Sprinkler bill wins key vote in House
Sanford reiterates concerns with cost
Sanford reiterates concerns with cost
At a glance
The Legislature is considering three plans aimed at getting more South Carolina homes and businesses equipped with fire sprinklers. The House on Thursday passed legislation, which will get a final reading today, to give businesses and homeowners tax incentives for the purchase and installation of fire sprinklers.
Representatives and senators are likely headed to conference committee to ultimately work out the differences. But first, a Senate panel is trying to reach a compromise between mandating that commercial buildings have sprinklers installed or relying on tax credits and incentives to encourage it. The Senate is also considering a provision that would allow local governments to impose regulations stricter than the state's.
The latest versions of the House and Senate sprinkler bills
Senate bill 860 authored by Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston
Firefighter Coverage
In our special section with photos, videos, interactives, donation information and every story written about the tragedy.
COLUMBIA — With little to say and no fanfare, the state House approved a bill many in the Charleston area view as one of the most important things legislators could do this year.
By voice vote, the House gave key approval to a bill that gives tax credits worth 80 percent of the cost, up to $50,000, for homes and businesses to purchase and install fire sprinklers. Purchasing the systems also would be free of sales tax.
The bill became controversial recently when Gov. Mark Sanford likened the incentives to a government subsidy, but supporters balked at the criticism.
Speaker Bobby Harrell, lead sponsor of the bill, said the House's passage of the legislation without debate is not intended to send a message to the governor.
"It's clear the members of the House understand that the bill is about saving lives, plain and simple," said Harrell, R-Charleston. "The only message being sent is to the people of South Carolina that fire safety and saving lives is incredibly important."
The legislation was prompted by the June 18 Sofa Super Store fire that killed nine Charleston firefighters.
Sanford reiterated his concern Thursday after the vote. He said the sentiment is admirable but the cost should be viewed as prohibitive to the Legislature as the state faces a forecasted budget deficit.
"I appreciate the fact that the House was looking at ways to bring good from the horror of recent fires, but we do not believe open-ended financial commitments that essentially create new entitlements are the way to do so, particularly when you look at the realities of the budget we're about to head in to," Sanford said in a statement.
The state Board of Economic Advisors estimates the bill will cost about $36 million over the next five years, according to a statement on its Web site. The governor's office believes that if more people take advantage than was originally figured in the estimate, the cost to the state would be closer to $108 million over five years.
If adopted this year, the bill is expected to reduce local government revenues statewide by $19.8 million during the 2008-09 budgeting cycle, according to the economic impact statement. It would require local governments only charge the actual cost associated with adding a waterline for the purpose of supporting a fire sprinkler system.
Butch Womack, president of the South Carolina State Firefighters' Association and chief of the Easley Fire Department, said the governor should look at the potential cost savings down the line when sprinkler systems do the job of firefighters across the state.
"I feel like I am almost going to be unemployed in 10 years," Womack said, testifying of the effectiveness of sprinklers in fighting fires.
Womack also said he's not an economist but he understands that the legislation will encourage more people to get sprinklers and when they do, the law of supply and demand should lower the cost.
Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said he supports legislation offering tax incentives to encourage businesses and homeowners to install sprinklers. He noted that the Sofa Super Store building would not be required under existing state law to have sprinklers.
Riley favors a provision being considered by the Senate that would allow local governments to require certain buildings to retrofit with sprinklers. The Senate is trying to work out a compromise between plans that call for sprinkler mandates and another that, like the House bill, relies on incentives.
"I urge our state lawmakers to pass comprehensive sprinkler legislation so that no community in South Carolina, and no families like those of our fallen nine, will ever again lose precious lives to preventable fires," Riley said in a statement.
Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@ postandcourier.com. Reach Brian Hicks at 937-5561 or bhicks@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 14 comment(s)
Posted by moonpie on February 15, 2008 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
P_M why don't you just write a letter to the editor instead of taking up the entire post?
I agree with you it's just "feel good" legislation but we got your point after your first post. Flip the page man move on!
