
building is from 30-45. The objective is to stop the escalation of a minor fire. Typically, this means conducting
search and rescue and confining the fire to the room of origin, plus limiting heat and smoke damage to near
room of origin. Currently, the Carmel Fire Department response area contains 322 occupancies determined to
be a “moderate risk”.
In an area classified as low risk, the likelihood of life loss is remote and property damage limited, with little
or no possibility of the fire spreading beyond the area of origin. Buildings of this type have BHRAE scores of
13-29. There are 1222 “low risk” occupancies within Carmel Fire Department response area.
44
16 buildings have an undetermined risk level at this point as they are still under construction. Building Hazard Risk Analysis Scores BHRAE scoring was completed on all commercial occupancies in each of the department’s 64 reporting
districts. The BHRAE scores are pertinent to assessing the community risk. For a complete listing of BHRAE
scores for all reporting districts refer to the appendix referencing the BHRAE information. The table below
represents the apartment buildings also.
813
177
114
99
257
169
# of Buildings by District
District 41
District 42
District 43
District 44
District 45
District 46
45
Fire protection and detection systems are documented on all commercial buildings and businesses in the City
of Carmel. The department conducts a pre-plan fire inspection once per year on all commercial buildings,
businesses, and apartment complexes. Fire protection and detection systems are noted on all pre-plans in
Tyler® Fire Records. The pre-plans are made available by the mobile data computers (MDC) in every front-
line apparatus. The type of suppression and detection is recorded along with the location of any fire department
connections on the structure. Noting the presence, type, and location of fire suppression and detection systems
in structures can assist with quickly supplementing the system to gain control of a fire. The process also
identifies structures that might require a special response due to the lack of these systems.
Civilian Fire Related Injuries and Deaths
For the time period of 2019-June 30, 2023 there have been a total of 5 civilian injuries and 1 fatality from fires
in the jurisdiction.
Firefighter Fire Related Injuries and Deaths
For that same time period there have been 18 firefighter injuries and 0 fatalities of CFD personnel. Fire – Loss versus Saves
The department does track the loss versus save aspect of all fires. The results are as follows.
33
1383
186
17
Buildings by Occupancy Classification
S = Storage, U = Misc.
B = Business, M = Mercantile, R = Residential
A = Assembly, E = Educational, F = Factory, H = Hazardous, I = Institutional
Not yet pre‐planned by assigned #
46
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Loss $3,546,850.00 $3,379,020.00 $1,337,949.00 $4,425,783.00 $9,721,800.00
Save $67,463,350.00 $55,028,650.00 $130,118,901.00 $90,501,090.00 $22,004,900.00
$‐
$20,000,000.00
$40,000,000.00
$60,000,000.00
$80,000,000.00
$100,000,000.00
$120,000,000.00
$140,000,000.00
Fire Loss vs. Saves
Loss Save
47
Historical Data Below you will find historical data information in relation to the number of calls that CFD responds to on a
yearly basis. Historical Statistical Charts.
48
*May 2019 – Severe Storms/Straight Line Winds
49
2019‐2023 Calls by Hour of Day and Day of Week
1 Mon 2 Tue 3 Wed 4 Thu 5 Fri 6 Sat 7 Sun Total
00:00‐00:59 127 122 100 132 127 137 140 885
01:00‐01:59 93 102 109 116 108 132 145 805
02:00‐02:59 77 84 89 78 109 111 106 654
03:00‐03:59 85 93 82 82 91 91 114 638
04:00‐04:59 83 95 76 76 78 96 85 589
05:00‐05:59 98 88 71 96 112 96 91 652
06:00‐06:59 114 118 133 137 127 115 102 846
07:00‐07:59 213 181 177 188 177 158 124 1,218
08:00‐08:59 250 290 274 270 278 215 176 1,753
09:00‐09:59 316 315 315 351 311 257 217 2,082
10:00‐10:59 334 360 341 345 349 270 240 2,239
11:00‐11:59 362 386 347 364 349 285 248 2,341
12:00‐12:59 348 349 382 363 337 291 262 2,332
13:00‐13:59 336 368 359 366 372 281 262 2,344
14:00‐14:59 351 330 379 358 315 287 267 2,287
15:00‐15:59 325 350 312 352 320 278 265 2,202
16:00‐16:59 268 315 306 303 325 263 228 2,008
17:00‐17:59 352 332 354 361 345 262 245 2,251
18:00‐18:59 316 306 309 323 313 298 288 2,153
19:00‐19:59 266 288 287 262 294 265 271 1,933
20:00‐20:59 255 227 279 231 294 270 243 1,799
21:00‐21:59 228 218 199 199 234 227 186 1,491
22:00‐22:59 172 162 184 186 198 214 169 1,285
23:00‐23:59 135 139 140 155 159 184 135 1,047
Total 5,504 5,618 5,604 5,694 5,722 5,083 4,609 37,834
Busiest Day of Week Friday
Busiest Time of Day 1‐2 PM
Busiest Time and Day 11‐12 PM Tuesday
50
Overview of Community Risk Assessment The Carmel Fire Department conducted and analyzed the risk assessment of the community. This has
encompassed a wide variety of potential incidents that have occurred and may have a potential of occurring
within the response area. The department’s data for fire loss, injury and life loss, and property loss is
maintained in the Tyler New World® software suite that the department utilizes for the records management
system, (RMS) for fire records. The department uses ESO Solutions® as the RMS for emergency medical
services incidents. The department has been using the New World software since 2006 and ESO since 2011.
The department reviews all levels of risk and identifies the fire and non-fire risks within each of the planning
zones and provides running orders for providing an appropriate response. If the department needs additional
resources to address the risk, automatic/mutual aid response agreements provide those required for the
maximum risk in each of the planning zones. The department reviews all risks within its jurisdiction and has
programmed specific emergency responses into the computer aided dispatch system (CAD). This process also
includes reviewing response data collected from each planning zone annually. This allows the department to
maintain and/or improve response coverage throughout the district. Data that is analyzed consists of the
location of all incidents, travel times for all assigned apparatus as well as the ERF (effective response force)
times. These statistics are used to evaluate the effectiveness of available resources and their deployments. The
department uses the Emergency Response Data Analysis Guideline as the documented methodology for
monitoring the emergency response for each service type in each planning zone (quadrant) within the
jurisdiction.
Risk Methodology
The Carmel Fire Department utilizes the 3-axis approach methodology as defined in the 6th edition Community
Risk Assessment-Standards of Cover book. The department takes into consideration the probability,
consequence, and impact of each incident to determine the risk levels for Fire, EMS, Hazardous Materials and
Technical Rescue calls. Each incident type is given a score of low, moderate, high, severe based on historical
data. The Carmel Fire Department has created and utilizes the Community Risk Analysis and Profile Guideline
as the approved Risk Methodology as detailed below.
Definitions:
Probability: The likelihood of an incident occurring at some point in the future.
Consequence: The possible loss of life that the public faces as a result of the incident.
Impact: The impact that the incident has on staffing resources within the Carmel Fire Department.
Three-Axis Risk Assessment: The mathematical analysis of hazards based on their probability of happening,
51
their consequence to the public, and their impact on department staffing.
Planning Zone: The Carmel Fire Department has divided the jurisdiction into smaller areas based on the US
Census tracts for the purposes of planning.
Procedure:
The department has adopted a three-axis risk methodology for the assessment of risk within the community.
The three axes are Probability, Consequence, and Impact. The consequence axis is determined by establishing
the number of civilian lives at risk as a result of the incident. A higher number of lives at risk results in a
higher consequence number being used in the calculation. The following table is used to determine the
consequence number for calculations:
Consequence Number of civilian lives at risk
0 to 1 2
2 to 10 3
10 to 50 4
50 to 100 5
>100 6
The consequence axis for EMS runs is determined slightly differently. Due to the fact that generally only one
life is at risk at a time in an EMS incident the consequence is determined by the severity of the run. A Basic
Life Support (BLS) run is the lowest risk for greater harm while certain types of Advanced Life Support (ALS)
runs are the highest risk for greater harm. The following table is used to determine the consequence number
for EMS run calculations:
Consequence
Severity of the EMS run
BLS Run 1
ALS Run 3
Stroke, Cardiac Arrest, Chest Pain Run 5
The consequence axis for technical rescue runs is also determined slightly differently. The low probability
and generally small number of victims involved in technical rescue runs require a greater importance be given
to rescuer risk and safety. The following table is used to determine the consequence number for technical
rescue run calculations:
52
Consequence
Severity of risk to the rescuers on Technical Rescue Runs
Elevator removal 1
Vehicle/Machinery Extrication 3
Water, rope, confined space, trench rescue 5
The impact axis is determined by establishing the number of department personnel that respond to the given
call type. A higher number of department responders results in a higher impact number being used in the
calculation. The following table is used to determine the impact number for calculations:
Impact
Personnel Dispatched on Hazard
1 to 5 2
6 to 11 3
12 to 17 4
18 to 22 5
>22 6
The third axis is the probability axis. The probability axis is determined through a combination of processes.
Primarily the probability is determined through a retrospective study of the emergency runs over the past five-
year period. The following table is used to calculate probability number:
Probability
# of run type calls/total # of runs x 10,000
0 to 5 2
5 to 10 3
10 to 100 4
100 to 1000 5
>1000 6
This is sufficient for the overall jurisdiction but does not provide an accurate representation when looking at
the planning zone level. Therefore, in the situation where a particular run type does not occur with much
frequency (for example a mass casualty incident (MCI)) a different approach is required.
53
The probability of an MCI is determined by an examination of the most frequently traveled highways within
the jurisdiction and assigning a probability number based on the traffic flow on that highway. Similarly, the
very low number of severe risk fires (multi-family dwelling, commercial, and institutional fires) requires a
different approach. In this case, the existing Building Hazard Risk Analysis Evaluation (BHRAE) is utilized
to identify all of the severe risk fire hazards and which planning zone they are located in. A probability number
is assigned based on the number of severe hazard buildings within that planning zone.
After establishing the probability, consequence, and impact numbers the Heron’s Formula modified to find the
volume of a Tetrahedron is used to assign a risk assessment number:
j(PJ)²+(PC)²+(JC)² = Risk Score
2
Where:
P = Probability I = Impact
C = Consequence
A Risk Score is established for each fire, EMS, hazardous material, and technical rescue hazard in the
jurisdiction. By comparing grouping these hazards into their separate categories and then comparing the Risk
Scores a profile of risk is established in each category. The risk profile will establish low, moderate, high, and
severe risks in each category for the entire jurisdiction. For example:
To calculate the risk of an assist invalid run for the entire jurisdiction we must establish the probability,
consequence, and impact of the hazard.
Probability of Outside Fire = Number of Outside Fire runs for last 5 years divided by the total number of runs
for the last 5 years multiplied times 10,000 (to make the number easier to work with). This yields a total of
125.23. Utilizing the table above the probability number is 5.
Consequence of Outside Fire = Number of Civilian lives at risk. For this run type the number of civilian lives
at risk is usually 0 to 1. Therefore, the consequence number is 2. Impact of Outside Fire = Number of personnel
sent on the initial dispatch. Generally, a single engine company is dispatched on an outside fire (mulch fire,
trash fire, etc.). Using the table above the impact number is 2.
