From: Barbara Hutchinson
To: [Airport Authority Board Chair] Gary O'Connell
Cc: [fellow Board members] Kurt Goodwin, Bob Tucker
Sent: Thu Feb 21 15:04:42 2008
Subject: Project Briefing \u00ad PLEASE READ

I received a call from [City Economic Development Director] Aubrey [Watts]
asking me to respond to an issue raised at Tuesday night's City Council meeting.
I watched the speaker online and have prepared a runway project briefing for the
board's information, including staff's general response to issues raised this week
regarding dredge material.

For everyone's information, the speaker was Joe Mooney. He recounted a
telephone conversation with me to City Council in which we supposedly
discussed the runway project, it's imminent construction, etc. and he went on to
ask that City Council encourage the dredging of the South Fork Reservoir as the
airport had this huge expansion starting and was a perfect place to dump the
material.

He called the airport several weeks ago, and initially demanded copies of any
documentation on how the fill material required for the runway extension project
had been calculated. He was transferred to me, and he somewhat rudely asked
that I tell him where he could obtain documents that "proved" the quantity of fill
that would be required. I replied that we had no existing documents right now as
the preliminary design had not been initiated, and could be anywhere from 2\u00ad24\u00ad

He stated he read about it in the Progress and demanded to know where the
information came from. I replied the reporter attended a board meeting and heard
a discussion about the future project, but that the numbers were estimates
prepared by the airport's engineers ; and, while it would benefit the airport to
undertake the project in the near future, it had not been funded and might be

years away. I asked his interest in the project, and he stated "my name is Joe
Mooney and I'm a developer with fill I might want to sell the airport" and he
promptly hung up.

Aside from a brief conversation with Ann Mallek during which I also expressed reservations given the questions that remained to be answered on our project alone, I have not discussed the project or dredging with anyone locally.

Today our Commission Chairman, Greg Edwards, visited and asked to discuss
dredging. He is an attorney with The Nature Conservancy and stated the
Conservancy was basically in agreement with RWSA plans but did have some
relationship with 2 environmental groups that have sprung up supporting revisting
the dredging issue. I restated our position that we are not part of water resources
planning for the region, and reviewed my reservations regarding the acceptance
of dredge material.

He likewise concluded it was not appropriate to include the airport in any water
resource conversations, including conversations regarding dredging the reservoir.
He stated that as it was appropriate, he would inform both of these groups that in
his opinion, it is not beneficial to throw the airport in the middle of this issue.

regarding dredge material.
Please let me know if there is any other way I may provide assistance.
Best Regards,
Barbara
Barbara W. Hutchinson, C.M.

Executive Director
Charlottesville\u00adAlbemarle Airport Authority
100 Bowen Loop, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22911

Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
Runway 21 Extension (800 feet)
Briefing as of February 20, 2008

In 2003, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority completed a Master Plan update in which the runway length was reviewed. The current runway is 6,001 x 150 feet. While the length is theoretically long enough to adequately serve current and future scheduled aircraft, the region\u2019s climate creates a \u201chigh density altitude\u201d condition that results in a need to extend the runway. High density altitude occurs at a point of sufficient temperature and humidity, and results in a reduction of maximum take-off weight for regional jet size aircraft. The reduction in weight would not occur if the runway length increases. At the current runway length, airlines must limit the take-off weight of regional jets during periods of high density altitude, resulting in an economic loss of as much as 10-12% per flight. During the January 2008 board meeting, the Authority\u2019s air service consultant reviewed the impact of the runway length on future of air service at CHO. Not only does the runway length need to be increased to prevent the loss of current Atlanta service, it is unlikely additional destinations such as Newark, Chicago or Orlando will be gained in the future without the runway extension.

Upon completion of the Master Plan update, the Authority undertook the Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) required by the FAA for the proposed runway extension. Upon review of the BCA, the FAA concluded the Authority could only move forward with planning for an 800 foot extension instead of the ultimate 1,200 foot extension identified in the Master Plan.

The required Environmental Assessment then commenced for the proposed 800 foot runway extension as well as for other projects included in the five year airport capital improvement program (acip). The Environmental Assessment was completed and submitted to the FAA in the fall of 2007, and the FAA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in January 2008, allowing the Authority to move forward with the identified projects.

The FY 2008 acip adopted by the Authority includes the proposed runway extension project as follows: FY 2009 design, FY 2010 land acquisition, FY 2011-2013 construction. However, the Authority was limited by the FAA to $12 million of discretionary funding, insufficient to complete the project. The Authority qualified its submittal to the