Could Columbia’s fire marshal enforce building and fire codes inside state-owned buildings in the city?

Official title

Clarifying the powers of the State Fire Marshal within local municipalities and concerned about your enforcement powers within state-owned structures and your scope of responsibility.

Requester

John G. Reich, Fire Marshal, Bureau of Fire Prevention

Plain-English summary

Columbia's fire marshal asked about local enforcement powers in state-owned structures. In a 1995 informal letter, the AG said the State Engineer was responsible for interpreting and enforcing the listed building and fire standards for state buildings. The city's resident fire marshal could not enforce code violations on state property in that role; the letter described his authority there as related to firefighting.

The letter also said local permit requirements could not be applied to state construction projects under the statute it quoted. For other questions about the State Fire Marshal, State Engineer, and city roles across types of property, it recommended that the offices coordinate rather than attempting a full property-by-property allocation in the opinion.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Who enforced the listed codes on state buildings in Columbia? A: The letter placed interpretation and enforcement with the State Engineer, rather than the city fire marshal.

Q: Did that remove the city's firefighting role at state property? A: No. The AG described the city's authority there as related to firefighting responsibilities.

Q: Did the letter settle every fire-safety jurisdiction question? A: No. It directed the remaining property-specific questions toward coordination among state and city officials.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion discussed a 1995 provision assigning state-building code interpretation and enforcement to the State Engineer and a separate provision excluding state projects from local permit requirements. It applied those rules to state-owned property within Columbia.

Citations and references

The letter quoted the state-building provision and cited South Carolina's local-permit exemption for state projects.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/october-30-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/1995oct30reich.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY Co!'JDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

October 30, 1995

I
I

John G. Reich, Fire Marshal
Bureau of Fire Prevention
City of Columbia
1001 Senate Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mr. Reich:
You have sought an interpretation of law to clarify the powers of the State Fire Marshal within local municipalities. In particular, you are concerned about your enforcement powers within state-owne9 structures and your scope of responsibility. I will provide comments on the relevant law; I would strongly suggest that your office, perhaps with the assistance of the Legal Department of the City of Columbia, further discuss these matters with the Office of the State Fire Marshal, the State Engineer, and the Division of General Services of the Budget and Control Board of the State of South Carolina, to ensure coordination of services by all of the parties involved. You may be aware that in the 1995-96 general appropriations act, the General Assembly added §10-1-180 to the Code of Laws of South Carolina, to codify on a permanent basis a proviso which had been in effect on a year-to-year basis previously. In relevant part, §I 0-1-180 provides: In all construction, improvement and renovation of state buildings shall comply [sk] with the applicable standards and specifications set forth in each of the following codes: The Standard Building Code, The Standard Existing Building Code, The Standard Gas Code, The Standard Mechanical Code, The Standard Plumbing Code and The Standard Fire Prevention Code, all as adopted by the Southern Building Code Congress International, Rr\IA~RT

c. DE~NIS Bt 11 IH\c>

•

PosT OFFICE Bo:-: 115.+9

•

Cou_.\IBIA. S.C. 29211-15.+9

•

TELEPHO~E: 803-73.+-3970

•

F~cs1\11LE: 803-253-6283

John G. Reich, Fire Marshal
Page 2
October 30, 1995
Inc.; and the National Electrical Ccxle NFPA 70, The National Electrical Safety Ccxle -ANSI-C2, The National Fire Protection Association StandardNFPA 59, all with the ccxle editions, revision years, and deletions as specified in the Manual for Planning and Execution of State Permanent Improvements. The State Engineer shall determine the enforcement and interpretation of all the aforementioned codes and referenced standards on state buildings. Any interested local officials shall coordinate their comments related to state buildings through the State Engineer and shall neither delay construction nor delay or deny water, sewer, power, other utilities, or firefighting services. Agencies may appeal to the Director of the Office of General Services regarding the application of these codes to state buildings. [Emphasis added.] Furthermore, S.C. Code Ann. §6-9-110 provides as follows: In no event may any county, municipal, or other local ordinance or regulation which requires the purchase or acquisition of a permit, license, or other device utilized to enforce any building standard be construed to apply to any state department, institution, or agency permanent improvement project, construction project, renovation project, or property. This Code section was interpreted in City of Charleston v. South Carolina State Port§ Authority, 309 S.C. 118, 420 S.E.2d 497 (1992), as follows: Chapter 9 of Title 6 establishes a statutory scheme whereby local governments may adopt~ certain listed building ccxles. Chapter 9 also establishes the South Carolina Building Code Council. The Council may approve or disapprove any deviations from the standard codes which local governments may adopt. Thus, the legislature had retained final approval of local building codes. Because the various codes which local governments may adopt and approved local variations differ. the legislature has exempted state agencies from the local codes. The state buildings are designed and approved at the state level under the building codes applicable to state. buildings .... [Emphasis added.] 309 S.C. at 121. Clearly the State Engineer is to determine the enforcement and interpretation of the codes and standards listed in new §10-1-180 with respect to state buildings. As to enforcement powers with respect to code violations within state-owned property within

John G. Reich, Fire Marshal
Page 3
October 30, 1995
the City of Columbia, such would fall to the State Engineer rather than to you as the resident fire marshal or chief fire inspector for the City of Columbia. Your authority instead would be related to fire-fighting responsibilities in state-owned property. Your letter raises several questions about the jurisdiction of the State Fire Marshal, the State Engineer, and you as resident fire marshal and Chief Fire Inspector for the City of Columbia with respect to several different types of property located in the City of Columbia. Some of your questions, particularly concerning enforcement of applicable codes to state-owned property, are answered by the statutes cited above. The remainder of your questions should most probably be worked out by the State Fire Marshal, the State Engineer, the Division of General Services, and the City of Columbia. Such a cooperative venture, rather than an opinion of this Office detailing which office has the responsibility on which type of property' would better ensure complete fire protection and safety for the affected citizens and property. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kindest regards, I am I

~

Sincerely,

'P~0P~
Patricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General

CC: Wayne Rush, Esquire