The probability, consequence, and impact numbers are now placed into Heron’s equation.
j(PJ)²+(PC)²+(JC)² = Risk Number j(5x2)²+(5x2)²+(2x2)² = 10.39
2 2
54
The following table is used to categorize risk into classifications:
Low Risk 0 to 14
Moderate Risk 14 to 20
High Risk > 20
Therefore, utilizing the table above, Outside Fires constitute a Low Risk for the Carmel Fire Department.
The Risk Profile for the entire jurisdiction is then used to establish a risk profile for each planning zone. The
established low, moderate, high, and severe risk categories will be maintained from the jurisdiction profile.
However, the probabilities will be recalculated based on the number of previous runs in that specific hazard
category. Therefore, while an Outside Fire is a Low Risk; through data analysis we can predict that there is a
higher probability for an Outside Fire occurring in quadrant 45F than any other quadrant in the jurisdiction.
So, quadrant 45F is at a higher risk for Outside Fires than the other quadrants.
Historical data shows that the risk analysis of each level is as follows:
Risk Legend
Low Risk 0-14
Moderate Risk14-20
High Risk >20
EMS Consequence Probability Impact Risk Score
BLS Run 1 6 3 13.58
ALS Run 3 6 3 19.09
Stroke, Chest Pain, Cardiac Arrest 5 5 3 23.18
Fire Consequence Probability Impact Risk Score
Outside Fire 2 5 2 10.39
SFD Fire 3 4 5 19.61
MFD/Commercial Fire 5 3 6 26.92
Hazardous Materials Consequence Probability Impact Risk Score
CO Leak 3 4 2 11.05
Methane Leak 3 5 4 19.61
Spill/Leak/ Release Other 5 4 4 22.98
55
Technical Rescue Consequence Probability Impact Risk Score
Stalled Elevator 1 4 3 9.19
Vehicle/Machinery Extrication 3 3 5 16.29
Water, Trench, Collapse, etc. 5 3 5 23.18
EMS: The CFD has determined the risk levels for EMS as stated above. The overall consequence, probability, and
impact of emergency medical services basic life and advanced life support incidents are low. The overall
consequence, probability, and impact of a vehicle accident without injury incident is moderate. The overall
consequence, probability, and impact of a vehicle accident with injury incident is high. This has been
discovered utilizing historical data and evaluating the impact of the community in the event of an EMS call.
In 2020, CFD adjusted the risk criteria for EMS calls.
EMS 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
High 362 700 439 415 201
Moderate 2634 2243 2844 3081 1646
Low 1856 1402 1668 1915 894
Fires: CFD has determined the following risk levels for fires as stated above. Consequence, probability,
impact, and property type have been included in this methodology. Outside fires are the lowest of
the risk levels. The moderate level risk consists of single-family dwelling fires. The high-level risk
consists of multi-family dwelling, commercial, and institutional fires.
Fire 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
High 6 7 8 7 6
Moderate 22 14 9 18 13
Low 111 93 99 102 68
56
Hazardous Materials:
CFD has determined the risk levels for Hazardous Materials as stated above. The overall consequence,
probability, and impact of CO Leak incident is low. The overall consequence, probability, and impact of
methane leak incident is moderate. The overall consequence, probability, and impact of all other Hazardous
Materials incidents are high. This has been discovered utilizing historical data and evaluating the impact of
the community in the event of a Hazardous Materials call.
HazMat 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
High 19 30 24 19 14
Moderate 96 75 104 148 39
Low 14 17 20 18 15
Technical Rescue:
CFD has determined the following risk levels for technical rescue as stated above. The overall
consequence, probability, and impact of removing a victim from a stalled elevator incident is low. The
overall consequence, probability, and impact of extrication of a patient from a motor vehicle incident is
moderate.
The overall consequence, probability, and impact of all water rescue, confined space, trench, and structural
collapse rescue incidents are high. This has been discovered utilizing historical data and evaluating the
impact of the community in the event of a technical rescue call.
Tech Rescue 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
High 13 1 5 5 2
Moderate 2 0 6 3 2
Low 23 22 26 24 22
57
Response Time Components
The CFAI has defined response time elements as a cascade of events. This cascade is similar to that used by
the medical community to describe the events leading up to the initiation, mitigation, and ultimate outcome of
a cardiac arrest. It is imperative to keep in mind that certain intervals described can be directly influenced by
the fire service (turnout time and travel time). Others can be influenced indirectly such as the discovery and
notification interval through public education and engineering practices. The fire service can also influence
the call-processing interval through its ability to define standards and compel performance by dispatch centers.
Careful definition of terminology is essential to any conversation about response performance standards. It
becomes even more
critical when an
organization attempts
to benchmark its
performance against
other providers. The
following definitions
are standardized for
discussion of response
performance
parameters.
The response performance continuum is composed of the following time points and time intervals: Event Initiation Point is where factors occur that may ultimately result in an activation of the emergency
response system. Precipitating factors can occur seconds, minutes, hours, or even days before a point of
awareness is reached. An example is the patient who ignores chest discomfort for days until it reaches a critical
point at which he/she makes the decision to seek assistance (point of awareness). It is rarely possible to
quantify the point at which event initiation occurs.
Emergency Event Awareness is the point at which a human being or technologic "sentinel" (i.e., smoke
detector, infrared heat detector, etc.) becomes aware that conditions exist requiring activation of the emergency
response system. This is considered the point of awareness.
Alarm is when awareness triggers an effort to notify the emergency response system. An example of this time
point is the transmittal of a local or central alarm to a public safety answering point (PSAP). Again, it is
difficult to determine the time interval during which this process occurs with any degree of reliability. An
58
interval exists between the awareness point and the alarm point. This interval can be significant, as the alarm
may be transmitted to a distant commercial alarm monitoring organization, which then re-transmits the alarm
to the local 9-1-1 dispatch facility.
Notification occurs when the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) receives an alarm. This transmittal may
take the form of electronic or mechanical notification received and answered by the PSAP.
Call Processing Interval describes the difference between the first ring of the 9-1-1 telephone and/or the first
alert of the alarm panel at the dispatch center and the time the dispatch operator activates station and/or
company alerting devices. The alarm call processing times are captured via the Tyler Technologies®, (New
World®) CAD system.
Dispatch Time is when the dispatcher, having selected appropriate units for response, initiates the notification
of response units.
Turnout Time is the interval between the activation of station and/or company alerting devices and the time
when the responding crew notifies the dispatcher by voice or mobile data computer that the company is
responding. During turnout time, crews cease other activities, don appropriate protective clothing, determine
the location of the call, board, and start the fire apparatus. It is expected that the "responding" signal will be
given when personnel are on-board the apparatus and the apparatus is beginning to roll toward the call.
Travel Time begins at the termination of the turnout time and ends when the responding unit notifies the
dispatcher that it has arrived on the scene.
Arrival Time is the point at which a responding unit arrives on scene.
Initiation of Action occurs when operations to mitigate the event begin. This sometimes varies greatly with
arrival on scene and what arriving companies are faced with. An example would be treating a patient on the
fifth floor of an office building.
Termination of Incident is where response resources have completed the assignment and are available to
respond to another request for service.
59
On Scene Operations, Critical Tasking and Effective Response Force
On scene operations, critical tasking, and effective response force are the elements of a standard of cover study
that determine staffing levels, number of units needed, and duties to be performed on an emergency scene. A
fire department must be able to determine what tasks need to be accomplished in order to ensure a positive
outcome of the situation. The number of personnel and apparatus required to complete those tasks is based on
this knowledge.
The Carmel Fire Department performs aggressive offensive interior fire attacks whenever possible. Through
a structured risk management plan, the department has established the following guidelines to provide direction
to on-scene personnel in evaluating conditions:
We may risk our lives a lot to protect savable lives.
We may risk our lives a little to protect savable property.
We will not risk our lives at all to save what is already lost.
60
On Scene Operations
The variables of fire growth dynamics, life safety hazards of the building’s occupants as well as to the
firefighters, and the potential loss of property combine to determine the fire ground tasks that must be
accomplished to prevent harm and mitigate loss. These tasks are interrelated but can be separated into two
basic types: fire flow and life safety. Fire flow tasks are those related to getting water on the fire. Life safety
tasks are those related to locating and removing any trapped victims from the fire structure and the
establishment of a team to perform rapid intervention team (RIT) tasks.
Fire flow tasks can be accomplished with either handheld hoses or master streams. Master streams take
relatively fewer firefighters to operate because they are most often fixed to the apparatus or are operated outside
of the hazard zone.
The decision to use interior hand lines or exterior master streams is dependent upon several factors, such as:
The building and its inherent characteristics such as size, construction type, and degree of interior
compartmentalization; the fire and its size, location, extent, and the length of time it has been burning; the type
of occupancy and its contents; the life hazard associated with the occupancy including the number and location
of occupants and their physical condition; the arrangement of exterior exposures and the proximity to the
involved structure; the number of
resources that can be committed
to operations as well as the
supporting infrastructure such as
water supply and fire protection
systems; the Carmel Fire
Departments actions and the
effectiveness or ineffectiveness
of those actions; and any special
circumstances associated with the
incident such as inclement
weather.
If the fire has extended beyond the capability of handheld hoses to confine it, or if structural damage is a threat
to firefighters' safety, the priority shifts to prevent the fire from advancing to surrounding exposures. First
arriving firefighters may use a transitional "defensive to offensive" strategy (discussed below) to limit or
remove an Immediate Danger to Life or Health (IDLH) threat while awaiting the arrival of additional resources.
Life safety tasks are based upon the number of occupants, their location, their status (e.g., awake versus
61
sleeping), and their ability to take self-preserving action. For example, ambulatory adults require less
assistance than non-ambulatory
adults. The elderly and small children
also require more assistance. The key
to a fire department's success at a fire
is adequate staffing and coordinated
teamwork. Before on-scene
procedures can be established, the
initial Incident Commander (IC) must
select an appropriate initial strategy –
offensive, defensive, or investigative.
An offensive strategy is an aggressive
interior fire attack and is used
whenever possible. The top priority is
rescue of trapped victims (life safety).
The Carmel Fire Department’s goal is
to eliminate any and all fire related
deaths or injuries and to contain fires
to their room of origin. The first objective is to put a hose line between the victims and the fire and to rescue
those victims by removing them from the hazard area. The second is to extinguish the fire as quickly as
possible.
A defensive strategy is one that does not allow interior fire attack except as needed to rescue trapped
firefighters. When in the defensive strategy, the structure is considered devoid of all savable human life. There
are no tenable spaces within the structure and no attempts are made to retrieve bodies because fire and structural
conditions do not warrant the risk to firefighters.
An investigative strategy is where first arriving unit see nothing out of the ordinary. All other arriving units
will remain in staging to await an assignment from the Incident Commander.
Fire Suppression:
The primary goal of fire operations is to provide enough firefighters and equipment in a strategic location so
that an acceptable response force can respond to and reach fire scenes to mitigate the problem before flashover
occurs.
