No.

Colorado Attorney General Reports·Decided July 23, 2001·Published

Opinion

QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND CONCLUSIONS
Question: Must a fire protection district fight fires within the boundaries of the district?

Answer: A fire protection district must fight fires within the district only under certain circumstances. The duty to fight fires arises when the district acquires fire fighting equipment, and only applies to fires on private property.

A fire protection district is under no legal obligation to acquire fire fighting equipment. Even the fact that a fire protection district collects taxes on property and structures within the district does not create a duty requiring the district to obtain equipment and fight fires.

When a fire ignites on private property within a fire protection district, the fire chief must respond if the district has fire fighting equipment. If the fire protection district does not have fire fighting equipment, it is the sheriff's responsibility to fight the fire. If a fire ignites within a district on property that is not private, the sheriff has primary fire response responsibilities. The sheriff may request assistance from other fire protection entities.

Question: May a fire district transfer its fire fighting responsibility by contract to another fire protection service provider?

Answer: Yes. A fire protection district may contract with a third party to provide fire protection services.

DISCUSSION
I. Introduction
The questions addressed in this opinion require interpretation of the network of statutory provisions that address the fire protection duties of the sheriffs and the state's fire protection districts. Certain settled legal approaches govern that statutory interpretation. For example, the words and phrases of a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning. Town of Telluridev. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 35 (Colo. 2000);Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson, 995 P.2d 748 (Colo. 2000). If doing so leads to absurd results, the inquiry proceeds further.State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493, 501 (Colo. 2000); Lagal v.Lackener, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998). When interpreting statutes one must harmonize their meanings and interpret their words in a consistent manner. General Electric Co. v. Niemet, 866 P.2d 1361,1366 (Colo. 1994). These principles are used in the opinion that follows.

II. Do fire districts that collect taxes on property andstructures have a duty to fight fires in their own districts?

A. Overview of Fire Protection Responsibilities of Sheriffs and Fire Protection

Districts.

Both sheriffs and the chiefs of fire protection districts have statutory responsibilities to fight fires. Unfortunately, however, the statutes that govern these responsibilities are not clear.

In addition to their common law duties and powers, sheriffs may have duties and powers prescribed or modified by state constitutional or statutory provisions, or by court rule. In Colorado, certain statutory fire fighting duties are delineated in the statutes, though others are not. For example, the sheriff is the fire warden of the county in the case of prairie or forest fires.1§ 30-10-512 and § 30-10-513, C.R.S. (2000). The sheriff may take charge of efforts to control or extinguish such fires or may assist other governmental authorities to do so. § 30-10-513, C.R.S. (2000).

In appropriate circumstances, a sheriff may request the assistance of a fire protection district to fight a fire on private property:2

The sheriff of any county may request assistance from a fire protection district or municipality in controlling or extinguishing a fire occurring on private property if, in the judgment of such sheriff, the fire constitutes a danger to the health and safety of the public or a risk of serious damage to property. Except as provided in subsection (3) . . . , any fire protection district or municipality assisting in controlling or extinguishing such fire is entitled to reimbursement from the property owner on whose property the fire occurred or from the party responsible for the occurrence of such fire . . . .

§ 30-10-513.5 (1)(a), C.R.S. (2000) (emphasis added).

Specific statutory provisions also outline powers and duties of fire protection districts. See § 32-1-1001 et seq., C.R.S. (2000). Traditionally, fire protection districts have served a necessary function with regard to fire protection by providing educational, inspection and other services. See e.g., § 32-1-1002 (3)(b)(II)(B), C.R.S. (2000) (districts have "the authority to enter into all structures and upon all premises within their respective jurisdictions at reasonable times . . . to conduct an inspection"); § 32-1-1002(1)(c), C.R.S. (2000) (districts are allowed to provide ambulance services); § 9-3-103, C.R.S. (2000) (granting sheriffs, the fire chiefs of every town, city, fire protection district, and safety inspectors full and concurrent jurisdiction to investigate safety issues related to industrial and commercial buildings and equipment). Some districts have few capabilities beyond a limited subset of what districts are allowed to undertake. Other districts have voluntarily undertaken expanded duties. In either case, districts are established to provide services in specific geographical areas established under Article 1 of Title 32. Within a district's boundaries, the chief of the fire department supervises fire fighting. § 32-1-1002 (3)(a), C.R.S. (2000). He or she can enter private property and buildings, and no one can interfere with the chief's inspections. § 32-1-1002 (3)(b)(II)(b) C.R.S. (2000).

There is an important legal difference between the ability of fire protection districts to exercise powers in their discretion, on the one hand, and the duties fire protection districts must carry out, on the other hand. See City of Denver v. Capelli, ,4 Colo. 25, 27 (Colo. 1877) (recognizing that as long as the city authorities failed or refused to exercise their discretionary powers, no liability attaches; but if that power is exercised, the city is bound for any failure and cannot escape liability); seealso Chase v. Board of Com'rs of Boulder County, 37 Colo. 268,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

No., (Colo. 2001).

No. (No.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Durango Transportation, Inc. v. City of Durango
824 P.2d 48 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1991)
Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson
995 P.2d 748 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
Hall v. Walter
969 P.2d 224 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1998)
Big Sandy School District No. 100-J v. Carroll
433 P.2d 325 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1967)
Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C.
3 P.3d 30 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
Department of Human Services v. May
1 P.3d 159 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
General Electric Co. v. Niemet
866 P.2d 1361 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1994)
State v. Nieto
993 P.2d 493 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2000)
City of Denver v. Capelli
4 Colo. 25 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1877)
Chase v. Board of County Commissioners
37 Colo. 268 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1906)