Posted by Beachbumwannabe on February 15, 2008 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This type of legislation is what happens when the Republican Party loses its way (thanks Katon Dawson) and the Governor makes himself irrelevant (Thanks kooky Mark Sanford).
We need a governor that actually cares about people, and a party chairman that is not a total media whore. We need a press that will report what these people in power ACTUALLY do, not just what they say.
Untill then, the assult on the treasury will continue.
Posted by majorjohnson on February 15, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet buying everyone in the state a new Volvo would save a lot of lives too...and the evil filthy rich will pay for it so it's really free!
Another problem solved...now where's my "free" health care?
Posted by theronce on February 15, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If it is such a good idea, why do we need to pay anyone to do it? This is going to create more fraud than you can shake a stick at.
Posted by JohnS on February 15, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The taxpayer should not cover this. If you want them pay for them yourself.
Posted by Engineer_FireMarshal_CidGrad on February 15, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can call me "the professor" because I have a lecture for you...
Part 1 of 4
Background:
I was born & raised in Charleston and my family roots go back centuries to the land grant days. I am a permanent resident of South Carolina and care deeply that we don't mortgage our future prosperity and that of our children. I believe that Gov. Mark Sanford has a similar outlook and is fiscally prudent and a good steward of the State. I have supported him through each election cycle because I believe he sticks to his principles and his principles align well with my own. [I also like and respect Lindsey Graham, Glen McConnell and Joe Riley but that is a story for another day and involves family and other connections to them...]
That said, I believe based on what I have heard reported, that Gov. Sanford, the legislature, and most of the populace in our State are as ignorant of the big picture benefits of fire protection sprinkler systems as I was before I left the field of environmental and civil engineering consulting and entered the realm of fire protection engineering [from a code enforcement perspective].
A former State Fire Marshal wisely stated to me years ago that building owners come & go... the buildings stay. When we look at the buildings in our community as community assets, I think it is easier to understand why you'd want to protect not only our brave fire fighters, but ourselves and our friends, family, etc.. How many buildings in your community do you use? When you are in a coliseum, theatre, or other large gathering of people in a building, do you picture trying to get out of the building during an emergency? Have you seen the graphic raw video footage of the Rhode Island night club fire that was recently shown to legislators where people trampled each other and bodies were piled on each other at the main exit door? Have you considered how vulnerable you are to the effects of fire when you sleep? Did you realize most people are incapacitated by the smoke from the fire not the fire? Do you stay in high rise hotels on vacation? Do you ask if they are sprinklered? Do you ask for rooms on the ground floor? If not, do you ask for rooms next to the exit stairs?
The community ultimately pays for substandard building construction in various ways: Vacant un-rentable/un-sellable/un-safe properties, higher insurance premiums, public water wasted by fire suppression operations... In today's fast paced world many people don't seem to grow community roots [like they used to decades ago] and don't seem to care as much about the community they live in [often just a temporary location during their overall lifetime].
Posted by Engineer_FireMarshal_CidGrad on February 15, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Part 2 of 4
Sprinklers Save Water too.
Did you know that a fire protection sprinkler system typically uses much less water in its operation than the fire department would use if the building was unsprinklered? When you think about how much water flows out of the typical 1/2-inch sprinkler orifice and compare that to the diameter of a fire hose you can then understand part of the reason the sprinkler system saves water [without a lesson in hydraulics and the associated math]. Of course, most people incorrectly think buildings are typically equipped with a deluge system that dumps water from every sprinkler head. [You see the incorrect operation on TV, and in the movies, so it must be true... right?!] There are such systems [outside of Hollywood, CA] but they are rare and typically encountered in industrial applications.
Sprinkler Systems
There are many types of sprinkler systems. When accidental discharge or freezing is a concern in a building, then it is appropriate to specify a special type system like a preaction or dry system. A preaction system typically holds the water behind a valve in the main sprinkler riser that waits for a signal from a smoke detector. Even if the heat sensitive element in a sprinkler head activates or there is mechanical damage to the sprinkler head or pipe that would otherwise allow water to leak out, the valve won't allow water to flow in the piping system downstream until it gets the signal from a smoke detector or similar separate detection device. I could go on but there is SO much data to communicate to bring people to the same logical conclusions I have obtained.