Fire suppression requires the goal for the Carmel Fire Department to be arriving on scene with qualified fire
62
personnel and other resources deemed necessary to reduce the advancement of the fire. A prompt response
time will allow a better opportunity to rescue any “at-risk” victims, containment of the fire and the ability to
perform the proper salvage operations to preserve the property.
Stages of Fire: All fires, regardless of the speed of growth or length of burn time, go through similar dynamic
growth stages. The most critical is the flashover stage.
Smoldering Stage: First phase of a fire when heat is applied to a combustible material, the heat oxidizes the
material surface into combustible gases. The heat from oxidization raises the temperature of the surrounding
materials. A fire progresses from the smoldering phase either immediately or slowly, determined by type of
fuel, nearby combustibles and/or surrounding air.
Incipient Stage: When temperatures get high enough, visible flames can be seen, and the stage is changed
from smoldering to “incipient” or “open burning”. Usually, the burning is contained in the immediate area of
origin.
Flashover Phase: Not all of the combustible gases are consumed in the incipient stage. They rise and form a
superheated gas layer on the ceiling. As the volume of gasses increase, they begin to spread across the ceiling
and bank down heating other combustibles until they reach ignition temperatures. When the temperatures are
hot enough to ignite all combustibles in the room of origin, a “flashover occurs”. The fire room is untenable
for human occupation at 212⁰ degrees and when flashover occurs, it instantaneously increases the temperatures
to approximately 1500⁰degrees. Flashover is the direct result of time and temperature.
Significance of Flashover
Pre-Flashover Post-Flashover
Fire limited to room or origin requires
small attack lines.
Search and rescue efforts easier.
Requires few resources and can be
handled by initial effective response
force.
Fire spreads beyond room of origin.
Requires more or larger attack lines.
Compounds search and rescue efforts.
Requires additional resources.
The "time/temperature curve" standard is based on data from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
and the Insurance Services Organization (ISO), which has established that a typical point source of ignition in
a residential house will "flashover" at some time between 5 and 30 minutes after ignition, turning a typical
"room and contents" fire into a structural fire of some magnitude.
63
Critical Task Resources
Structure Fire
Single-family dwelling fires are considered the department’s most common fire type; therefore, critical tasks
are outlined for this type of response. These tasks must be conducted in a timely manner by firefighters in
order to control the fire and to
give any trapped occupants
the greatest chances for
survival. The fire department
is responsible for assuring
that responding companies
are capable of performing all
of the described tasks in a
prompt and proficient
manner.
Attack Line: A 1¾-inch hose
that produces a minimum of 150 gallon per minute (GPM) manned by a minimum of three firefighters or a
2½-inch hose that produces a minimum of 250 GPM manned by a minimum of three firefighters. Each engine
carries a set of attack lines that are pre-connected to the apparatus, folded on the hose bed, or packed for
carrying into standpipe equipped high-rise buildings.
The selection of which attack line to use depends upon the speed with which the line must be placed in service,
the type of
structure, the
potential fuel
loading it contains
and the presence or
lack of dividing
walls or partitions
within the
structure, and the
volume of water
that is needed to ensure complete extinguishment.
Search and Rescue: A minimum of two firefighters along with a line officer assigned to search for living
64
victims and remove them from danger while the attack crew moves between the victims and the fire to stop
the fire from advancing. A three-person crew is normally sufficient for most moderate risk structures, but
more crews are required in multi-story buildings or structures with people who are not capable of self-
preservation.
Ventilation Crew: A minimum of two firefighters are required to open a horizontal or vertical ventilation
channel when the attack crew is ready to enter the building. Vertical ventilation or ventilation of a multi-story
building can require more than two firefighters. Ventilation removes superheated gases, noxious and obscuring
smoke, and prevents flashover. This increases firefighter safety by allowing interior crews to see and work
closer to the seat of the fire. It also gives the toxic products of combustion an exit route away from endangered
occupants or unburned property.
Ventilation must be closely coordinated with the fire attack. If it is performed too soon, the fire will get
additional oxygen and grow. If performed too late, the attack crew will be operating in an extremely hostile
environment where superheated gases and smoke obscure firefighter’s vision and slows down the attack.
Backup Line: A 1¾-inch or 2½-inch line manned by a minimum of three firefighters is deployed behind the
attack crew to protect their means of egress in the event the fire overwhelms them, or a problem develops with
the attack line.
A 2½-inch line may be used for back up instead of a 1¾-inch line when the type of fire is one that could grow
rapidly if not stopped by the initial attack line.
Rapid Intervention Team: A minimum of four firefighters equipped with flashlights, radios, RIT self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), flat head axe, halligan tool, RIT search rope, and Thermal Imagining
Camera (TIC) are available near the entry point to enter the structure tasked with performing search and rescue
of injured or lost firefighters. This particular requirement is an Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) rule.
Exposure Line: A minimum of a 1¾-inch attack line manned by three firefighters may be taken above the fire
in multi-story buildings to prevent fire extension or used externally to protect nearby structures from igniting
from exposure to radiant heat. In situations where the heat release is great, such as fires involving large
quantities of flammable liquids, a 2½ inch line or apparatus mounted deck gun could be used.
Pump Operator: A firefighter/engineer must be assigned to operate the fire apparatus and supply the correct
pressure to the attack, back up and exposure lines, and to monitor the pressure changes caused by changing
flows on each line. This firefighter/engineer also completes the hose hookups to the correct discharges and
completes the water supply hookup to the correct intake. The pump operator can sometimes make the hydrant
65
hookup alone if the engine is near a hydrant, but the hydrant spacing for moderate risk fires often precludes
this.
Water Supply: A minimum of one firefighter must establish a reliable water supply by either connecting to a
fire hydrant or initiating a tanker shuttle operation. Regardless of which method, timing is a critical factor.
An engine has about four minutes of water if one 1¾-inch line is flowing.
Incident Commander: An officer is assigned to remain outside the structure to coordinate the attack, evaluate
results, manage the operating strategy, arrange for more resources, and monitor conditions that might
jeopardize crew safety.
Staffing Levels - Fires Low Risk - Outside Fires
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
Pump Operations 1 1st Arriving Engineer
IC/Safety 1 1st Arriving Company Officer
Hand Line Crew 2 Arriving Engine Firefighters
Total Effective Response Force 4
Moderate Risk – Single Family Dwelling Fires Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
Incident Command 1 1st Arriving Battalion Chief
Personnel Accountability 1 ving Executive Officer
Water Supply Pump Operations 1 1st Arriving Engineer
Primary Attack Crew 3 1st Arriving Engine
Secondary Water Supply Back-up Line Pump Operations 1 2nd Arriving Engineer
Back-up Line 3 2nd Arriving Engine
Rapid Intervention Team 4 3rd Arriving Engine
Force Entry/Search/Salvage/Overhaul 5 1st Arriving Ladder 1st Arriving Ambulance
VEIS/Outside Vent/Ladders/Utilities 2 1st Arriving Ladder
Scene Safety 1 Safety Officer
Total Effective Response Force 22
66
High Risk – Multiple Family Dwelling/Commercial/Institutional Fires Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
Incident Command 1 1st Arriving Battalion Chief
Personnel Accountability 1 ving Executive Officer
Water Supply Pump Operations 1 1st Arriving Engineer
Primary Attack Crew 5 1st Arriving Engine 1st
Arriving Ambulance
Water Supply Support Sprinkler System Pump secondary
attack line
1 2nd Arriving Engineer
Secondary Attack Crew 3 2nd Arriving Engine
Water Supply/Supply Aerial/Back-up Pump Operations 1 3rd Arriving Engineer
Back-up Line 3 3rd Arriving Engineer
RIT 4 4th Arriving Engine
FE/Ventilation/Overhaul/Salvage 5 1st Arriving Ladder Search/Ventilation 5 2nd Arriving Ladder
Scene Safety 1 Safety Officer
Total Effective Response Force 31
Emergency Medical Service (EMS)
Time requirements for emergency medical service calls are comparable to fire incidents. Brain damage is
normally irreversible after 10 minutes. Interventions include early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and
electrical defibrillation. Equally important, is expedient intervention in cases of acute myocardial infarction
(AMI), stroke, and traumatic injury.
The Carmel Fire Department has Life Pak® 15’s in all frontline apparatus and 3 administrative paramedic staff
cars, the remaining staff cars carry automatic external defibrillators, (AED’s). The department promotes
“public access defibrillation” by assisting businesses, schools, and organizations in the education and
procurement of AED’s. In addition, the department has worked closely with the Carmel police department to
promote the inclusion of an AED on each police vehicle assigned to road patrol.
The Carmel Fire Department also maintains its own Community Training Center (CTC) for the American
Heart Association (AHA). The training center provides the Carmel and Clay township residents, along with
doctors, nurses, paramedics, EMT’s, and first responders courses in Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS),
Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS), Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), Automatic External
67
Defibrillation (AED), first responder, and basic first aid in schools. The training is provided by Carmel
firefighters who have been trained as instructors for the American Heart Association.
Early recognition and treatment of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) has been enhanced by utilizing
sophisticated heart monitoring (12 lead), on each ALS unit that allows the paramedic to begin early treatment
of heart attack victims to help minimize the damage heart muscle.
Emergency Medical Services Critical Tasking
Requests for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) comprise approximately 65% of all service demands for the
department. These calls include, but are not
limited to: car accidents, childbirth, heart
attack, stroke, difficulty breathing, and
cardiac arrest (i.e., not breathing, no pulse).
The wide assortment of EMS calls makes it
difficult to outline the critical tasks for each
call type; however local protocol is followed
for all situations. For most responses, an
advanced life support (ALS) engine and an
advanced life support/basic life support
(BLS) ambulance respond which allows for a
minimum of six personnel certified as EMT-
B and one being a certified paramedic to provide medical care.
68
Based on the call type, a response can be upgraded, or subsequently downgraded, either automatically via
dispatch, or by individual personnel based on information provided.
All EMS alarms are processed and dispatched by the Hamilton County Communications Center utilizing the
Medical Priority Emergency Medical Dispatching (EMD) protocols.
Staffing Levels – EMS Low Risk - BLS Response Calls
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
BLS/ALS Patient Care 3 Engine
Treatment/Transport 2 Ambulance
IC/Safety 1 Engine Officer
Total Effective Response Force 6
Moderate Risk - ALS Response Calls
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
BLS/ALS Patient Care 3 Engine
Treatment/Transport 2 Ambulance
IC/Safety 1 Engine Officer
Total Effective Response Force 6
High Risk - Chest Pain, Stroke, & Cardiac Arrest Response Calls
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
BLS/ALS Patient Care 3 Engine
Treatment/Transport 2 Ambulance
IC/Safety 1 Engine Officer
Total Effective Response Force 6
69
Hazardous Materials (Haz-Mat)/Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) All Carmel Fire Department personnel are trained to the Haz-Mat/WMD operations level per OSHA 1910.120
at a minimum. Additionally, several firefighters are trained to the hazmat technician level and participate as
members of the Hamilton County
Hazardous Materials Task Force
(HCHMTF). In the event a
hazardous materials incident
requires a technician response, the
Carmel Fire Department will
utilize the HCHMTF and will
provide on-duty personnel to assist
as technicians.
