Automatic fire sprinklers are great — but not, some condominium unit owners say, when installing them means uprooting their entire lives and spending thousands of dollars.

At Kahala Towers, a high-rise residential building in Honolulu, the condo’s board of directors is pushing ahead with the installation, saying it’s needed to mitigate soaring insurance costs. Owners, many of whom are elderly, say that the sprinklers are unnecessary and that the installation means big bills that the retiree residents can’t afford — plus the need to find a new place to live for nearly two weeks.

“They don’t know what to do, especially those on fixed incomes,” said Ruth Bosworth, an owner at the towers concerned about the elderly population. “Some of them are alone, so they don’t have any family around to help them, and the board isn’t offering any type of help.”

Rudy Savio, the board’s president, said that the board’s main motivation is the rapidly increasing cost of insurance. The insurance company at Kahala Towers is Fireman’s Fund, and its insurance agent is Insurance Associates, where Savio works as an account executive. His aunt, Sue Savio, owns the company.

“Our insurance increased from $120,000 a few years ago to $720,000,” he said. “That’s a lot of money owners are paying every month that’s just going down the drain.”

Installing automatic fire sprinklers is the board’s best bet for lowering these costs, Savio said. He said that premiums could drop by as much as 50%.

But not everyone agrees with the decision. In a 2021 vote, a significant majority of participating owners voted not to install sprinklers. Now, as the board moves closer to signing contracts for the installation, some owners are challenging their decision, arguing that the costs outweigh the benefits and create unnecessary hardships for the towers’ elderly, disabled and sick populations.

Honolulu’s Sprinkler Ordinance

After a deadly fire at the 36-story Marco Polo building in Honolulu killed four people in 2017, the city created an ordinance requiring all existing high-rise residential buildings to take steps to pass a Building and Life Safety Evaluation within seven years.

For many buildings, this meant installing an automatic fire sprinkler system.

But buildings with full exterior access, like Kahala Towers, are exempt from installing a sprinkler system as long as they make other modifications to pass the city’s evaluation, such as upgrading their fire alarm systems or installing smoke detectors.

While the towers have yet to make these modifications, longtime owner Michael Howard said doing so would make the most sense. To him, installing sprinklers is unnecessary. 

According to Howard, Kahala Towers has an open layout and over 100 fire hoses and fire extinguishers. He added that the concrete building is categorized as fire-resistant by State Farm Insurance.

“We’re not Marco Polo,” Howard said. “That was terrible, that was a tragedy, but it seems like certain individuals are trying to take advantage of that to make a buck.”

Savio said that it’s not that simple, though.

The board began making plans to pass the city’s safety evaluation in 2020, but the towers failed an evaluation the following year. Savio said that it was difficult to pass without sprinklers.

“As far as I know, pretty much every unsprinklered building failed that test,” Savio said.

That left the board with two options: they could either make more modifications to the towers in the hopes of passing a future evaluation, or they could install fire sprinklers.

Skyrocketing Insurance Costs

Savio said installing sprinklers was the logical choice for the nine board members who voted unanimously in favor of the project last year.

While the process could cost between $4 million and $5 million — as opposed to the estimated $2 million required to make the alternative building modifications — Savio said it would save owners money in the long run.

“We’ve been told by our insurance company that if we pass the life safety evaluation, all we’ll get is a pat on the back,” he said. “If we install sprinklers, they say that our insurance costs will decrease by 30% to 50%.”

Those insurance costs are expected to reach upwards of $1 million next year, Savio said, although they have already been steadily increasing. Six years ago, insurance made up 9% of the towers’ budget. Now, that number has jumped to 35%.

The board has actively worked to be transparent with owners about the situation, Savio said. In 2021, after an informational meeting about the building’s options, owners participated in a vote on whether or not to move forward with the sprinklers. The board mailed out the ballots several times, along with a 39 question Q&A that included information about asbestos removal, sprinkler maintenance and insurance prices.

According to Savio, the board needed 50% of owners to vote against the installation in order for the board to reject the plan. But only approximately 75% of owners submitted ballots. 44% voted against the new sprinklers, while 30% opted for the system. Without a majority of owners voting against the sprinklers, the board is going ahead with the new system.

“We have to make decisions for the best interest of everyone in the building,” he said.

Owners Against Installation

Some owners feel that installing the sprinklers will do more harm than good.

“They keep saying the insurance, the insurance, it’s just talking about the insurance,” Bosworth said. “They’re forgetting about all the humanistic things, especially with the elderly people.”

She described the project as a huge hardship for the condominium’s more vulnerable populations.

In order to install sprinklers in the towers, owners would first need to treat the area for asbestos — a process that could cost owners between $6,000 and $8,000 per unit. Owners say they will need to move out for up to 12 days, taking their furniture and belongings with them.

“Where are you going to live for 12 days?” Howard said. “How much is that going to cost? And to store your furniture someplace, and to have people come in and move it? That’s all on our dime.”

Lawrence Nishimoto, who has lived in the towers for over 40 years, said that the board should give up this “crazy thing they’re thinking about,” because many owners don’t have the money for it.

“I can’t afford this,” he said. “I’m retired, I’m on fixed income already.”

A petition calling for the board to host a revote has been signed by 70 of the 233 owners in the building, according to Bosworth. She said that the original vote in 2021 was not representative of the entire community and that it was made at a time when less information was available.

“I don’t even know how many condominiums there are in Hawaii, but I’m sure other seniors are faced with the same kind of problem,” she said.