Sprinkler dilemma: Fees, tap-in costs keep some from installing system
Tyrone Walker
File
The Sofa Super Store on Savannah Highway was not equipped with a sprinkler system when it caught fire and burned Monday, June 18. Nine city of Charleston firefighters died fighting the fire.
Who has sprinklers?
On TV
ETV's South Carolina Channel will rebroadcast the Charleston Firefighters' Memorial Service at 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July Fourth.
It's no secret that automated sprinklers save lives and property. But last week's deadly fire at the Sofa Super Store put a spotlight on a policy that fire experts say makes little sense: Charleston Water System, like many utilities nationwide, has expensive fees and requirements that penalize businesses for installing sprinklers.
A business wanting to install a sprinkler system with an 8-inch pipeline - the most common connection in Charleston Water System's network - must pay a $56,900 "impact fee," install an extra water meter that can cost $14,000 or more, plus pay $227.50 a month even if the sprinklers never go off.
Sprinkler installers and contractors are fuming because of the fees. "So many times, when I give a customer the price plus the impact fees, it squashes it right there," said Mike Stewart, an installer for Absolute Fire Protection. "Then what happens is that they find a craftier way to build their building, maybe by putting in a fire door here or there."
Charleston Water System officials say impact fees are justified because they force new customers to pay for additional pipelines, pumps and other equipment needed to service a growing water system.
But national fire experts say this logic is flawed because sprinklers are used only in emergencies and don't create new demands on existing pipelines.
Prodded by fire and emergency officials, Kentucky and some municipalities have eliminated these impact fees. "They don't make a lot of sense," said Richard Bukowski, a senior engineer with the National Institute of Standards and Technology who investigated the World Trade Center collapse. "We've held for a long time that people ought to be encouraging sprinklers by exempting them (from impact fees)."
Store had no sprinklers
For years fire safety experts have characterized sprinklers as one of the most effective ways to control fires. The National Fire Protection Association said that they cut the risk of death and property damage by at least half and often by two-thirds. The group knows of no fire that killed more than two people in a building properly outfitted with sprinklers. Fire experts also say automated sprinklers save thousands of gallons of water because one or two sprinkler heads often prevent a fire from turning into a full-blown conflagration.
The Sofa Super Store was a prime candidate for a sprinkler system. It had a lightweight truss roof, which can collapse quickly in a fire. It was filled with upholstered furniture, which fire experts say can ignite quickly and account for 20 percent of fire-related deaths.
New buildings greater than 12,000 square feet are generally required to have sprinklers, according to the state's building code. But older buildings, like the Sofa Super Store, are exempt under most conditions.
Still, when the building's owners expanded the store 12 years ago, city of Charleston building officials gave owners a choice of installing a fire door or a sprinkler system "without indicating that one would be preferable over the other," said Colleen Troy, a spokeswoman for the owner. "They installed a fire door." She said the owners couldn't remember the difference in cost and whether that factored into their decision.
90 percent without sprinklers
The vast majority of commercial and industrial buildings in the Charleston Water System's service area have no sprinklers, an examination of the utility's records shows.
Every building with sprinklers has a separate account, and only 1,219 of the system's 11,855 non-residential accounts were for sprinklers.
While this doesn't give a precise number of buildings that have sprinklers, it suggests that roughly 90 percent of non-residential buildings don't have sprinklers.
Contractors and installers say one reason so few buildings have sprinklers is the water system's hefty impact fees.
Marc Knapp, a utility contractor who is one of the few people who regularly attends Charleston Water System meetings, said he has talked to five to 10 property owners during the past decade who wanted to retrofit their buildings with sprinklers but decided against it when they learned the costs.
"They back off real fast," he said. "I've had people say they just can't afford it, and it's usually tap and impact fees that kill them."
Knapp, who also plans to run against Mayor Joe Riley in November, said he would like to see the Charleston Water System make sprinklers more affordable by eliminating impact fees and the requirement that sprinkler lines be metered.
"An impact fee means you're using the water constantly. It's for an upgrade of the plant and equipment," he said. "This is not a continuous use situation; it's only an emergency use situation."
Henry Alexander, vice president of Worsham Sprinkler, said he was talking recently to a customer who wanted to install a sprinkler. "When I told him the (impact fee), he said there was no way he'd do it. I know of several restaurants that wanted sprinklers but don't have the capital."
Stewart of Absolute Fire Protection said a sprinkler system for a small store might cost $7,000 to $10,000, but impact and tap fees and other requirements from the Charleston Water System can push the total price tag past $80,000.
