By Howard Fischer – AZ Central.com

Avondale voters made it clear three years ago they did not like a new city ordinance that required sprinklers in all new houses when they voted down a ballot measure requiring them.

Now, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge will have to decide if that precludes city officials from enacting a less-restrictive version of the same requirement.

The court’s decision could have implications beyond Avondale. It could set a precedent for the powers of city councils throughout the state to second-guess residents.

The original ordinance would have required sprinklers in all single-family houses built after it passed in 2005. However, foes of the bill, largely developers and others in the real-estate industry, collected enough signatures to refer the measure to the ballot and, in September 2005, voters repealed the sections.

The City Council adopted a new ordinance in March 2006 that requires only model homes and new houses 5,000 square feet or larger to install sprinklers. Sprinklers must also be offered as an option in all new houses smaller than 5,000 square feet.

Connie Wilhelm, president and executive director of the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, said her organization was willing to live with the new restrictions.

But her concern, Wilhelm said, is that city officials contend that “spec” houses – built without a specific buyer in mind – are model homes. The city won’t issue building permits for spec homes without sprinklers.

This presents a big problem for developers, Wilhelm said, because they often want to finish the last few houses in a subdivision even though no one has contracted for their construction.

The organization asked attorney Steve Tully for help. Tully filed suit to have the entire 2006 law voided.

Central to the question is a state constitutional provision that says lawmakers may not alter any measure approved by voters. Tully said that applies not only to initiatives – laws that voters craft – but also to referenda in which voters decide whether to keep something lawmakers have passed.

The provision applies to Avondale, Tully said, because its city charter requires the community to live by the same constitutional provision.

Tully is charging that parts of the repealed 2005 sprinkler code were “illegally repealed” by the 2006 law because the City Council overrode the voters’ decision.

Tully said he is not arguing that the 2005 referendum prohibits Avondale from addressing the issue of sprinklers. But he said that these particular restrictions on residential construction are now forever beyond the reach of the council.

He is asking Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Swann to rule on the legality of the 2006 ordinance and to block the city from enforcing it while the case is decided.

Pier Simeri, Avondale’s public information officer, said no one from the city could comment on the issue because of the ongoing litigation. She provided a copy of a press release issued by Fire Chief Paul Adams in March 2006 defending the new law and the council’s decision to adopt sprinkler regulations despite the 2005 election.

To read the full article click here.