Hazardous Materials Response Critical Tasking
All Carmel Fire Department personnel are trained to the HazMat operations level as a minimum, per OSHA
1910.120. Additionally, about 50% of firefighters are trained to the HazMat technician level and participate
as members of the Hamilton County Hazardous Materials Task Force (HCHMTF). In the event a hazardous
materials incident requires a technician response, the Carmel Fire Department will utilize the HCHMTF and
provide on-duty personnel to assist as technicians. The tasking for hazmat incidents are followed through
guidelines established internally and supplemented by the District 5 Hazardous Materials Training and
Advisory Council.
Staffing Levels – Hazardous Materials
Low Risk - Carbon Monoxide Alarm
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
IC/Safety 1 Engine Officer
Monitor Atmosphere 3 1st Arriving Engine
al Effective Response Force 4
70
Moderate Risk – Methane Leak
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
Incident Command 1 1st Arriving Battalion Chief
Personnel Accountability 1 1st Arriving Executive Officer
Monitor Atmosphere 4 1st Arriving Engine
Pump Protection Line 1 2nd Arriving Engineer
Protection Line 2 2nd Arriving Engine
Ventilation 5 1st Arriving Ladder
Safety 1 2nd Arriving Engine Officer
Total Effective Response Force 15
High Risk – Spill/Leak/Release other than CO or Methane
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
Incident Command 1 1st Arriving Battalion Chief
Personnel Accountability 1 1st Arriving Executive Officer
Pump Protection Line 1 1st Arriving Engineer
Protection Line 3 1st Arriving Engine
Defensive and Offensive
Operations 6 Engine 345 Hazmat 345
Medical Monitoring 2 1st Arriving Ambulance
Scene Safety 1 Safety Officer
Total Effective Response Force 15
Technical Rescue:
Technical rescue incidents require the same response as any other emergency run. The first unit to arrive
assumes the responsibility and will determine if the incident is beyond the scope of the first responder’s level
of expertise. The Carmel Fire Department does not have a technical rescue unit; instead, it relies on automatic
aid. The Carmel Fire Department utilizes mutual aid from Westfield, Fishers, Noblesville, and Cicero Fire
Departments to respond with members who are trained to the technician level to deliver a coordinated response.
71
Low Risk - Remove from Stalled Elevator
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
Command/Accountability 1 1st Engine Officer
Contact Victim 1 st Arriving Engine Firefighter
Secure Power 1 st Arriving Engine Firefighter
Remove Victim 6
1st Arriving Engine 1st Arriving Ladder
Scene Safety 1 Safety Officer
Total Effective Response Force 10
Moderate Risk - Extricate from Vehicle
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
Incident Command 1 1st Arriving Battalion Chief
Personnel Accountability 1 1st Arriving Executive Officer
Triage 1 1st Arriving Paramedic
Treatment 3 1st Arriving Engine
Pump Protective Line 1 2nd Arriving Engineer
Operate Protective Line 3 2nd Arriving Engine
Extricate Victim 5 1st Arriving Ladder
Transport Victims 4 1st Ambulance 2nd Ambulance
Scene Safety 1 Safety Officer
Total Effective Response Force 20
72
High Risk - Rescue from Rope, Confined Space, Trench, Water
Task Performed Personnel Needed Apparatus Responsible
Incident Command 1 1st Arriving Battalion Chief
Personnel Accountability 1 1st Arriving Executive Officer
Victim Stabilization and Transport 2 1st Arriving Ambulance
Rescue Officer 1 Ladder 341 Officer or external tech rescue team member
Rigging Officer 1
Ladder 341 Rope Technician or external tech rescue team member
Victim Extrication 13
Engine 341
Ladder 341 External tech rescue team
Scene Safety 1 Safety Officer
Total Effective Response Force 20
Establishment of an Effective Response Force On March 7, 2017, the Hamilton County Public Safety Communications went live on a new computer aided
dispatch (CAD) system. During the CAD build process, many new call types were created. The department’s
command staff met and reviewed all system call types in order to establish an appropriate effective response
force (ERF) for each incident type. The department has conducted a critical task analysis of each risk category
and/or fire incident to determine the first-due and ERF capabilities. These incidents: fire, emergency medical
response (EMS), hazardous materials, and technical rescue are identified during the risk assessment and are
based upon historical response.
Once critical tasks have been identified and defined, an effective response force can be established. This force
is defined as the amount of equipment and personnel that must reach a specific location within the specified
response time. Fire risk cannot be held to zero. Thus, the objective of this standard of response coverage study
is to identify a balance among distribution, concentration, and reliability that will keep fire risk at a reasonable
level, while yielding the maximum savings of life and property.
The fire scene is unpredictable in many ways. While it is possible to state what critical tasks must be
accomplished in order to extinguish a fire, it is not always possible to predict how many firefighters it will take
to accomplish those tasks. The number of personnel and the amount of equipment necessary to accomplish
73
the critical tasks listed will vary due to the following factors:
Delayed response;
Building construction;
Number of occupants;
Physical and emotional condition of occupants;
Extent of fire upon arrival (flashover);
Built-in fire protection;
Area of fire involvement;
Firefighter or civilian injuries;
Water supply
Equipment failure.
The need for more personnel may arise on any fire scene at any time. Fire conditions must dictate the minimum
response needed for any given fire, even if that response exceeds the requirements listed in this document. The
experience and professional judgment of our officers to request additional resources early in an incident is
highly valued. Officers are encouraged to call for help whenever they feel it may be useful.
The Carmel Fire Department utilizes risk assessment, staffing considerations, equipment standards, and task
analysis of the necessary elements needed to mitigate common fire emergencies. These elements are outlined
in the tables listed below.
Distribution
The term "distribution" describes the station and resource locations needed to minimize and terminate
emergencies by assuring a sufficiently rapid first due response deployment. Distribution is measured by the
percent of the jurisdiction covered by first due units within the jurisdiction.
Concentration
Concentration is the spacing of multiple resources arranged within close enough proximity that an initial
effective response force can be assembled on-scene within sufficient time frames. An initial effective response
force is one that will most likely stop the escalation of an emergency of a specific risk type.
In determining concentration, the Carmel Fire Department again looked at risk assessment, call volume,
population, and critical tasking. When considering concentration of units, it should be noted that the
Department has entered into automatic and/or mutual aid agreements with all surrounding communities. These
agreements benefit the Carmel Fire Department by allowing the use of neighboring fire stations within close
enough proximity to bolster initial effective response forces for the Carmel Fire Department.
74
Additional resources may be obtained by utilizing automatic aid through the established running orders in the
Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Center. The running orders have been established to go up to at least 100
stations deep for any call type in the CAD system.
With the current running orders, there has not been a need to write special running orders for a specific structure
in the Carmel Fire Department response area. However, the department will continue to review new and
existing structures to see if there is a need to establish a special running order.
Reliability
Response reliability is defined as the probability that the required amount of staffing and apparatus will be
available when a fire or emergency call is received.
If every piece of fire department's apparatus were available in its desired location every time a fire/EMS call
was received, then the department's response reliability would be 100 percent. If, however, a call is received
for a particular company and that company is busy at another call, a substitute company must be assigned from
another station. If the substituting station is too far away, that company cannot respond within the maximum
prescribed travel time.
The department has implemented a video conferencing system that allows apparatus to stay in district and
participate in classroom training, which will help with reliability keeping those units in their primary district
while still participating in training activities. Also, the department has implemented a modified response
during severe storms when there is the probability of several back-to-back alarm calls, meaning a single unit
will respond on the alarm call for an investigation. The department is continually looking for ways to make
sure response reliability is considered in all aspects of the department.
As the number of emergency calls per day increases, so does the probability that a needed piece of apparatus
will already be busy when a call is received. Consequently, the department's response reliability decreases.
The department examines the emergency response data for occurrences of simultaneous responses in the same
district. As the number of simultaneous responses increases the reliability of having the closest apparatus
available to respond decreases. The chart below shows the number of simultaneous responses for each
response district along with the percentage of the total. 95% and greater is colored green, 90-95% is colored
yellow, and below 90% is colored red. Below 90% means that at least 10% of the time or 1 out of 10 times
there is already at least one run happening in the response district when a second run is dispatched.
It should be noted that an unusually strong windstorm occurred in 2019 that accounted for many simultaneous
runs being dispatched for power lines and trees that had been knocked down.
Greater than 95% is green. Between 90% and 95% is yellow. Less than 90% is red.