The Charleston Water System requires business owners to install water meters even though sprinklers don't use any water unless there's a fire. Water meters can run $14,000 or more, Stewart said.
The utility then charges these businesses a monthly fee to read these meters and maintain their accounts: $227.50 a month for an 8-inch pipe connection, the most common in the system, or $2,370 a year.
A building owner who installs a sprinkler system can expect some drop in fire insurance as a rule of thumb, but the exact savings will vary from business to business, insurer to insurer and even state to state, said Michael Barry, vice president of the Insurance Information Institute, a New York-based trade group.
The savings may not come close to offsetting the sizable impact fees, he said.
Meters not needed
Sprinkler installers question why meters are needed in the first place, other than to charge customers more and prevent people from siphoning water from sprinklers.
"They're afraid people are going to steal water," said Stewart, who said the concept of stealing water is ridiculous considering the plumbing it would take to rig a sprinkler head to get its water.
He added that water meters reduce the flow of water in pipes, reducing the effectiveness of sprinkler systems or requiring the costly addition of a new pump or a larger line.
Some utilities require meters while others don't. Andy Fairey, the Charleston Water System's chief operating officer, said the utility began requiring meters in the mid-1990s. He said the utility's stance is to treat water like any commodity and not give it away.
Officials add that many other utilities charge impact fees, and that their fees vary widely.
Mount Pleasant Water Works doesn't require new taps, impact fees or meters, though it does charge between $83 and $842 a year for a private fire line. The cost depends on the pipeline's size.
Berkeley County Water & Sanitation charges an $8,880 tap and impact fee for a 6-inch main, compared to Charleston Water System's $52,500 fee.
The city of Greenville, meanwhile, charges $65,500, while neighboring Spartanburg charges $13,875.
"We're somewhere in the middle, said Kin Hill, chief executive officer of the Charleston Water System. (The utility changed its name last year from Charleston Commissioners of Public Works.)
Hill said in light of the Sofa Super Store fire the agency might look at its fee structure, but that "it costs a lot of money to run a water utility." He said as part of its agreements with its bondholders, the utility must maintain its impact fees in some form.
"It's definitely on our radar," added Thomas Pritchard, chairman of the Charleston Water System's Board of Commissioners. He said he hopes that area governments, utilities and state legislators will work on a comprehensive effort to make it easier for businesses to install sprinkler systems. "I don't want to dissuade people from putting in sprinklers because of the cost." Still, he said impact fees have been set based on the advice of the system's rate consultants.
Riley, who serves as a voting member of the water system's board, also said he expects the utility will study the impact fee issue. Riley said if changing fees affects its agreements with the utility's bondholders, the city might look at providing tax credits or financing.
'They don't meter fire hydrants'
Critics say impact fees punish people for putting in sprinklers when they should be rewarded. They argue that a sprinkler system may use only a few hundred gallons to put out a fire, while fires in buildings without sprinklers may need thousands of gallons.
They said that installing a sprinkler system places no new demand on a system because sprinklers are used rarely, and that the firefighting capacity already exists because the water system must provide enough water for hydrants used to fight fires in buildings without sprinklers.
"You're actually penalizing people who are saving you water," said Ken Isman, vice president of engineering for the National Fire Sprinkler Association.
Knapp said that the Charleston Water System doesn't charge the city an impact fee for its fire hydrants. "They don't meter fire hydrants, either," he said.
The stakes in this debate are high. Consider: Two days after the June 18 fire at the Sofa Super Store, which caused $2.2 million in damage and took nine lives, a similar fire broke out at a furniture store in Ormond Beach, Fla.
When the Ormond Beach firefighters arrived, they found a small fire in the showroom being held in check by three automatic sprinkler heads.
Damage: an estimated $8,000.
Lives lost: zero.
Impact fee for installing sprinklers in Ormond Beach: None.
Reach Tony Bartelme at 937-5554 or tbartelme@postandcourier.com and Robert Behre at 937-5571 or rbehre@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 29 comment(s)
Posted by tfpoor on June 29, 2007 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
WOW! That's amazing. The light is finally being shed it appears. Imagine that, the impact fees(taxes)cause people to back off of sprinkler installation. It's time the state jumps in to regulate these fees. There all across the board it appears and really determined by what the utility thinks it can charge. Apparently Charleston Water must be using GOLD! A $52000 tap in fee! Almost 7 times more than neighboring Berkeley co charges? Pipe, meters, and the cost of a sprinkler head doesn't vary that much in the US, much less the various counties in our state.
