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 ­ PLEASE READ

<<ProjectBriefing.doc>>

Gary:

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 2­24­
60 months away.

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.

I've prepared a brief report on the runway extension project and staff's comments 
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
Charlottesville­Albemarle Airport Authority
100 Bowen Loop, Suite 200 Charlottesville, VA 22911
[Attachment below]

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’s climate creates a “high density altitude” 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’s 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
FAA with the statement that it intended to pursue full funding of the
project and revise the future acip upon completion of the
Environmental Assessment. Staff has been working with Delta Airport
Consultants, the FAA and the Department of Aviation (DOAV) to
establish the new six year acip as well as revise FY 2008 to utilize
existing state entitlement funds to undertake the preliminary design of
the runway extension. The proposed acip continues the funding of the
runway extension project; however, there is no guarantee the project
will actually be funded in the manner requested. It is proposed that
the project be divided into separate projects that are “serviceable units
of work” that allow a unit to be completed even if the next phase will
not be funded for a period time. In addition, staff is proposing briefings
to Congressional representatives with a request for a line item
allocation from the FAA budget to fund the runway extension. In
January, staff proposed briefing the Commission and the Authority on
the status of the acip and runway project at their March meetings. In
addition to the briefing, staff will request authorization to move forward
with the preliminary design as proposed by means of revising the FY
2008 acip. This initial project will provide the design of the first phase,
but more importantly will answer questions regarding the project,
including the aerial and ground surveys to measure the specific fill
required, identify stockpile areas, measure potential areas of onsite fill,
complete wetlands mitigation, apply for necessary permits, etc. By
undertaking the preliminary design, the Authority will also be able to
address phasing. The preliminary design phase will provide answers to
many questions that may significantly impact the actual design and
phasing of the project.

The preliminary design in no way guarantees the completion of the

project. The primary issue before the Authority is funding, and the
preliminary design will assist in refining current estimates, necessary
to continue negotiations with the FAA and State. Ideally the project will
be completed in six years. Realistically, despite the effort to move
forward, the project could still take 10-15 years to complete.

Staff asserts it is inappropriate for the Authority to be involved in local

discussions regarding water resources. In addition, because of so
many unanswered questions regarding the airport project, its funding
and its schedule, the Authority is not in a position to discuss dredge
material at this time. More importantly, because the FAA has not
approved the new acip and because the project will have to be built in
phases, it is unlikely the FAA would grant approval to enter into any
agreement to accept dredge material, at least at this point in the
project’s timeline. Even once the project is designed, it is unlikely the
FAA will approve a fixed agreement to accept dredge for three reasons:
-The FAA will require the Authority to accept the cheapest suitable
material. If the Authority were to commence an operation with RWSA,
and an opportunity for cheaper material became available, the FAA
would require the Authority accept the cheaper material. Therefore, it
is unlikely the FAA/State would allow project funds to be utilized to
invest in the infrastructure required to move material from the
reservoir to the airport.

-The project will have to be built in phases. The airport does not have
physical space prepared to store the volume of fill required for the
project, more importantly for wet material that has to be spread out,
raked and relocated. The snow equipment maintenance facility must
be relocated to the west side of the airfield to accommodate the
runway project, a project already agreed upon by the FAA. This
development, along with the west side access road, will occupy area
that would be necessary for the drying of dredge material. In addition,
the airport does not have staff or equipment available to provide the
constant raking and moving of dredge material once on airport
property, an expense that raises more questions.

-Finally, if the Authority commenced acceptance of dredge material

that tested suitable and the material became unsuitable at any time
for any reason, the Authority would have to cease acceptance
regardless of RWSA’s investment in infrastructure or ability to place the
material elsewhere. What happens to the investment in the dredging
operation, and is there an alternative dump site? Who pays for what?