75
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41A 112 135 155 190 49 641
1 106 131 149 186 49 621 96.9%
2 6 4 6 4 20
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41B 130 241 255 248 155 1029
1 130 229 243 240 147 989 96.1%
2 12 12 8 8 40
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41C 507 467 687 621 329 2611
1 481 447 627 573 309 2437 93.3%
2 26 20 60 48 20 174
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41D 480 548 519 582 321 2450
1 409 508 493 549 303 2262 92.3%
2 34 40 26 30 18 148
3 3 3 6
4 8 8
5 20 20
6 6 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41D ‐ HIGH 1 1
1 1 1 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41F 1 1 3 5 1 11
1 1 1 3 5 1 11 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41G 3 4 2 1 10
1 3 4 2 1 10 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41H 58 28 39 49 29 203
1 58 28 37 47 29 199 98.0%
2 2 2 4
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
41J 363 246 291 369 200 1469
1 323 238 275 355 184 1375 93.6%
2 14 8 16 14 16 68
3 3 3
4 8 8
5 15 15
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
76
42A 112 107 133 113 66 531
1 112 107 129 111 66 525 98.9%
2 4 2 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42B 280 252 271 293 175 1271
1 272 248 267 277 163 1227 96.5%
2 8 4 4 16 12 44
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42C 42 51 51 67 32 243
1 42 51 51 67 32 243 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42D 34 59 71 61 24 249
1 34 59 71 61 24 249 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42E 193 171 77 59 26 526
1 185 169 75 59 26 514 97.7%
2 8 2 2 12
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42ET 1 1
1 1 1 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42F 37 13 20 33 7 110
1 31 13 20 33 7 104 94.5%
2 6 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42G 62 72 64 67 27 292
1 60 68 64 67 27 286 97.9%
2 2 4 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42H 2 2
1 2 2 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
42I 85 150 59 294
1 85 144 57 286 97.3%
2 6 2 8
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
43A 104 110 121 119 62 516
1 102 110 121 117 62 512 99.2%
2 2 2 4
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
43B 94 85 87 63 42 371
77
1 94 85 85 61 42 367 98.9%
2 2 2 4
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
43C 231 255 304 290 152 1232
1 221 249 290 282 146 1188 96.4%
2 10 6 14 8 6 44
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
43D 9 9 14 10 5 47
1 9 9 14 10 5 47 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
43E 27 17 18 31 14 107
1 27 17 18 31 14 107 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
43F 134 109 153 195 112 703
1 132 107 149 187 112 687 97.7%
2 2 2 4 8 16
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
43G 8 3 10 14 7 42
1 8 3 10 14 7 42 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
43H 9 7 13 6 5 40
1 7 7 13 6 5 38 95.0%
2 2 2
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
44A 222 267 269 281 155 1194
1 208 259 252 277 141 1137 95.2%
2 14 8 14 4 14 54
3 3 3
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
44B 382 377 381 429 232 1801
1 362 338 357 402 208 1667 92.6%
2 20 36 24 24 24 128
3 3 3 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
44C 103 129 129 181 63 605
1 103 129 127 175 63 597 98.7%
2 2 6 8
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
44D 4 7 12 10 2 35
1 4 7 12 10 2 35 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
78
44E 150 167 200 185 94 796
1 144 163 192 185 92 776 97.5%
2 6 4 8 2 20
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
44F 138 146 169 165 94 712
1 138 144 167 159 92 700 98.3%
2 2 2 6 2 12
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
44G 5 1 3 1 3 13
1 5 1 3 1 3 13 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
44H 3 6 10 6 1 26
1 3 4 10 6 1 24 92.3%
2 2 2
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
44I 24 9 12 16 8 69
1 24 9 12 14 8 67 97.1%
2 2 2
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45A 116 76 90 114 58 454
1 112 74 81 112 56 435 95.8%
2 4 2 6 2 2 16
3 3 3
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45A ‐ HIGH 1 1 2
1 1 1 2 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45B 906 713 828 900 370 3717
1 796 635 727 788 334 3280 88.2%
2 80 78 92 106 36 392
3 12 9 6 27
4 8 8
5 10 10
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45B ‐ HIGH 1 1
1 1 1 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45C 95 81 84 100 43 403
1 77 81 82 96 43 379 94.0%
2 6 2 4 12
3 3 3
79
4 4 4
5 5 5
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45D 134 97 134 155 67 587
1 132 95 134 151 67 579 98.6%
2 2 2 4 8
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45D ‐ HIGH 2 1 3
1 2 1 3 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45E 53 28 49 49 30 209
1 53 28 49 49 30 209 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45E ‐ HIGH 1 2 3
1 1 2 3 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45F 309 289 340 354 180 1472
1 293 275 330 350 174 1422 96.6%
2 16 14 10 4 6 50
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45G 13 12 6 14 4 49
1 13 12 6 14 4 49 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
45H 37 15 26 25 11 114
1 35 15 26 25 11 112 98.2%
2 2 2
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46A 424 432 555 555 272 2238
1 408 420 521 514 259 2122 94.8%
2 16 12 34 38 10 110
3 3 3 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46B 289 291 320 359 177 1436
1 277 275 306 339 169 1366 95.1%
2 12 16 14 20 8 70
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46D 15 8 6 7 9 45
1 15 8 6 7 9 45 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46E 195 208 189 216 140 948
1 189 204 183 212 130 918 96.8%
80
2 6 4 6 4 10 30
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46E ‐ HIGH 1 1
1 1 1 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46F 62 51 38 65 22 238
1 62 49 38 65 22 236 99.2%
2 2 2
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46G 244 270 291 345 162 1312
1 238 258 283 327 146 1252 95.4%
2 6 12 8 18 16 60
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46H 533 339 422 562 299 2155
1 483 315 388 521 281 1988 92.3%
2 50 24 34 38 18 164
3 3 3
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46H ‐ HIGH 5 3 4 12
1 5 3 4 12 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46J 15 6 9 8 5 43
1 13 6 9 8 5 41 95.3%
2 2 2
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46K 9 5 4 7 2 27
1 9 5 4 7 2 27 100.0%
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand Total Percent
46L 4 4 5 1 14
1 4 4 5 1 14 100.0%
81
Districts that had a percentage total less than 95% for non-simultaneous runs were further scrutinized by
examining the percentages on an annual basis to look for trending toward less reliability or a single bad
year’s performance.
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
41C 507 467 687 621 329 2611
1 481 94.9% 447 95.7% 627 91.3% 573 92.3% 309 93.9% 2437 93.3%
2 26 5.1% 20 4.3% 60 8.7% 48 7.7% 20 174
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
41D 480 548 519 582 321 2450
1 409 85.2% 508 92.7% 493 95.0% 549 94.3% 303 94.4% 2262 92.3%
2 34 7.1% 40 7.3% 26 5.0% 30 5.2% 18 148
3 3 0.6% 3 0.5% 6
4 8 1.7% 8
5 20 4.2% 20
6 6 1.3% 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
41J 363 246 291 369 200 1469
1 323 89.0% 238 96.7% 275 94.5% 355 96.2% 184 92.0% 1375 93.6%
2 14 3.9% 8 3.3% 16 5.5% 14 3.8% 16 68
3 3 0.8% 3
4 8 2.2% 8
5 15 4.1% 15
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
42F 37 13 20 33 7 110
1 31 83.8% 13 100.0
% 20 100.0
% 33 100.0
% 7 100.0
% 104 94.5%
2 6 19.4% 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
43H 9 7 13 6 5 40
1 7 77.8% 7 100.0
% 13 100.0
% 6 100.0
% 5 100.0
% 38 95.0%
2 2 22.2% 2
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
44B 382 377 381 429 232 1801
1 362 94.8% 338 89.7% 357 93.7% 402 93.7% 208 89.7% 1667 92.6%
2 20 5.2% 36 9.5% 24 6.3% 24 5.6% 24 128
3 3 0.8% 3 0.7% 6
82
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
44H 3 6 10 6 1 26
1 3 100.0
% 4 66.7% 10 100.0
% 6 100.0
% 1 100.0
% 24 92.3%
2 2 33.3% 2
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
45B 906 713 828 900 370 3717
1 796 87.9% 635 89.1% 727 87.8% 788 87.6% 334 90.3% 3280 88.2%
2 80 8.8% 78 10.9% 92 11.1% 106 11.8% 36 392
3 12 1.3% 9 1.1% 6 0.7% 27
4 8 0.9% 8
5 10 1.1% 10
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
45C 95 81 84 100 43 403
1 77 81.1% 81 100.0
% 82 97.6% 96 96.0% 43 100.0
% 379 94.0%
2 6 6.3% 2 2.4% 4 4.0% 12
3 3 3.2% 3
4 4 4.2% 4
5 5 5.3% 5
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
46A 424 432 555 555 272 2238
1 408 96.2% 420 97.2% 521 93.9% 514 92.6% 259 95.2% 2122 94.8%
2 16 3.8% 12 2.8% 34 6.1% 38 6.8% 10 110
3 3 0.5% 6
District 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Grand
Total %
46H 533 339 422 562 299 2155
1 483 90.6% 315 92.9% 388 91.9% 521 92.7% 281 94.0% 1988 92.3%
2 50 9.4% 24 7.1% 34 8.1% 38 6.8% 18 164
3 3 0.5% 3
Most districts were noted to have had a single bad event year. A few, however, had multiple years of less
than 95% non-simultaneous runs. Further analysis of these districts reveals that they have a high volume of
runs to extended care facilities (ECF). The department will remain vigilant of reliability in these areas
though it would be impractical to implement additional staffing there at this time.
83
Performance Goals, Objectives, and Measures
We realize our customers have the highest regard for what the Carmel Fire Department offers and expect the
“best of the best” when requesting service. To ensure customer expectations are met, we rely heavily on
historical data and focus on the criterion that directly relates to the Carmel Fire Departments response time,
which includes:
Call to dispatch
Dispatch to turn out
Turn out to arrival
Arrival to position
The time benchmark that has been outlined in this report is a goal that department is aiming to achieve with a
90% success rate. Throughout this process, the Carmel Fire Department continually monitors and analyzes
the data to concentrate on whatever improvements are needed to serve the customers.
Statistical Review
The department has established baseline and benchmark objectives for delivery of service in the entire response
area. The department utilizes and maintains a Standard of Cover (SOC) in which those benchmarks are
stated. Benchmark or goal times are measured against current or baseline times. When the benchmark times
are achieved with a 90% success rate, they are reevaluated, and new benchmark times are established.
Incidents The following is a six-year history of all incidents occurring within the Carmel Fire Department response area.
Emergency Incidents in the Carmel Fire Department Response area:
Year Total Incidents Fires EMS Haz-Mat Tech Rescue Other
2019 7994 2.08% 63.47% 1.83% 0.58% 32.04%
2020 7429 1.70% 70.86% 1.83% 0.36% 25.25%
2021 8509 1.66% 61.10% 1.77% 0.48% 34.99%
2022 9334 2.27% 66.42% 1.92% 0.40% 28.99%
2023 4659 1.99% 66.39% 3.07% 0.42% 28.13%
84
Outliers Outliers in the data were identified through the use of the Determining Data Outliers GOG:
Any units dispatched more than 2 minutes after the initial dispatch.
Any call for service with a greater than 3 minute and 27 second alarm handling time Any call for
service with a greater than 2 minute and 22 second turn-out time
Any call for service with a greater than 8 minute and 55 second travel time Any ERF unit with a
greater than 13 minute and 43 second arrival time
Dispatch
The Carmel Fire Department tracks dispatch times from the time the call is received until the call is dispatched.
Hamilton County Communications Center dispatches all calls for the Carmel Clay area.
The Carmel Fire Department is working with the Hamilton County Communications Center to improve the
call processing times and changes have already been made to decrease the times. Due to the implementation
of the new CAD Program, the HCC is experiencing longer alarm to dispatch times. Along with the new CAD
Program, there are new EMD, EMP, ProQ/A procedures in place. The department is actively working with
the HCC to reduce these times.
Call Processing Times
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted call processing time benchmarks for the following risks. Highlighted
baseline times meet or exceed the benchmark goal but do not have the 50 responses required to set a new
benchmark goal.
85
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline
Low 0:02:24 0:02:39
Moderate 0:02:04 0:02:19
High 0:02:08 0:02:23
Low 0:02:12 0:02:17
Moderate 0:02:01 0:02:16
High 0:01:52 0:02:07
Low 0:02:19 0:02:34
Moderate 0:02:12 0:02:27
High 0:02:38 0:02:53
Low 0:02:04 0:02:19
Moderate 0:01:49 0:02:04
High 0:02:26 0:02:41
Fire
EMS
HazMat
Tech Rescue
Call Processing Baselines & Benchmarks
Turnout Response Times
Category Benchmark Baseline
Low 0:01:14 0:01:29
Moderate 0:01:28 0:01:43
High 0:01:35 0:01:50
Low 0:01:19 0:01:34
Moderate 0:01:18 0:01:33
High 0:01:19 0:01:34
Low 0:01:21 0:01:36
Moderate 0:01:18 0:01:33
High 0:01:17 0:01:32
Low 0:01:04 0:01:19
Moderate 0:01:14 0:01:29
High 0:01:26 0:01:41
Fire
EMS
HazMat
Tech Rescue
Turnout Time Baselines & Benchmarks
86
Travel Time Response Fire Travel Time Response
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline Benchmark Baseline
Low Risk 0:05:34 0:05:49 0:06:00 0:06:15
Moderate Risk 0:05:24 0:05:39 0:08:26 0:08:41
High Risk 0:04:20 0:04:35 0:07:04 0:07:19
Travel Times Effective Response Force1st Arriving
Fire
Fire Travel Time Response – Low Risk Fires
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:05:34 for all Low-Risk Fire
Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:05:49 for all 2019-2023 Low Risk Fire
Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:05:34 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment
arriving within 0:06:00 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an
effective response force travel time baseline of 0:06:15 for all 2019-2023 Low Risk Fire Incidents.