Posted by majorjohnson on June 29, 2007 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmmm....they started charging $71,000 plus a monthly fee in the mid-1990s....wonder when the requirement that new buildings have sprinkler systems went into effect? Sounds kinda like the water commission saw a way to use the law to rape the customers...
Posted by juicybbw4u on June 29, 2007 at 7:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So basically what they've disclosed in short is that the lives of the nine heroes who valiantly fought the fire were equated to a monetary value of 73,270.00 profit margin for the Charleston Water System. That's truly a shame and a disgrace for the human race.
Sincerely,
Gail Taggart Johnson
Deeply Sadden Charlestonian
Posted by Wayne on June 29, 2007 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Taxes such as this which endanger the safety of the people of Charleston is a big reason my family decided to NOT return to Charleston after 6 years away on a out of state job. I find it completely insane that the county is not HELPING businesses put in safety systems, let alone penalizing them for it! I think every government official that sat at the memorial service all weepy eyed needs to get behind repealing these taxes and fees, and actually enact a law that makes sense for the people for a change.
Posted by trm2105 on June 29, 2007 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Truly upsetting. Shame on CWS and the city.
Posted by charlene68 on June 29, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
it should not be that much money,,, all the money the city charges residence for water bills should be enough to run the water facility, the fees should not be so hi for sprinklers thats ridiculous
Posted by hebebrandverner on June 29, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another comment made by the chief and supported by this writer is that these kinds of stores NEED TO UNCLUTTER - BIG TIME!!!! Anyone who bought furniture or visited that store, KNOWS that there was nothing but a major labyrinth throughout this huge building. One could not help but continuously bump into furniture simply by moving from one piece to another. And to get to the back of that store was a major undertaking. Imagine now, fire, unimaginable heat and smoke, very little, if any visibility, and having to deal with hitting objects right and left...Sprinklers might have helped, certainly, but another major hindering part to this tragedy must have been this CLUTTER.
Posted by Donna920 on June 29, 2007 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Disgusting. The Charleston Water System places money above human life. Their greed will come back to haunt them.
Posted by hockeymom1311 on June 29, 2007 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
90% of businesses without sprinklers! That's amazing. And the fees are incredibly expensive. The firefighters knew there were no sprinklers, knew there was a truss roof, knew there were lots of sofas and knew there was no one else in the building. I think we need new laws to protect them and I just don't think that so many people should have been in that building.
Posted by Girleygirl on June 29, 2007 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sad Sad Sad. And that's why I said stand by the chief because of the powers to be wants $71,000 to install sprinklers plus another $2400 a year ....crazy! I am happy that this article opened up my eyes because its a bigger problem than what I thought. Kudos to Mbadger as well
Posted by camo on June 29, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mayor Riley should step up about these ridiculous fees. If a business goes into an existing non-sprinkler building or a historically designated building, they should be encouragement for that business to provide the safety of a sprinkler system, not punish them by making it cost prohibitive. From now on I will really take me look around when I go into places, and will also make me warn people when they go to Charleston about this lurking danger. Greed over common sense - way to go.
Posted by camo on June 29, 2007 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mayor Riley should step up and do something about these ridiculous fees. If a business goes into an existing non-sprinkler building or a historically designated building, there should be encouragement for that business to provide the safety of a sprinkler system, not punish them by making it cost prohibitive. From now on I will really take a look around when I go into places, and I will also warn people when they go to Charleston about this lurking danger. Greed over common sense - way to go.
Posted by easy on June 29, 2007 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The CHIEF just said once again, if they had to fight the fire again tonight, they would do it the same way they did the night they lost 9 people. Is the CHIEF still in shock ?
Does he not know what he is saying ? The way I see it, he is saying he would lose the 9 personnel all over again, even knowing what he knows now, about the outcome of his dept's tactics. Does he not see that what happened was not the way to remain in his attitude when it comes to what is important when it was shown how the tactics that were used did not work. And I still cannot understand why there were 15 firefighters inside that building when the evacuation order was given. Thank God that the other 6 made it out.
It seems that these 6 have been over looked as being a possible part of the total loss.
Posted by Casaumile on June 29, 2007 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Mayor suggests that if the agreement with the Bondholders does not allow the removal of these insane fees then the taxpayers can foot the bill through tax credits.
No, Mr. Mayor I don't want to subsidise the Chas. Water System or the Bondholders any more through my taxes.Its a business, let it survive like other business, not supported by more tax increases.
Let the Bondholders step up to the plate and release CWS to provide the services needed to allow sprinker systems to be affordable.
Or are we seeing one more example where profit is more valuable than human life.