FOR STARTERS READ about sprinkler systems on Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_sprink...
Who do you think ultimately pays for the wasted water? During recent droughts and lawsuits over water rights, my thoughts have been that sprinkler systems would save water use during extinguishment of a fire. But the public is largely ignorant of that fact.
Sprinkler System Design Standards
The design and installation codes mentioned below are viewable on the Internet at:
http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/list_o...
Did you know there are 2 other sprinkler system standards in addition to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13? There are simpler and cheaper sprinkler systems designed for certain type buildings. NFPA 13R [Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in Height] and NFPA 13D [Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes] are systems which are much cheaper to install and maintain than the NFPA 13 systems usually discussed.
Posted by Engineer_FireMarshal_CidGrad on February 15, 2008 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Part 3 of 4
Home Sprinkler Systems
There are new multipurpose piping systems per NFPA 13D which I am considering for my next home which I will specify be built with a fire protection sprinkler system and other smart safety features, regardless of whether they are code required or not. Multipurpose piping systems are cheap systems that interconnect with and use the plumbing piping runs for supply piping in addition to piping needed to reach designated locations in the building for sprinkler heads. As stated at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9432... "The design parameters of NFPA 13D allow for the installation of a residential sprinkler system as a part of the water distribution system. As a result, the multipurpose piping system reduces the cost of installation by only having one piping system for both the cold water supply and the sprinkler system, unlike a commercial building with two separate and distinct piping systems."
READ MORE here:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_cit...
Did you know most fire deaths in buildings occur in residences, not commercial property?
An important question that should be asked is why we don't have legislation requiring new homes to be sprinklered. We require smoke detectors in homes, but they don't put out fires (or suppress them to keep them at bay until the fire department arrives).
"SCOTTSDALE'S 15-YEAR HISTORY PROVES HOME FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SAVE LIVES AND PROPERTY"
Did you know some communities in our nation have successfully enacted community sprinkler requirements that have saved them from having to build and maintain as many fire stations and fire fighting staff? READ MORE here:
http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?Nav...
Posted by Engineer_FireMarshal_CidGrad on February 15, 2008 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Part 4 of 4
The general public is ignorant of many things and trusts experts to guide them on areas outside their expertise. In a modern society we must rely on specialists for many things, including expert testimony and advice. Please trust your experts in fire protection to protect the public from fire, not business interests who want to protect their business interests. Perhaps the public should have a referendum on the subject... after getting educated on the subject matter, but a large democracy is inefficient. We elect representatives so they will study the subject for us and hopefully come to a wise conclusion. I prefer the representatives who can study the subject of the legislation, obtain expert advice/counsel, and make the best decision for the State of South Carolina and for the permanent citizens of it.
On the subject of fire sprinklers we should carefully consider the benefits versus costs of being progressive and how sprinklers protect our overall community investments in the citizens, buildings, public service employees, facilities, conservation of clean water, insurance costs, etc. and what the overall benefit and overall cost to the community will be.
Just like the investments in conserving undeveloped land [for appreciation and use by present and future generations to enjoy], public parks [for all the economic echelons of our community], and preservation of history [information, artifacts, buildings, sites, cultures, etc.], let's do the overall wise thing for the citizens of South Carolina!
Posted by KoolaidDrinker on February 15, 2008 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am sure palmettoman isn't interested in listeninhg to any facts!!!
Don't dare confuse him with the facts his little narrow mind is made up!!!!
Posted by yeahright on February 15, 2008 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So what if it's cut and pasted. It's thought-provoking. Isn't that the point of these dialogues?
Posted by KoolaidDrinker on February 15, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As we all watch and participate in the debate going on in our state concerning the implementation of fire sprinklers, it seems that emotion sometimes eclipses reason and we find ourselves unsure of exactly what the truth really is.
This issue is not so much about taxes, incentives and subsidies as some would purport, but the bigger issue is the technology we choose to employ in our quest for dependable fire protection. The eventual question to be decided is, will South Carolina move forward to the superior technology of passive fire sprinkler protection or will we continue to attempt to protect ourselves by subsidizing the fire brigade mentality and methodology?