Fire Travel Time Response – Moderate Risk Fires
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:05:24 for all Moderate Risk
Fire Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:05:39 for all 2019-2023 Moderate Risk
Fire Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:05:24 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment
arriving within 0:08:26 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an
effective response force travel time baseline of 0:08:41 for all 2019-2023 Moderate Risk Fire Incidents.
87
Fire Travel Time Response – High Risk Fires
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:04:20 for all High-Risk Fire
Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:04:35 for all 2019-2023 High Risk Fire
Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:04:20 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time with the balance of the first alarm assignment
arriving within 0:07:04 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an
effective response force travel time baseline of 0:07:19 for all 2019-2023 High-Risk Fire Incidents.
Emergency Medical Services Travel Time Response
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline Benchmark Baseline
Low Risk 0:05:11 0:05:26 0:06:44 0:06:59
Moderate Risk 0:05:12 0:05:27 0:06:48 0:07:03
High Risk 0:05:03 0:05:18 0:06:41 0:06:56
EMS
Travel Times 1st Arriving Effective Response Force
Emergency Medical Services Travel Time Response – Low Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:05:11 for all Low-Risk
EMS Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:05:26 for all 2019-2023 Low Risk EMS
Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:05:11 from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment arriving
within 0:06:44 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an effective
response force travel time baseline of 0:06:59 for all 2019-2023 Low Risk EMS Incidents.
Emergency Medical Services Travel Time Response – Moderate Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:05:12 for all Moderate Risk
88
EMS Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:05:27 for all 2019-2023 Moderate Risk
EMS Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:05:12 from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment arriving
within 0:06:48 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an effective
response force travel time baseline of 0:07:03 for all 2019-2023 Moderate Risk EMS Incidents.
Emergency Medical Services Travel Time Response – High Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:05:03 for all High-Risk
EMS Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:05:18 for all 2019-2023 High Risk
EMS Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:05:03 from en-route time to on-scene time with the balance of the first alarm assignment arriving
within0:06:41 from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an effective response
force travel time baseline of 0:06:56 for all 2019-2023 High Risk EMS Incidents.
Hazardous Materials Travel Time Response
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline Benchmark Baseline
Low Risk 0:06:00 0:06:15 0:06:09 0:06:24
Moderate Risk 0:06:08 0:06:23 0:07:49 0:08:04
High Risk 0:05:57 0:06:12 0:07:00 0:07:15
Travel Times 1st Arriving Effective Response Force
HazMat
Hazardous Materials Travel Time Response – Low Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:06:00 for all Low-Risk
Hazardous Materials Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:06:15 for all 2019-2023 Low Risk
89
Hazardous Materials Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:06:00 from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment arriving
within 0:06:09 from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an effective response
force travel time baseline of 0:06:24 for all 2019-2023 Low Risk Hazardous Materials Incidents.
Hazardous Materials Travel Time Response – Moderate Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:06:08 for all Moderate Risk
Hazardous Materials Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:06:23 for all 2019-2023 Moderate Risk
Hazardous Materials Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:06:08 from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment arriving
within 0:07:49 from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an effective response
force travel time baseline of 0:08:04 for all 2019-2023 Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials Incidents.
Hazardous Materials Travel Time Response – High Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:05:57 for all High-Risk
Hazardous Materials Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:06:12 for all 2019-2023 High Risk
Hazardous Materials Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:05:57 from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment arriving
within 0:07:00 from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an effective response
force travel time baseline of 0:07:15 for all 2019-2023 High Risk Hazardous Materials Incidents
90
Technical Rescue Travel Time Response
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline Benchmark Baseline
Low Risk 0:04:35 0:04:50 0:07:23 0:07:38
Moderate Risk 0:04:54 0:05:09 0:13:49 0:14:04
High Risk 0:05:34 0:05:49 N/A N/A
Tech
Rescue
Travel Times 1st Arriving Effective Response Force
Technical Rescue – Low Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:04:35 for all Low-Risk
Technical Rescue Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:04:50 for all 2019-2023 Low Risk
Technical Rescue Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:04:35 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment
arriving within 0:07:23 from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an effective
response force travel time baseline of 0:07:38 for all 2019-2023 Low Risk Technical Rescue Incidents.
Technical Rescue – Moderate Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:04:54 for all Moderate Risk
Technical Rescue Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:05:09 for all 2019-2023 Moderate Risk
Technical Rescue Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:04:54 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time, with the balance of the first alarm assignment
arriving within 0:13:49 from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department has an effective
response force travel time baseline of 0:14:04 for all 2019-2023 Moderate Risk Technical Rescue Incidents.
Technical Rescue – High Risk
The Carmel Fire Department has adopted a travel time response benchmark of 0:05:34 for all High-Risk
Technical Rescue Incidents.
91
The Carmel Fire Department has a travel time response baseline of 0:05:49 for all 2019-2023 High Risk
Technical Rescue Incidents.
The Carmel Fire Department will strive to maintain the travel time response benchmark with a minimum force
of firefighters and equipment, which are strategically located so that the initial fire department unit arrives
within 0:05:34 minutes from en-route time to on-scene time. The Carmel Fire Department did not have any
incidents that met all the criteria to include the outlier requirements for this Risk level to obtain the effective
response force travel time baselines and benchmarks for all 2019-2023 High-Risk Technical Rescue Incidents.
Fire Benchmark Performance Objectives The first-due unit for all risk levels shall be capable of: providing a minimum of 500 gallons of water and 1,500
gallons per minute (gpm) pumping capacity; initiating command; requesting additional resources; establishing
and advancing an attack line flowing a minimum of 150 gpm; establishing an uninterrupted water supply;
containing the fire; rescuing at-risk victims; and performing salvage operations. These operations shall be
done in accordance with departmental general operations guidelines while providing for the safety of
responders and the general public.
The ERF shall be capable of establishing command and safety; providing an uninterrupted water supply;
advancing an attack line and a backup line for fire control; complying with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements of two in-two out; completing forcible entry; searching for and rescuing
at-risk victims; ventilating the structure; controlling utilities; performing salvage and overhaul; and placing
elevated streams into service from aerial ladders. These operations shall be done in accordance with
departmental general operations guidelines while providing for the safety of responders and the general public.
FIRE ERF Benchmark Staffing
Fire (Low Risk) 4
Fire (Moderate Risk) 22
Fire (High Risk) 31
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline Benchmark Baseline
Low Risk 0:09:36 0:09:51 0:09:26 0:09:41
Mod. Risk 0:10:14 0:10:29 0:10:36 0:10:51
High Risk 0:10:50 0:11:05 0:09:03 0:09:18
Total Response Time 1st Arriving Effective Response Force
Fire
92
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Low Fire Risks: For 90 percent of all fires, the
total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, shall be: 0:09:36
in urban areas. The ERF benchmark for Low Fire Risks: For 90 percent of all low-risk fires, the total response
time for the arrival of the effective response force as described shall be: 0:09:26 in urban areas.
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Moderate Fire Risks: For 90 percent of all fires,
the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, shall be:
0:10:14 in urban areas. The ERF benchmark for Moderate Fire Risks: For 90 percent of all moderate risk
fires, the total response time for the arrival of the effective response force as described shall be: 0:10:36 in
urban areas.
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for High Fire Risks: For 90 percent of all fires, the
total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, shall be: 0:10:50
in urban areas. The ERF benchmark for High Fire Risks: For 90 percent of all high-risk fires, the total response
time for the arrival of the effective response force as described shall be: 0:09:03 in urban areas.
Fire Suppression Baseline Performance Measures: Baseline for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Low-Risk Fires: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023
low risk fires, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer,
is: 0:09:51. Baselines for Effective Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time for Low-Risk Fires: For 90
percent of all 2019-2023 low risk fires, the total response time for the arrival of the effective response force
(ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, is: 0:09:41 in urban areas.
Baseline for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Moderate Risk Fires: For 90 percent of all 2019-
2023 moderate risk fires, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters
and 1 officer, is: 0:10:29 in urban areas. Baselines for Effective Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time
for Moderate Risk Fires: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023 low risk fires, the total response time for the arrival
of the effective response force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking,
is: 0:10:51 in urban areas.
Baseline for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for High-Risk Fires: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023
high risk fires, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1
officer, is: 0:11:05 in urban areas. Baselines for Effective Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time for
High-Risk Fires: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023 high risk fires, the total response time for the arrival of the
effective response force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, is:
93
0:09:18 in urban areas.
EMS Benchmark Performance Objectives The same qualified fire personnel administer EMS services as fire suppression with the overall goal being to
arrive in a timely fashion, assess the scene, and evaluate the incident as to what is needed. Provide immediate
and appropriate medical treatment and transport the patient to the corresponding medical facility. This is done
with the department’s specific time benchmarks as a goal.
The first-due unit for all risk levels shall be capable of: assessing scene safety and establishing command;
sizing-up the situation; conducting initial patient assessment; obtaining vitals and patient’s medical history;
initiating mitigation efforts within one minute of arrival; providing basic life support including automatic
external defibrillation (AED) and packaging the patient for transportation.
The ERF shall be capable of establishing command, safety, and related documentation; completing patient
assessment; providing appropriate treatment; providing advanced life support; performing defibrillation;
providing intravenous (IV) access-medication administration; and patient transportation.
EMS ERF Benchmark Staffing
EMS (Low Risk) 6
EMS (Moderate Risk) 6
EMS (High Risk) 6
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline Benchmark Baseline
Low Risk 0:08:01 0:08:16 0:08:57 0:09:12
Mod. Risk 0:07:59 0:08:14 0:09:00 0:09:15
High Risk 0:07:33 0:07:48 0:08:44 0:08:59
EMS
Total Response Time 1st Arriving Effective Response Force
Benchmark for the First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Low-Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all EMS
responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with a minimum of 2 Firefighters,
shall be: 0:08:01 in urban areas. Benchmark for the Effective Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time for
Low-Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all EMS responses, the total response time for the arrival of effective
response force (ERF), staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, shall be:
0:08:57 in urban areas.
Benchmark for the First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Moderate Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all
94
EMS responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with a minimum of 2
Firefighters, shall be: 0:07:59 in urban areas. Benchmark for the Effective Response Force (ERF) Total
Response Time for Moderate Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all EMS responses, the total response time for the
arrival of effective response force (ERF), staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical
tasking, shall be: 0:09:00 in urban areas.
Benchmark for the First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for High-Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all EMS
responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with a minimum of 2 Firefighters,
shall be: 0:07:33 in urban areas. Benchmark for the Effective Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time for
High-Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all EMS responses, the total response time for the arrival of effective
response force (ERF), staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, shall be:
0:08:44 in urban areas.
EMS Response Baseline Performance Measures:
Baseline for the First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Low-Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023
low risk EMS responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with a minimum of
2 firefighters, is: 0:08:16 in urban areas. Baselines for the Effective Response Force (ERF) Total Response
Time for Low-Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023 low risk EMS responses, the total response time
for the arrival of the effective response force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet
critical tasking, is: 0:09:12 in urban areas.
