Riley: Drop sprinkler feesThe Post and Courier
Saturday, June 30, 2007
On TVSouth Carolina ETV will rebroadcast the Charleston firefighters' community memorial service at 12:30 p.m. Wednesday. EDITOR'S NOTE: To comment on this story click here. You must be registered to comment. To register click here. -------------------------------------------------- The Charleston Water System should eliminate impact fees for businesses that install automated fire sprinklers, Charleston Mayor Joe Riley said Friday. "It will be my recommendation that we move on this quickly and have a special meeting, which I think this warrants," Riley said. Riley's comments follow a report by The Post and Courier showing how the water system's hefty fees discourage businesses from installing automated fire sprinklers. The Sofa Super Store on Savannah Highway that burned June 18 and killed nine firefighters had no sprinkler system. "I believe that we will be able to, and I think we should, eliminate the impact fees for fire services," Riley said. Other officials agreed something should be done. "Obviously what happened was horrible. What we're going to do is seriously look at impact fees to see what changes can be made," said David Rivers, a Charleston Water System commissioner. The absence of sprinklers at the Sofa Super Store wasn't unusual. More than 90 percent of the commercial and industrial buildings in the Charleston Water System's service area lack sprinklers. A spokeswoman for the Sofa Super Store said city officials approached the owners 12 years ago and gave them the option of installing a fire door or installing sprinklers. The owner chose the door. Installers and contractors say many businesses have avoided retrofitting their buildings with sprinklers because of the Charleston Water System's fees. A sprinkler system typically costs about $2 per square foot, about the same as carpet, industry officials say. But the Charleston Water System requires that business owners pay impact fees ranging from $28,800 to $56,900 for the most common pipeline connection sizes. The utility also charges tap fees, which pay for the cost of a water meter and pipes from the system's pipeline network to a customer's plumbing. These tap fees range from $14,000 to $20,000 for common pipeline sizes. The utility then charges a monthly fee, $227.50 a month for the most common connection size, even if no water is used. Sprinkler installers are particularly frustrated with the meter policy because meters affect water flow rates, sometimes forcing customers to install larger pipelines. Because impact fees and monthly fees are based on pipeline size, this means customers pay even more, said Mike Stewart, an installer for Absolute Fire Protection. Not all utilities charge impact fees or require meters. About 12 years ago, Mount Pleasant Waterworks eliminated impact fees and requirements that sprinkler systems have meters because the utility wanted to encourage people to install sprinklers, General Manager Clay Duffie said. The utility even sent rebates to some customers who had paid the impact fees, he said. Duffie added that sprinkler systems don't really create a significant new impact on a water system. He said that Mount Pleasant's system is built to supply water to fire hydrants at a rate of 1,000 gallons per minute. "But if one or two sprinkler heads go off, you're talking about 50 or 60 gallons a minute, whereas that fire hydrant might require a thousand." In other words, he said, sprinklers can save water. Mount Pleasant still charges an annual fee for having a separate fire line, from $262 to $842, depending on line size. In comparison, the Charleston Water System's fees would be $954 to $2,730 if calculated on an annual basis, more if the customer lives outside the city of Charleston. Duffie said Mount Pleasant Waterworks officials weren't worried about violating agreements with bondholders when they dropped their fees for fire lines because they were still charging customers the annual fee. "We're not giving away free service," he said. He was unsure whether dropping the impact fees had encouraged more businesses to install automated sprinklers. Charleston Water System commissioners raised fees for new taps Jan. 31, 2006, an increase that amounted to a more than 70 percent hike. Because of the increase, the Charleston Water System is sitting on about $40 million. Most of this money came from new residential construction and will be used for new sewer and water lines, utility officials said. While fees for installing a sprinkler system are substantial, they account for very little of the utility's revenue because so few systems are installed. "In a given year we probably install less than two dozen," Chief Executive Officer Kin Hill said. Hill said the commissioners have the authority to reduce impact fees, but there's a legal question about their ability to eliminate them. Wesley Ropp, the utility's chief financial officer, said an ordinance that the Charleston Water System has used since 1984 when borrowing money by issuing bonds says that no free services will be provided. He said bond rating agencies had insisted on such provisions at the time. Riley said he thought the language in the bond ordinance could be overcome. "The staff is going to be working very hard to look at all options, including reducing, suspending or financing impact fees, but I think the benefit of encouraging the retrofitting of older buildings is so paramount, and I believe our bond ordinance would allow us to do this." The utility has been flush with money lately. The water system ended 2006 with about $22 million more than expected, and this year projects that net income will be $13 million over budget. That's enough money to cover all operations and maintenance, and still have twice the amount needed to cover debt payments. Prodded by fire safety officials, some communities have eliminated impact fees for sprinklers. State legislatures also have wrestled over the issue. Some Florida lawmakers in the mid-1990s tried to eliminate the fees but those efforts usually were beaten back because of strong opposition from the state's water systems. Kentucky is the only state that has eliminated them, Ken Isman of the National Fire Sprinkler Association said. "It's a national problem." Reach Tony Bartelme at 937-5554 or tbartelme@postandcourier.com. Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com. Reach Robert Behre at 937- |
Article tools
Sponsored Links |
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net 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 charleston.net. 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 13 comment(s)
|
Posted by Bill_Kane on June 30, 2007 at 4:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Because of the increase, the Charleston Water System is sitting on about $40 million." Most of this money came from new residential construction and will be used for new sewer and water lines, utility officials said.
