The sixth item in this series examined curfew violations.  This instalment looks the issues around the Noise Management Study Advisory Group (NMSAG) meetings and their effectiveness.  http://www.torontoport.com/PortAuthority/media_content.asp?id=439

The TPA version

Fact: This group met three times, between November, 2008, and July, 2009. The biggest single stumbling block to holding more meetings during this period was scheduling conflicts among City Councillors sitting on the NMSAG.

The CommunityAIR version

CommunityAIR contends that the NMSAG met only twice.  The November 2008 meeting that the TPA includes was an invitation only meeting.  The NMSAG did not exist at the time. 

The invitees were presented with a proposal to establish a Noise Management Study Advisory Group.  The proposal, according to attendee City Councillor Pam McConnell’s December 5 letter, included the following deliverables:

- terms of reference;

- establishing a reference group (the nmsag);

- identifying additional noise monitoring stations;

- the number of consultative meetings;

- Q-400 compliance with tri-partite agreement noise limits;

- updating of NEF contours;

- clarification and revision of noise sensitive areas.

On February 18, 2009, the committee duly constituted as the Noise Management Study Advisory Group held its first meeting.  The TPA produced and distributed (on July 14) minutes of that meeting.  The deliverables contained in Ms McConnell’s letter formed the basis of the agenda.  Follow through, discussion and commitments follow:

- terms of reference; posted on the TPA website – NOTE: not currently evident;

- establishing a reference group (the nmsag); established through a conference call among

  Airport Manager Ken Lundy, Pam McConnell and City Councillor Adam Vaughn;

- identifying additional noise monitoring stations; discussed and committed to by Jacobs

  Consultancy at meeting;

- the number of consultative meetings; to be determined;

- Q-400 compliance with tri-partite agreement noise limits; Ken Lundy advised that the Q400

  compliance study had been undertaken by Consultants and would show that the Q400 was a

  compliant aircraft with respect to noise;

- updating of NEF contours; Mr. Dejak and Bill Gastmeier (Jacobs Consultancy) provided

  background information and presented a methodology Jacobs would use to determine updated

  NEF contours;

- clarification and revision of noise sensitive areas; Ken Lundy confirmed  that he would try to

  schedule a meeting with Nav Canada and Transport Canada as requested", since many of the

  newer residential areas on the waterfront are not properly designated.

Several matters that arose required follow up: the levels of noise generated by the Piaggio P-180, subject of several noise complaints; and the airport curfew.  Mr. Lundy advised that the Piaggio P-180 was a compliant aircraft and he would provide the information on the Piaggio P-180 to the Group.  He also advised the Group that the Curfew Policy would be presented to the Board and based on comments from the Board; the policy would be made available for the Committee in April.

The date for the next meeting was not set.  Ken Lundy and Jacobs Consultancy’s John Dejak advised that it would be too premature to set the next meeting date without the study being completed and draft report prepared;

Later, the TPA set the next meeting for June 10 but cancelled it.  The second meeting went ahead on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.  On Friday, July 10 at 4:15 pm, the TPA deliver some materials for the Tuesday meeting.  They delivered the rest on Monday, July 13 at 4:05 pm for the next day’s meeting. The Group discussed items that followed from the February 18 meeting.

 - identifying additional noise monitoring stations; it appears that the TPA made public preliminary

  findings from the noise monitoring stations before releasing them to the NMSAG

- the number of consultative meetings; no decisions;

- Q-400 compliance with tri-partite agreement noise limits; justification contained in Jacobs

  Consultancy report;

- updating of NEF contours; no information from the TPA on the City’s December 2, 2008 request

  to Transport Canada for a new study as required under the Tripartite Agreement.  It appears that

  the TPA will depend solely on their consultant for this information.

- clarification and revision of noise sensitive areas; Mr. Lundy did not arrange the promised

  meeting with Nav Canada and Transport Canada.

Follow up on other matters from February 18.

Mr. Lundy did not make the Curfew Policy available for the Committee in April or in any other month.

Matters arising

Adam Vaughan again addressed the issue of late delivery of information which he first raised at the February 18 meeting, this time with regard to the TPA’s late delivery of materials for this meeting.  A motion passed unanimously requiring the TPA to deliver the agenda and all information future meetings at least two weeks in advance of the meeting; otherwise, the meeting would be re-scheduled.

Follow-up from the July 14 meeting.

The TPA did not distribute Minutes for the July 14 meeting to the Group’s community members.

The TPA called no further meetings.

On February 8, 2010, the TPA released the Jacobs Consultancy noise management study report. 

The Group’s community members received a copy of the Jacobs Consultancy interim report at the July 14, 2009 meeting.  The TPA did not supply them with a final copy, for information or for comment, before releasing it to the public on February 8, 2010.

The TPA also claims that, “The biggest single stumbling block to holding more meetings during this period was scheduling conflicts among City Councillors sitting on the NMSAG.”  Councillors McConnell and Vaughn report that the TPA would call for available meeting dates and fail to get back to confirm, causing the dates to be lost.

Perhaps the TPA might look at other stumbling blocks to holding more, and more productive, meetings.  Late delivery of materials, failure to produce minutes and failure to follow through are three such blocks.

Bob Kotyk