Baseline for the First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Moderate Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all 2019-
2023 moderate risk EMS responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with a
minimum of 2 firefighters, is: 0:08:14 in urban areas. Baseline for the Effective Response Force (ERF) Total
Response Time for Moderate Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023 moderate risk EMS responses, the
total response time for the arrival of the effective response force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of
personnel to meet critical tasking, is: 0:09:15 in urban areas.
Baseline for the First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for High-Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all 2019-
2023 high risk EMS responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with a
minimum of 2 firefighters, is: 0:07:48 in urban areas. Baselines for the Effective Response Force (ERF) Total
Response Time for High-Risk EMS: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023 high risk EMS responses, the total
response time for the arrival of the effective response force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of
personnel to meet critical tasking, is: 0:08:59 in urban areas.
95
Hazardous Materials (HazMat) Benchmark Performance: The Hazardous Materials Team’s immediate goal is to assess and identify the situation, stabilize, and secure
the area and have an action plan to bring the incident under control and return the area to a safe level. Upon
arrival, if the incident appears to pose a threat that is beyond the operations level of training of Carmel Fire
Department personnel, a request will be made for assistance in the form of mutual aid from the Hamilton
County Hazardous Materials task force for mitigation. The Carmel Fire Department will provide whatever
assistance needed that falls within the training level to help ensure the safety and protection of fire personnel,
customers (citizens), and the environment.
The first-due unit for all risk levels shall be capable of: assessing scene safety and establishing command;
sizing-up the situation to determine the presence of potential hazardous materials or explosive devices;
determining the need for additional resources; estimating the potential harm without intervention; and begin
establishing hot, warm, and cold zones.
The ERF shall be capable of establishing command, safety, and related documentation; providing equipment,
technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and abilities to mitigate a hazardous materials incident in accordance
with department general operations guidelines.
Hazardous Materials
ERF Benchmark Staffing
Hazardous Materials (Low Risk) 4
Hazardous Materials (Moderate Risk) 15
Hazardous Materials (High Risk) 15
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline Benchmark Baseline
Low Risk 0:09:13 0:09:28 0:09:16 0:09:31
Mod. Risk 0:09:37 0:09:52 0:10:06 0:10:21
High Risk 0:10:06 0:10:21 0:10:33 0:10:48
Total Response Time 1st Arriving Effective Response Force
HazMat
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Low Hazardous Materials Risks: For 90 percent
of all Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3
firefighters and 1 officer, shall be: 0:09:13 in urban areas. Benchmark for Effective Response Force (ERF)
Total Response Time for Low Hazardous Materials Risks: For 90 percent of all Hazardous Materials responses,
96
the total response time for the arrival of effective response force (ERF), staffed with the appropriate number
of personnel to meet critical tasking, shall be: 0:09:16 in urban areas.
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Moderate Hazardous Materials Risks: For 90
percent of all Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed
with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, shall be: 0:09:37 in urban areas. Benchmark for Effective Response Force
(ERF) Total Response Time for Moderate Hazardous Materials Risks: For 90 percent of all Hazardous
Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival of effective response force (ERF), staffed with the
appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, shall be: 0:10:06 in urban areas.
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for High Hazardous Materials Risks: For 90 percent
of all Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3
firefighters and 1 officer, shall be: 0:10:06 in urban areas. Benchmark for Effective Response Force (ERF)
Total Response Time for High Hazardous Materials Risks: For 90 percent of all Hazardous Materials
responses, the total response time for the arrival of effective response force (ERF), staffed with the appropriate
number of personnel to meet critical tasking, shall be: 0:10:33 in urban areas.
Hazardous Materials Baseline Performance Measures:
Baseline for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Low-Risk Hazardous Materials Responses: For 90
percent of all 2019-2023 low risk Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival of the
first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, is: 0:09:28 in urban areas. Baseline for Effective
Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time for Low-Risk Hazardous Materials Responses: For 90 percent of
all 2019-2023 low risk Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival of the effective
response force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, is: 0:09:31
seconds in urban areas.
Baseline First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials Responses: For 90
percent of all 2019-2023 moderate risk Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival
of the first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, is: 0:09:52 in urban areas. Baseline Effective
Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time for Moderate Risk Hazardous Materials Responses: For 90
percent of all 2019-2023 moderate risk Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival
of the effective response force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking,
is: 0:10:21 seconds in urban areas.
Baseline First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for High-Risk Hazardous Materials Responses: For 90
percent of all 2019-2023 high risk Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival of the
97
first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, is: 0:10:21 seconds in urban areas. Baseline Effective
Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time for High-Risk Hazardous Materials Responses: For 90 percent
of all 2019-2023 moderate risk Hazardous Materials responses, the total response time for the arrival of the
effective response force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, is:
0:10:48 seconds in urban areas.
Technical Rescue Benchmark Performance Objectives The Carmel Fire Department’s immediate goal is to assess and identify the situation, stabilize, and secure the
area and have an action plan to bring the incident under control and return the area to a safe level. Upon arrival,
if the incident appears to pose a threat that is beyond the level of training of Carmel Fire Department personnel,
a request will be made for assistance in the form of mutual aid from the Hamilton County mutual aid partners
of Westfield, Fishers, Noblesville, and Cicero or from the Indianapolis Fire Department for mitigation. The
Carmel Fire Department will provide whatever assistance needed that falls within the training level to help
ensure the safety and protection of fire personnel, customers (citizens), and the environment.
The first-due unit for all risk levels shall be capable of: assessing scene safety and establishing command;
sizing-up the situation to determine if technical rescue response is required; requesting additional resources;
and providing advanced and or basic life support to any victim without endangering response personnel.
The ERF shall be capable of establishing command, safety, and related documentation; establishing patient
contact; staging and apparatus set-up; providing equipment, technical expertise, knowledge, skills, and abilities
to mitigate a technical rescue incident in accordance with department general operations guidelines or best
practices for incidents that are beyond the scope of the Carmel Fire Department.
Technical Rescue
ERF Benchmark Staffing
Tech Rescue (Low Risk) 10
Tech Rescue (Moderate Risk) 20
Tech Rescue (High Risk) 20
98
Category Risk Level Benchmark Baseline Benchmark Baseline
Low Risk 0:07:41 0:07:56 0:10:12 0:10:27
Mod. Risk 0:09:08 0:09:23 0:15:03 0:15:18
High Risk 0:09:55 0:10:10 N/A N/A
Total Response Time 1st Arriving Effective Response Force
Tech Rescue
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Low Risk Technical Rescue: For 90 percent of
low risk Technical Rescue responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with 3
firefighters and 1 officer, shall be 0:07:41. Benchmark for Effective Response Force (ERF) Total Response
Time for Low Technical Rescue Risks: For 90 percent of low technical rescue responses, the total response
time for the arrival of effective response force (ERF), staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet
critical tasking, shall be: 0:10:12 in urban areas.
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Moderate Risk Technical Rescue: For 90 percent
of moderate risk Technical Rescue responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed
with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, shall be 0:09:08. Benchmark for Effective Response Force (ERF) Total
Response Time for Moderate Technical Rescue Risks: For 90 percent of low technical rescue responses, the
total response time for the arrival of effective response force (ERF), staffed with the appropriate number of
personnel to meet critical tasking, shall be: 0:15:03 in urban areas.
Benchmark for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for High Risk Technical Rescue: For 90 percent of
high risk Technical Rescue responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit, staffed with
3 firefighters and 1 officer, shall be: 0:09:55. Benchmark for Effective Response Force (ERF) Total Response
Time for High Technical Rescue Risks: The Carmel Fire Department did not have any incidents that met all
the criteria to include the outlier requirements for this Risk level to obtain the effective response force travel
time baselines and benchmarks for all High Risk Technical Rescue Incidents.
Technical Rescue Baseline Performance Measures: Baseline for First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Low-Risk Technical Rescue Responses: For 90
percent of all 2019-2023 low risk Technical Rescue responses, the total response time for the arrival of the
first-due unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, is: 0:07:56 in urban areas. Baseline for Effective
Response Force (ERF) Total Response Time for Low-Risk Technical Rescue Responses: For 90 percent of all
2019-2023 low risk Technical Rescue responses, the total response time for the arrival of the effective response
force (ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, is: 0:10:27 in urban
areas.
99
First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for Moderate Risk Technical Rescue Responses: For 90 percent of
all 2019-2023 moderate risk Technical Rescue responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due
unit, staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, is: 0:09:23 in urban areas. Baseline for Effective Response Force
(ERF) Total Response Time for Moderate Risk Technical Rescue Responses: For 90 percent of all 2019-2023
moderate risk Technical Rescue responses, the total response time for the arrival of the effective response force
(ERF) staffed with the appropriate number of personnel to meet critical tasking, is: 0:15:18 in urban areas.
First Arriving Unit Total Response Time for High-Risk Technical Rescue Responses: For 90 percent of all
2019-2023 high risk Technical Rescue responses, the total response time for the arrival of the first-due unit,
staffed with 3 firefighters and 1 officer, is: 0:10:10 in urban areas. Effective Response Force (ERF) Total
Response Time for High-Risk Technical Rescue Responses: The Carmel Fire Department did not have any
incidents that met all the criteria to include the outlier requirements for this Risk level to obtain the effective
response force travel time baselines and benchmarks for all High-Risk Technical Rescue Incidents.
100
Performance Charts
90th percentile baseline data is expressed below in mm:ss. The data below does include automatic aid responses
from other agencies.
