As with most legal issues that drag on for years and years, this is a complicated issue. In an effort to better understand the background and facts of this case, CFOF requested permission to examine to all the City’s records pertaining to this matter. This request was handled expeditiously and we were provided with full access to all internal and external communications, drawings, maps and other documentation.

In December 2001, the City entered into a Consent Order to suspended the lawsuit while the parties sought a settlement. The Consent Order placed duties on each of the parties as follows:

• Submit application to FAA and FDOT for approval to the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) authorizing the construction of a 60’ wide public right-of-way easement to access Crane Island

• City would respond to requests for information from these agencies on a timely basis

• City would not be required to appeal an adverse ruling; but they would be required to assign their appeal rights to the Crane Island owners

• Approval must include assurances from the FAA and FDOT that the roadway will not result in an adverse impact on the funding of any past, current or future airport projects based on the current ALP

• Bear all costs for the engineering and construction costs of the proposed roadway including fencing

• Provide all additional wetlands mitigation, where required, at no cost to the City

• Record restrictive covenants - approved by the City, FAA and FDOT - prior to the development and sale of any lots to grant an "avigation easement" providing that ‘as long as the airport operates within legal standards for noise, property owners on Crane Island shall have no cause of action against the airport or City

• Additional insulation or other features will be used in the houses to be constructed to provide a level of noise insulation over what is normally required

• Crane Island will be developed for residential purposes only, although a private-use marina and community center are permitted. (Note: Initial proposals by the owner included a 20,000 sq. ft. retail center.)

• Owners will obtain all the necessary permits and provide proof to the City from all applicable agencies including: St. Johns River Water Management District; FL Dept. of Environmental Protection; US Army Corps of Engineers; Nassau County and the City.

• Upon approval, ownership of the disputed 15’ road will revert to the City. In the interim, the City and Youth Soccer Association would be allowed to use the area

CFOF has heard two ‘arguments’ for the City’s past and current role in this effort that we can find no basis in fact:

• Misconception #1: The City couldn’t oppose this effort. By agreeing to the Consent Order, the City certainly had to tone down their aggressive opposition that had existed to that point. However, while the consent order requires the City to submit applications for the FAA and FDOT approvals, we read nothing in the Consent Order that would have prohibited the City from stating its opposition to this action. An FAA official involved in this matter told CFOF that if the City had objected, the FAA would have supported the City. All should be aware that the FAA and FDOT did raise a number of objections to some of the earlier plans and the owners/developers either modified their plans to comply or challenged the agency’s objection and were sustained. With their approval, the FAA has indicated that the proposed roadway will not impact the safety for airplane operations (citing the presence of Amelia Parkway and Buccaneer Trail in closer proximity to runways than the proposed road).

• Misconception #2: The current City Commission had their hands tied by the decision of their predecessors to enter into this Consent Order. As shown earlier, the City Commission had on February 10, 2004 or currently has the ability to re-start the lawsuit by not agreeing to an Extension of the Consent Order. Since we have not been able to see an evaluation by the City’s legal representatives, it is impossible for us to know their assessment of the City’s merits in defending this action. While the settlement might be the most prudent action to take, for current officials to claim an inability to follow other courses of action due to decisions made by their predecessors is disingenuous.

Additionally, the most recent correspondence we reviewed from the FDOT did NOT provide the assurances required in the Consent Order that future airport grants would not be impacted. In fact our reading was just the opposite, with the FDOT warning the City that if the roadway and resulting development impacted the current or future operations of the airport, it would impact funding and may require the City to refund monies that had been previously awarded if the projects funded by those grants were impaired in some way.