Most of the money will be used to pay for Lawyers.
Posted by tfpoor on June 30, 2007 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe the mayor read our comments? I'm sorry it took nine lives to reach this decision.
Posted by majorjohnson on June 30, 2007 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The mayor was on the board when these fees were enacted in 1996, and he was on the board last year when they raised the fees. This was essentially a way to raise money from new construction...a cash cow...he played a part in enacting a regulation forcing new construction to purchase the sprinklers and then played a part in using that regulation to steal every penny he could.
Posted by trm2105 on June 30, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, Riley, I guess it really sticks in your craw that Mt. P addressed this problem 12 years ago without the loss of nine brave souls. You might need to suggest a hundred more memorials to get folks to ignore this unfortunate oversight on public safety.
Posted by motoflyguy on June 30, 2007 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We should accept nothing less than NO FEE at all for fire service lines. Senator Glenn McConnell is on board with this and we need to support him to enact the CHARLESTON 9 LAW at the state level that removes any tap or connection fees from fire service lines and restricts any monthly fees! Now thats a suitable memorial to those brave souls that stand on the wall for us all. Wow wouldnt that be something, South Carolina on the cutting edge on something worthwhile.
Posted by sopchoppy on June 30, 2007 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anybody thought about the fact that was mentioned that these rates were alot lower when the sofa super store moved in. The owners still choose not to install sprinklers.
This whole debate boils down to money, and these two fire sprinkler companies that start it are out for a profit. If CWS removes these fees, the fire sprinkler companys stand to make a LARGE PROFIT. Not to mention the commisions being paid to these two guys selling the systems. I am not taking sides in this, but people need to realize that Absolute Fire Proctection and Worsham Sprinkler are taking 9 guys lives and trying to make a profit from it. To me this is A DISGRACE. Maybe they should be installing these systems for free or at cost. They are supposed to be saving lives right?
Posted by lacaci64 on June 30, 2007 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, the fees should be eliminated. As for the sprinkler system companies making a profit, they have to feed their families, pay their employees and purchase supplies and equipment just like any other business. Now, if you can get the grocery stores to give away food for free, or at cost and convince the sprinkler company employees to work for free and without benefits, and the suppliers to provide free supplies and equipment, more power to you!
Posted by Reader on June 30, 2007 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is not fair for sopchoppy to complain that someone will be making money from the installation of sprinklers. If the installation were free or at cost, no one would form a business installing the things, and we would not even have the option available. Besides, free installation by private companies would just shift the benefits from the installers (in the form of profits) to the store owners (in the form of valuable services contributed at no cost). Would you then complain that the businesses were trying to take advantage of the nine deaths to get free spinklers from installers?
Posted by firemike on June 30, 2007 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LARGE PROFIT? There is more than one sprinkler company right? Competition even now has weeded out even the current companies from making LARGE PROFITS. Unlike the fact that CWS has no competition and can make there own rules. sopchoppy maybe you would be happy if The City of Charleston just set a quota for acceptable losses of fire fighters every year. My fight house has lot of guys. My we could spare a few for you.
Posted by CodeGeek on June 30, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not just a problem in Charleston or SC, it is fairly common throughout the United States.
Perhaps Charleston and SC could lead a nationwide effort to repeal these laws in all states.
After all, you tried rebellion once before . . .
Posted by fire_and_life_safety_student on July 1, 2007 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In response to sopchoppy's comments concerning the statements made by Mr. Alexander (Worsham Sprinkler) and Mr. Stewart (Absolute Fire) as being profit motivated and using the death of the Charleston 9 as a marketing tool, I don't think he has the proper perspective on the fire protection industry as a whole. (I do not represent either company so this is an objective comment.) The fire sprinkler industry has long been an advocate of installing both commercial and residential sprinklers. Many in the industry have served, or still serve, as firefighters and have seen "upclose and personal" the life saving benefit of fire sprinklers over and over. So, just to clear the air, the fire sprinkler industry is not responding to the loss of "9 guys lives" solely to make a profit, but hopefully to help prevent any more needless loss of life to unprotected buildings, whether it is due to impact fees, code variances, apathy, or greed. An important historical factor to note is that, according to the National Fire Protection Association, there has never been a multiple life loss fire in a properly sprinklered building, where the system is properly inspected and maintained, and is not impaired at the time of the fire.
Posted by Wayne on July 2, 2007 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The proper way to encourage the installation of sprinklers is not to run sprinkler businesses away by taking away their ability to earn a fair profit. It is to eliminate the no value added taxes on them from a leeching government organization. This should be run the same as solar energy panel usage, where a credit is given in taxes for houses that reduce their energy use. A business should receive a tax credit for having an approved sprinkler system, which will save lives and insurance claims. The idea that there is an onerous tax ON the sprinkler system is so insane as to make me question the qualifications of the entire city counsel staff.
Posted by melissastewartoffice on July 9, 2007 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Actually sopchoppy my brother, Mike Stewart, mentioned in the article, has done more charity work than you will ever know. He is not after a profit. He has more work than he can stand and has had more work since long before the death of those 9 firefighters. My brother also KNEW those guys. Worked with them closely and respected them. Your comment was way out of line. He is a nice guy who cares. He has jumped into more burning buildings than you ever will. Your comments about being "DISGRACED" are aimed at the wrong person. The owner of the superstore who didnt follow building procedure is the only person who should be attacked. Take your anger out on the right person.