Assembly votes
to drop case
against Floreske

By Tom Morphet

Reversing action it took in November, the Haines Borough Assembly voted 4-2 last week to drop its case against developer John Floreske Jr.

Floreske last fall defied a borough order to stop operations in a gravel pit the borough said lacked a required permit.

Assemblyman Pete Lapham, who was working for Floreske on the site at the time of the stop order and continues to work for him intermittently, cast the deciding vote. Lapham abstained from voting in November, when the assembly agreed to pursue the penalties on a 4-1 vote.

Lapham said he does a small amount of wage work for Floreske. “I have no monetary investment there, or anything like that. I didn’t feel uncomfortable (voting on it).” He said he couldn’t provide an estimate for how much Floreske paid him last year.

The borough sought about $50,000 in fines and up to $20,000 in compensatory damages after Floreske continued gravel operations until Oct. 9, following an Aug. 19 order from the borough to stop work.

Assembly members Lapham, Norm Smith, Jerry Lapp and Scott Rossman voted to drop the case last week. Members Doug Olerud and Steve Vick were opposed.

Lapham and Lapp this week said they had misgivings about the borough’s case, specifically borough action to rescind a cease and desist order in mid-September, when it made Floreske a settlement offer to end the dispute. The borough continued action against Floreske after he didn’t respond to the offer.

Borough manager Tom Bolen rescinded the stop order made on the advice of former manager Bob Ward because of questions raised about whether Floreske was covered by a 1996 permit, and by Floreske’s plans to be done work before October. Bolen said closer examination of code wording reinforced his faith in the borough’s case.

 The borough never surrendered its assertion that Floreske was required to get a new permit in 2003, after the two previous local governments were combined under a single set of laws, Bolen said this week.

 Lapp and Lapham weren’t as confident about the borough’s chances. “Why should we spend $50,000 or $100,000 (in legal fees) trying to get $50,000. I think there’s several legal challenges in there, things that weren’t done right,” said Lapp, who cast the lone vote against pursuing the matter in November.

Borough attorney Michael Gatti and former attorney Bob Blasco both recommended pursuing the penalties, but Lapp said he wasn’t convinced.

“Attorneys like money and they like to make money and they will tell you things for their own good,” Lapp said.

Said Lapham: “If a cease and desist order is taken back, what is the wrong thing here? If it hadn’t been rescinded, that might be a different story… In the future, we’ll do our due diligence. I’m just seeing a lot of money being spent for what purpose?”

Lapham said he didn’t vote on the Floreske matter last fall because he was told he should abstain by former mayor Fred Shields. The question was not raised prior to the vote last week.

“I think it was just an oversight. People were just tired and not paying attention” at the end of last week’s long meeting, said mayor Jan Hill, who chairs assembly meetings.

Lapham said he has read borough code concerning conflict of interest and doesn’t believe he has one. He said he works on a casual basis for Floreske. “A few loads of gravel here, a few loads there, that’s it. It’s not my livelihood. I just enjoy doing it.”’

If Floreske clearly violated code, Lapham said he “wouldn’t hesitate a minute” to vote against him.

Member Norm Smith, who supported pursuing the matter last November, offered only a terse explanation for his switched vote. “I think it will dig up a big can of worms…If you ask 10 attorneys, you get 10 different answers.”

Manager Bolen said attorney Gatti was “more than willing” to prosecute the case. “He agreed that we had a case and should move forward.”

 According to Bolen, assembly concerns include that the borough had taken no action against Floreske for not having a permit between 2003 and the final weeks he owned the property. “I think people are sympathetic to John for that reason largely.”

The case against Floreske was delayed last winter when former attorney Blasco advised the borough to seek compensatory damages to remediate damage done on the site by Floreske’s work, including returning pit walls to a sloping grade and revegatating the area.

A delay occurred when a local contractor declined to provide an estimate and by the time one was received, the assembly had a new attorney.

Bolen said he brought the matter back to the assembly last week. “I wanted to make sure they were of the same mind they were when we visited the issue in the winter, but they were not of the same mind.”

Assemblymen Rossman and Olerud didn’t return messages this week.

Member Steve Vick said he weighed concerns about a long, expensive lawsuit. “Our job is to enforce code. If we don’t pursue (the case), we’re not enforcing code. And by not doing that, we set a bad precedent… I don’t know if we have a strong case or not, but it’s code and we need to enforce it.”