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:24 0:02:39 0:02:04 0:02:03 0:02:09 0:03:08 0:02:51
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:14 0:01:29 0:01:35 0:01:27 0:01:28 0:01:25 0:01:29
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:05:34 0:06:07 0:05:27 0:06:37 0:06:19 0:05:27 0:06:06
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:06:00 0:06:15 0:05:44 0:06:20 0:06:59 0:05:46 0:06:33
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:36 0:09:51 0:08:16 0:09:05 0:09:23 0:11:25 0:09:57
n=491 n=69 n=107 n=103 n=94 n=118
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:26 0:09:41 0:08:01 0:08:45 0:09:31 0:10:10 0:09:56
n=411 n=51 n=91 n=93 n=84 n=92
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Travel
Time
Low Risk Fire Suppression 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Urban
Rural
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Rural
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
101
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:04 0:02:19 0:01:40 0:02:31 0:02:32 0:02:07 0:02:16
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:28 0:01:43 0:01:40 0:01:45 0:01:42 0:01:34 0:01:46
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:05:24 0:05:39 0:05:12 0:06:05 0:05:00 0:05:27 0:04:58
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:08:26 0:08:41 0:07:51 0:08:35 0:07:03 0:08:41 0:08:53
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:10:14 0:10:29 0:09:31 0:10:19 0:11:03 0:11:16 0:08:57
n=106 n=17 n=29 n=19 n=18 n=23
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:10:36 0:10:51 0:10:40 0:13:16 0:08:49 0:10:51 0:10:46
n=9 n=2 n=2 n=1 n=2 n=23
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Moderate Risk Fire Suppression 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Rural
102
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:08 0:02:23 0:02:57 0:01:57 0:01:13 0:02:05 0:01:28
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:35 0:01:50 0:01:50 0:01:05 0:01:20 0:01:20 0:01:58
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:04:20 0:04:35 0:04:35 0:03:49 0:04:20 0:04:24 0:02:48
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:07:04 0:07:19 N/A N/A 0:07:19 N/A N/A
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:10:50 0:11:05 0:09:03 0:09:44 0:10:42 0:11:47 0:12:09
n=62 n=7 n=12 n=15 n=13 n=15
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:03 0:09:18 N/A N/A 0:09:18 N/A N/A
n=1 N/A N/A n=1 N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
High Risk Fire Suppression 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Rural
103
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:12 0:02:17 0:02:29 0:02:24 0:02:33 0:01:12 0:01:23
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:19 0:01:34 0:01:36 0:01:33 0:01:31 0:01:35 0:01:36
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:05:11 0:05:26 0:05:21 0:05:29 0:05:22 0:05:36 0:05:23
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:06:44 0:06:59 0:06:39 0:06:56 0:06:55 0:07:18 0:06:53
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:08:01 0:08:16 0:08:25 0:08:22 0:08:41 0:07:38 0:07:53
n=8,372 n=892 n=1,918 n=1,834 n=1,702 n=2,026
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:08:57 0:09:12 0:09:12 0:09:26 0:09:30 0:08:44 0:08:43
n=6,474 n=735 n=1,568 n=1,390 n=1,345 n=1,436
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Low Risk EMS Response 90th Percentile
Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Rural
104
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:01 0:02:16 0:02:24 0:02:21 0:02:33 0:01:00 0:00:51
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:18 0:01:33 0:01:33 0:01:29 0:01:31 0:01:37 0:01:33
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:05:12 0:05:27 0:05:16 0:05:31 0:05:32 0:05:32 0:05:21
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:06:48 0:07:03 0:07:17 0:06:58 0:07:02 0:07:07 0:06:56
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:07:59 0:08:14 0:08:11 0:08:29 0:08:46 0:07:37 0:07:17
n=12,793 n=1,647 n=3,084 n=3,115 n=2,263 n=2,684
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:00 0:09:15 0:09:48 0:09:34 0:09:39 0:08:28 0:08:16
n=10,319 n=1,385 n=2,589 n=2,446 n=1,799 n=2,100
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Moderate Risk EMS Response 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Rural
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
105
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:01:52 0:02:07 0:02:14 0:02:16 0:02:27 0:01:14 0:00:41
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:19 0:01:34 0:01:41 0:01:29 0:01:30 0:01:37 0:01:33
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:05:03 0:05:18 0:05:01 0:05:15 0:05:21 0:05:29 0:05:05
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:06:41 0:06:56 0:06:50 0:07:03 0:07:26 0:06:50 0:06:37
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:07:33 0:07:48 0:08:14 0:08:11 0:08:25 0:07:24 0:06:36
n=2,186 n=202 n=413 n=427 n=798 n=346
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:08:44 0:08:59 0:09:36 0:09:33 0:09:35 0:08:16 0:07:55
n=1,816 n=167 n=340 n=348 n=679 n=282
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
High Risk EMS Response 90th Percentile
Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Rural
106
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:19 0:02:34 0:02:05 0:01:40 0:02:30 0:02:59 0:02:30
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:21 0:01:36 0:01:32 0:01:22 0:01:42 0:01:38 0:01:36
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:06:00 0:06:15 0:05:11 0:05:41 0:06:26 0:06:10 0:06:08
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:06:09 0:06:24 0:05:17 0:06:15 0:06:24 0:06:10 0:06:08
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:13 0:09:28 0:08:05 0:08:32 0:09:14 0:09:28 0:10:13
n=85 n=16 n=18 n=20 n=17 n=14
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:16 0:09:31 0:08:07 0:09:12 0:08:57 0:09:28 0:10:13
n=73 n=13 n=16 n=17 n=16 n=11
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Rural
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Low Risk HazMat Response 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
107
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:12 0:02:27 0:01:56 0:01:53 0:01:59 0:02:47 0:02:35
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:18 0:01:33 0:01:21 0:01:31 0:01:37 0:01:35 0:01:34
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:06:08 0:06:23 0:05:53 0:06:34 0:05:59 0:06:29 0:06:16
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:07:49 0:08:52 0:08:25 0:08:52 0:08:25 0:08:56 0:08:22
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:37 0:09:52 0:09:04 0:08:57 0:10:11 0:10:10 0:10:10
n=494 n=44 n=154 n=114 n=76 n=107
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:10:06 0:10:21 0:09:36 0:09:56 0:10:19 0:11:07 0:10:30
n=59 n=4 n=24 n=9 n=9 n=13
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Rural
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Moderate Risk HazMat Response 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
108
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:38 0:02:53 0:02:37 0:02:21 0:02:11 0:02:54 0:03:13
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:17 0:01:32 0:01:12 0:01:14 0:01:29 0:01:29 0:01:43
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:05:57 0:06:12 0:06:09 0:05:55 0:05:28 0:05:56 0:06:15
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:07:00 0:07:15 0:07:08 0:05:27 0:06:59 0:07:15 0:07:15
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:10:06 0:10:21 0:09:58 0:09:16 0:09:50 0:10:39 0:10:21
n=112 n=14 n=21 n=24 n=33 n=20
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:10:33 0:10:48 0:09:13 0:06:46 0:10:31 0:10:48 0:11:27
n=13 n=2 n=1 n=3 n=4 n=3
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Rural
High Risk Hazmat Response 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
109
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:04 0:02:10 0:02:13 0:02:04 0:01:52 0:02:10 0:02:01
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:04 0:01:23 0:01:29 0:01:13 0:01:19 0:01:20 0:01:33
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:04:35 0:04:50 0:04:31 0:04:49 0:04:46 0:04:37 0:05:11
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:07:23 0:07:38 0:07:24 0:07:13 0:07:20 0:07:43 0:06:55
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:07:41 0:07:56 0:06:59 0:06:50 0:07:17 0:07:25 0:08:45
n=119 n=25 n=22 n=26 n=22 n=25
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:10:12 0:10:27 0:10:21 0:08:57 0:09:59 0:10:50 0:10:27
n=64 n=13 n=11 n=16 n=15 n=9
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rural
Rural
Urban
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Low Risk Tech Rescue Response 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
110
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:01:49 0:02:40 0:01:19 0:01:41 0:03:22 N/A 0:02:40
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:14 0:01:26 0:00:56 0:01:14 0:01:26 N/A 0:02:09
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:04:54 0:05:09 0:03:34 0:06:26 0:05:09 N/A 0:04:31
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:13:49 0:14:04 N/A N/A 0:14:04 N/A 0:12:27
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:08 0:09:23 0:05:49 0:07:47 0:08:32 N/A 0:12:25
n=22 n=1 n=6 n=10 N/A n=5
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:15:03 0:15:18 N/A N/A 0:15:18 N/A 0:14:20
n=3 N/A N/A n=2 N/A n=1
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rural
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Urban
Urban
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Travel
Time
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Moderate Risk Tech Rescue Response
90th Percentile Time Baseline
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
111
Compliance Methodology
The preceding sections of this report provide a detailed analysis of the historical performance of the Carmel
Fire Department. In order for this to prove beneficial to department and city policy makers, continued analysis
will be performed on a routine basis. The data provided to the project team for analysis initially proved to be
difficult to analyze from the standpoint of being consistent and complete. The creation and implementation of
a continuous quality assurance program on all Carmel Fire Department incident records helped to ensure
Benchmark 2019‐
2023 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019
Urban 0:02:26 0:02:41 0:01:46 0:03:12 0:01:41 0:01:49 0:02:31
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:01:26 0:01:41 0:01:04 0:02:12 0:00:20 0:00:47 0:01:41
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban 0:05:34 0:05:49 0:05:03 0:03:42 0:05:59 0:03:28 0:05:49
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rural N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0:09:55 0:10:10 0:10:45 0:10:10 0:10:20 0:06:04 0:07:32
n=19 n=3 n=4 n=2 n=1 n=9
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Urban
Rural
Total
Response
Time
Total Response
Time 1st Unit on
Scene
Distribution
Urban
Rural
Total Response
Time ERF
Concentration
Travel Time 1st
Unit
Distribution
Travel Time ERF
Concentration
Turnout
Time
Turnout Time 1st
Unit
Travel
Time
High Risk Tech Rescue Response 90th
Percentile Time Baseline Performance
Alarm
Handling
Pick‐up to
Dispatch
112
accurate data for this report.
The Carmel Fire Department is committed to a continual process of analyzing and evaluating actual
performance against the adopted standards of cover and will enhance the data collection procedures of field
operations personnel. Periodic review of the department’s records management system reports will be
necessary to ensure compliance and reliability of data.
Compliance Model
Compliance is best achieved through a systematic approach. Carmel Fire Department has identified the
following six-step compliance model.
Maintenance of Effort Compliance Model
Establish/Review
Performance Measure
Evaluate
Performance
Develop Compliance
Strategies
Communicate
Expectations to
Organization
Step 1: Establish/Review Performance Measures Complete the initial standards of cover process. Conduct a full review of the performance measures every
annually. This process is risk-based and evaluates whether:
Services provided are identified
Levels of service are defined
Levels of risk are categorized Performance objectives and measures developed:
Distribution measures
Concentration measures
Step 2: Evaluate Performance
Performance measures are applied to actual services provided:
System level
First Due Area level
Validate
Compliance
Adjustments to
Procedures/
Repeat process
113
Unit level
Step 3: Develop Compliance Strategies
Determine issues and opportunities:
Determine what needs to be done to close identified gaps
Determine if resources can or should be reallocated
Seek alternative methods to provide service at desired levels
Develop budget estimates as necessary
Seek additional funding commitment as necessary
Step 4: Communicate Expectations to Organization and Stakeholders Communicate expectations:
Explain method of measuring compliance to personnel who are expected to perform the services
Provide feedback mechanisms
Define consequences of noncompliance Train Personnel
Provide appropriate levels of training/direction for all affected personnel
Communicate consequences of noncompliance
• Modify (remediate) internal processes, application systems, and technical infrastructure as
necessary to comply.
Step 5: Validate Compliance
Develop and deploy verification tools and/or techniques that can be used by divisions of the organization on
an ongoing basis to verify that they are meeting the requirements:
Monthly evaluation:
Performance by Unit
Overall Performance
Review of performance by Division
114
Quarterly evaluation:
Performance by Unit
Performance by First Due
Overall evaluation of performance by Executive Management
Determine whether independent validation and verification techniques will be used to measure the
performance and solicit external assistance as necessary.
Step 6: Make Adjustments/Repeat Process
Review changes to ensure that service levels have been maintained or improved. Develop and implement a
review program to ensure ongoing compliance:
Annual Review and Evaluation
Performance by Unit
Performance by First Due
Overall Performance
Review of performance by Governing Body
Adjustment of performance standards by Governing Body as necessary Five-Year Update of
Standards
Performance by Unit
Performance by First Due
Overall Performance
Adoption of performance measures by Governing Body
Establish management processes to deal with future changes in the Carmel Fire Department jurisdiction.
Annual Response Maps and Planning Zone Maps & Analysis
See below for Annual Response Maps and Planning Zone Maps & Analysis.