Gosack, city staff refute Woodrome allegations

Developer Brandon Woodrome came out swinging during the March 15 Fort Smith Board of Directors meeting, saying that Fort Smith City Administrator Ray Gosack and other members of the city staff were less than helpful during recent development projects.

Specifically, Woodrome said the city cost him about $21,000 on two recent projects because of conflicting advice from city staff and misinformation on the location of a water line. One of those conflicts include an allegation by Woodrome that he was told by city staff that a water line was in place to service a planned development. After spending about $15,000 to buy the property and prepare plans, he learned the water line was not available.

Woodrome says when he visited by phone with Gosack about the incidents, Gosack replied, “If you don’t like it, you can leave.” He also alleges that Gosack said Woodrome simply wants “our whole city to look like Towson and Wheeler.”

Woodrome said during a recent interview he did not have recordings of the alleged statements.

UDO OPPOSITION
In his written comments made to the board, Woodrome continued: “Now I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, especially not the head of the City bureaucracy, but to tell those with opposing opinions to leave is against the ideas fundamental to a republic.”

Woodrome, a former member of the Fort Smith Planning Commission, has at the core of his beef with the city an opposition to several portions of the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The ordinances were designed over the course of several years, with input from citizens, area developers, home builders and others in the private sector.

Woodrome opposed the UDO, and continues to rail against what he calls overreaching guidelines.

“I can agree that there is a necessity for a building safety department … and many of the regulations in the UDO, but the city should not be requiring landscaping to this extent,” Woodrome explained during a recent interview. “The (development) ordinances should be limited to the safety of residents and to make sure nothing detrimental to adjacent property” in terms of physical impact.

DEAL KILLERS
Woodrome also alleges the landscape ordinances may add up to $20,000 on the average small business development. He says the landscaping expense is often a deal killer for the person who may not have planned for the requirement.

“You’re maybe stifling the people who have just enough to try to afford the American dream,” Woodrome said.

The detailed design guidelines reflect what should be the developers’ decision about property improvement and not a set of city mandates.

“Design guidelines? It’s my stuff. Leave me alone. What I like, you may not like. What you like, I may not like. If that wasn’t the case, we’d all dress alike,” Woodrome said during the interview. “I don’t need the city’s help to make my business run. I just need them to get out of the way.”

CITY RESPONSE
In a memo to the Fort Smith board, Gosack denied telling Woodrome to take or leave it and denied Woodrome’s quote about Towson and Wheeler Avenues.

“None of those quotes were made by me, and they’re presented without the full context of the discussions that did occur,” Gosack wrote.

Gosack noted that he attempted to explain to Woodrome that the UDO was developed “with extensive input from the public and the development community.” When Woodrome continued to complain about the UDO, Gosack said the following: “I told him that if he develops property in any city, he’ll have standards to comply with. I went on to say that if he wanted to develop where there’s no standards, he would have to go in the unincorporated areas to do so. Apparently, Mr. Woodrome interpreted this statement into his belief that I said, ‘If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

Gosack also said the input from the public during the UDO development process was that the public didn’t want another Towson Avenue or Midland Boulevard.

“At no time did I equate Mr. Woodrome’s developments to Towson or Wheeler Avenues,” Gosack wrote in the memo.

Steve Parke, director of utilities for the city of Fort Smith, also refutes Woodrome’s claim that he directly received erroneous water line info.

“In response to Mr. Woodrome’s assertion that his due diligence included meeting with records staff, they had never met with Mr. Woodrome as their first introduction to him was their watching the replay of his presentation to the Board on the city’s website,” Parke noted, adding that Woodrome’s draftsman, Roger Winton, did meet with city staff on some of Woodrome’s projects.

As to another problem with adequate fire-protection construction on a duplex being built by Woodrome, Wally Bailey, director of development services with the city, pointed to a failure to give the construction crew the correct info.

“During the inspections and working with the framing crew on this project, we found the framing crew had not been given all the information they needed regarding the floor construction by Mr. Woodrome’s draftsman (Roger Winton). The Underwriters Laboratories fire rated floor design that was being used is a three (3) page document from the UL Design handbook. The framers were given the first page by Mr. Woodrome’s draftsman and did not have the benefit of the other two pages,” Bailey explained in his memo.

HE SAID, HE SAID
Woodrome stands by his statements about what Gosack told him.

“I stand behind that. That’s blatantly what he told me. … I did not want to go to the board of directors meeting and do that on TV. But he (Gosack) forced me because he was not willing to discuss this. He ended the debate when he told me to take or leave it. … So, I had to put my business on the line and do that (go before the board),” Woodrome said.

During the interview, Woodrome stressed that he has no problem with city staff.

“Through all this, they’ve been very cordial, other than what the city administrator said to me,” Woodrome said, adding that Don Chavis (city building department) “is one of the nicest guys to work with.”

And he doesn’t want anyone fired. He just seeks a review of the UDO.

“I’d like the board to look at the ordinances that allow bureaucrats to take a bite out of a developer with no process for appeal,” Woodrome explained.

Gosack also stands by his statements.

“I did not say those things, and as I noted in the board packet, I would never address a citizen like that and have never done so,” Gosack said.

Furthermore, Gosack said the UDO is frequently amended when unintended consequences arise.

“But we (city staff) know that the UDO was not something we dreamed up. … There were many developers and other business interests who wanted rules in place to promote a better looking city,” Gosack explained. “We can’t just ignore codes developed with their (private sector) input and approved by the board after a lengthy public process” just because one person and his draftsman don’t want to follow them.