Modern fire sprinkler technology is far superior to living next door to the fire station. I am sure that these same old arguments were leveled when the City of Scottsdale, Arizona elected to mandate residential and commercial sprinklers in the mid 1980’s, but today as a direct result of that progressive experiment a fifteen year study that substantiates the facts about fire sprinklers and the role they play in a community’s overall fire safety plan are indisputable. The truly amazing thing is unlike the politicians, who lack the leadership and understanding of the technical advantages of sprinklers, the International Association of Fire Chiefs know these sprinklers could make many of their jobs obsolete and yet they are vigorously supporting the bill.
As documented by the Scottsdale experiment, these are the proven facts:
• The death toll attributed to fire in Scottsdale was ---during the 15 years included in the study while fire deaths in sprinkled home was ---
• The average residential fire in the study was credited with $45,019 dollars in damage compared to a mere $2,166 dollars (a 95.2% difference) in the sprinkled homes.
• The average amount of water hose discharge to control a fire was 2,935 gallons in contrast to 341 gallons in the sprinkled property resulting in far less water damage to the building and cost to the water purveyor (Hydrants are not metered.)
• The possibility of an accidental water discharge due to component malfunction or failure was 1 in 26,000,000 and even then the water damage is less than the average plumbing system failure.
• In South Carolina more than 80% of fire deaths happen in one and two family homes.
• Sprinklers cost about 1.60 per square foot on average which is about equal to a carpet upgrade in most homes or businesses or less than 1% of the total cost of a home.
Posted by KoolaidDrinker on February 15, 2008 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Smoke detectors are an excellent tool but they are reactive whereas the sprinklers are proactive. Smoke detectors cannot control a fire but serve only to warn those who are able to respond leaving children and the elderly most vulnerable. No smoke detection device has ever controlled a fire.
There is an overwhelming wealth of evidence that underscores the practicality and reliability of these systems and no good solid argument not to implement them in modern construction.
This bill that encourages the implementation of the technology of fire sprinklers that are proven to reduce insurance rates, lower the cost of providing fire safety, and save lives and property where they are employed.
In the long run this legislation will not be a tax burden but rather will serve to reduce fire prevention costs by replacing less effective outdated fire prevention tactics while enhancing the overall safety of South Carolinians.
The savings realized will be directly proportional to the reduction of our present methodology of building fire stations, purchasing equipment and apparatus, as well as training more and more firefighters. These will slowly but surely give way to the 24/7 protection afforded by fire sprinklers.
Speaker Harrell and Senator McConnell have valued the tax credits for this bold and progressive effort to save lives and property in our state at a cost of $36,000,000 for five years. Governor Sanford has stated that this initiative is just too expensive for South Carolina even though he rallied the vote to obtained the $30,000,000 Coastal Insurance Tax Credit to fix up costal properties that benefits a very narrow and mostly elite group who, like himself and his neighbors, own very expensive beach properties on the resort islands that most citizens have little access to. It is unfortunate that the Senate and House have had to assume the role of leadership to fill the void left by Governor Sanford in his quest for recognition as the opponent of tax funded programs even if the lives of his constituents hang in the balance.
The opposition from the Governor and his cohorts with their campaign of misinformed rhetoric does a disservice to the people of South Carolina.
We must not squander this unique opportunity to embrace the future and lower our fire protection cost in both lives and dollars. Even it is at the expense of some professional politician’s agenda and legacy we cannot stop progress. We must either adapt or die.
Posted by frenchsmom on February 17, 2008 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
First let's "recall PM". As for your free health ins Majorassinine why not shoot for "affordable insurance" and find a job that supplies it. Sanford has always had my vote but he has lost it and many others if he vetoes this. Take a bit out of his pay increases and a dab from improving the beaches by his friends' ocean fronts and lets save some lives. When will anyone understand that no matter how well trained and up to date a FD is they are still entering buildings that are operating under sub standard conditions. What is the going price for a life today? Why train our firefighters for suicide missions?