Attorney General Opinions
Relating to County Government

2009 Fire & Emergency Services

Funds from the premium tax on fire insurance are earmarked under T.C.A. § 56-4-205(c) to pay a salary supplement to eligible firefighters employed by local governments. These funds are not authorized to be used for firefighter safety equipment and training. Opinion No. 09-154 (September 10, 2009).

The prohibition against charging an accident response service fee contained in T.C.A. § 55-10-108(h) does not apply to fire departments; it applies only to law enforcement agencies. However, municipal and county-wide fire departments have only such authority as is expressly conferred by statute or fairly implied from the statutory language, or as is essential to carry out the declared purpose of the department. Authorization to charge such fees must be found in other statutes, such as T.C.A. § 68-212-121 relative to recovery of costs of responding to accidents involving hazardous materials, or T.C.A. § 5-17-102(17) allowing county-wide fire departments to make reasonable charges for any services that are not included in the fire tax of the district. Opinion No. 09-153 (September 8, 2009).

An emergency communications district cannot donate real property to a county government. If the district wants to dispose of real property, it must be sold for fair market value. Opinion No. 09-128 (July 22, 2009).

This opinion discusses various ways an interlocal agreement could be structured between a county and a city for the provision of emergency, rescue, and fire services, methods of funding, and the application of T.C.A. §§ 5-17-101 et seq., 5-16-101 et seq., and 12-9-101 et seq. Opinion No. 09-107 (June 8, 2009).

A county policy relating to attendance of members of county boards does not apply to the board of directors of an emergency communications district because it is not a county board. Under T.C.A. § 7-86-106, the district is an independent “municipality” and not an arm of the county. Opinion No. 09-13 (February 6, 2009).