Posted by momof5 on June 29, 2007 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So sprinklers systems are taxed based on the water they MIGHT use in an emergency? Doesn't that overlook the water SAVED by not having a larger fire to extinguish?
Perhaps a fire sprinkler system is in truth an environmentally-friendly, water conservation tool...and thus, should be eligible for tax credits.
Posted by paindoc on June 29, 2007 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It brings tears to my eyes to think of every brave firefighter who, in the normal course of their job, risk their lives every time they answer a call. There is no greater calling than to risk one's own life to save others.
Now, Charleston and SC: Debate the sprinkler fees, argue about taxes and government shortfalls, debate the political ramifications.
Whatever you do, don't stop subsidising tobacco production and sales; don't raise the cigarette tax; don't restrict tobacco advertising; don't eliminate smoking in public areas like the one where the sofa store fire started. Above all, don't honor the memory of your nine dead firefighters with anything that might in any way infringe on the smokers' precious rights to slowly kill themselves along with an occasional hero or two who may be called upon to save them from a disaster like the sofa store fire.
Posted by Bill_Kane on June 29, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is time to look into just who runs the CWS and why they are running it is such a way that it cost lives. And the mayor says the bondholders are to blame, time for a new mayor then.
Every large building should have a system in it and it should not have any fee's other than the cost of the system and the labor to but it in.
Whoever is the cause of this major oversight should be held responsible for this the stupid, stupid rule.
Posted by ykarlson on June 29, 2007 at 2:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Give the water people a break. Someone must pay to put in and maintain that extra infrustructure. There are 2 ways to do that. 1. Have businesses which profit from the use of the sprinklers pay or 2. Have homeowners pay. Most homeowners see ( 2 ) as subsidizing businesses so they don't like that. My Ideology is that if a business cannot operate safely and sustain itself without creating external costs should not be operating to begin with. $77,000 financed over 30 years is 4 or 500 a month, I am not sure a sofa could be purchased for 4-500?
Posted by kka on June 29, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe $77,000 financed over 30 years is 4-500 a month, but you are forgetting the mandatory monthly fee for it just being in existence that the CWS wants to charge, which it an additional $250 per month. So now, we are up to $750/month that these businesses are being charged for a service they may possibly use in the future. Not to mention, maintenance of the equipment which would most likely need to be updated within that 30 years. This is not an inexpensive product. My question is, why are Charleston's prices considerably higher than other counties and cities? Why is there a fee here, and not in other places? This shows that the price tag can be altered for businesses so that they can operate in a safe manner.
Ultimately, it should be required for a building to have a sprinkler system if the building is over X amount of square feet, regardless of the age of the building or codes that weren't in place when the building was constructed. And the only way to do this successfully is to review other counties and cities that have utilized sprinklers in a cost effective manner and examine how they run this portion of the water system. Reevaluate the way CWS is handling this, and make adjustments so that we can all benefit from the insertion of sprinkler systems.
Posted by firemike on June 29, 2007 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just in case you didn't know this "ykarlson" according to his email account and then later tax records works for CWS. Shame, shame, shame! I'm sure that my buddies that died in the fire were probably worried about his paycheck!!! Just think about it ykarlson - you have 12 minutes of life left and you know your going to die (Charleston's Scott packs last, with special berthing techniques, 30 minutes) thinking that your kids will never have you around - you have to be thinking MAN! I'M GLAD CWS IS GETTING FREE MONEY FROM BUSINESS OWNERS. Got to hell jerk! Sprinkler systems only use water when needed. Look at the fire in Florida. They probably only used 500 gallons. All I have to say is ykarlson shut your pie hole. CWS to date has not donated a penny to the fire fighter families! What a bunch a crooks. I could go on all day, but what's the point my buddies are dead and nothing has changed. I hope Joe doesn't serve another term.
Posted by tfpoor on June 29, 2007 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ALL VALID POINTS FRIENDS!
Hey I hear Mayor Joe wants the city to buy the property for a firemans memorial. I'm sure the owner of the sofa store will need the money for the up and coming law suits.
How about instead of buying the property for a memorial why don't you use that money for subsidizing sprinkler sytems? Since business can't afford them due to your fees then maybe your subsidy will help save a firemans life! That would be a great memorial for those (9) hero's. If the city has that kind of money laying around why don't you give it to THE FAMILIES!
Posted by ykarlson on June 29, 2007 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I don't work for CWS. I bet none of their staff are even allowed to comment on this. My point is this is a grave tragety, but a business is a business. You put a model together, and the numbers work or don't work. $77K just isn't a whole lot of money. Lower the impact fee on businesses and then residents will pay it. I don't see why a 5000 or 10000 gallon cistern with pump or something would work the same and cost less than trying to get a huge main into all these places. Or some type of haleon system or something. I just don't connect the dots with how a utility is responsible for this. Sorry.
Posted by motoflyguy on June 30, 2007 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ykarlson, You are finaly right on one thing, if I ran CWS I wouldnt want my people to comment on this either if i was responsible for killing innocent people.
You are so misinformed that you would do well to not comment and then no one would know how dumb you really are.
Do you not understand that a fire hydrant puts out 1000 gallons per minute.
Your suggestion to privitize each water supply is about as dumb as buying a new lexus and calling a cab to get to work! The water system is a public entity and they do not subsidise any private facility but they do hinder and discourage owners from installing life saving low cost systems. If CWS has been collecting IMPACT FEES for ten years why do they need to borrow money anyway, their own justification stated that the fees were to improve and enlarge the system so where is all that money if they need to borrow funds for improvements!!!
Oh by the way give up you will never be able to "connect the dots" so just accept the fact that you wont ever get it ok. Hope you or your kids don't burn to death waiting for a brave firefighter to save you. But wait maybe you could privitize your houses fire protection by forming your own fire brigade after all we wouldnt want any business burdened with the cost of protecting your family. Firemike is right you are an idiot and some village must be looking for you.
Posted by motoflyguy on June 30, 2007 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MBARGER one more thing...You are correct about inspections and the systems are required to be inspected annualy by a licensed sprinkler contractor and all deficiencies noted on a standard reporting form. These reports should be required to be submitted to the local fire inspectors office so they can mandate repairs or corrections. At lest the fire dept would be aware of any conditions that might help in a fire situation. Currently the inspection forms go to the building owner and there is no requirement to inform the local fire dept or to fix the systems if the owner doesn't want to. This seems reasonable in light of the fact that the fire dept or building inspectors are no longer doing any inspections.
Posted by 44_mag on June 30, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TO THE COMMISSIONERS OF CWS: You have some explaining to do. Assuming the P&C story is even partially accurate, why do you feel the need to charge such exhorbitant prices for a tap fee when water is hardly ever used and then, only for emergencies? How much water did the CFD use from the hydrants? At 1000 gpm per hydrant I'll bet a lot more than a sprinkler system would have. And metered too? Why? It's a sure bet that Fire Depts use much more water from hydrants than commercial sprinkler systems. An how much more trouble is it to read a fire main meter than a residential meter?
It appears that your Agency needs to do some pencil sharpening and damage control. Regardless of how you may justify the fees you have some fundamental problems when you create an environment that actually deters installation of sprinkler systems. If the Ormond Beach, FL incident is even a close example of the savings in lives, property and even water use I'd sure like to hear why you think your approach is better.
You need to remember that as officers of a public agency you have a higher duty than making money. The public put you there. The public will be happy to remove you if you can't get your priorities straight.
In the meantime, you should step up to the plate and help the firefighters' families right away. I'm not a lawyer, but given the information in the P&C story it looks like you have some culpability in the matter. Perhaps the families will wind up getting some of your "impact fees" in the end?
Posted by THISMUSTSTOP on July 11, 2007 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this is going to go on for a long time. I know the firefighters that are still alive are pissed. I thought that CWS was owned by the City of Charleston.
Rusty has been told about his tactics and he has ignored the standards for years. Forget about the water people, lets concentrate on getting a Fire Chief with a brain. The current Chief is nothing more than a country boy with a H.S. education. And the Mayor even says he never leave town.
Only a fool could think that a person w/ a H.S. education that has never experienced anything but Charleston could run a fire department the size of CharlestonFD.
Fire the Mayor and the Chief will follow.
Honor these nine guys by getting a REAL Fire Chief, not a country boy that barely speaks english.
Posted by bootlicked on July 16, 2007 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think the clutter has a thing to do with the firefighters losing their lives. If you know anything about firefighting it is hard to find your way in your own house if it was full of of smoke. The Chief who was in charge(Rusty) should have known the dangers and not worried about losing a building. The first thing he should have done was call his men out. I heard Riley was on board that suggested these high fees. Always finding a way to stick it to the businesses like the king sreet sidewalk project. What the hell happened to the 6% local option sales tax. All of it is about making Rusty , the Malonies and any one else that supports this sorry pos more money even if it is illegal like in the Malonies case.
Posted by bootlicked on July 16, 2007 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh and of course Riley's salary always is increased.
Posted by huntress87 on July 30, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hi