09-21-2022 ARC Meeting PacketCITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
September 21, 2022 6:00 p.m.
City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Approval of Minutes of the May 18, 2022 Regular Meeting b. Approval of Minutes of the July 12, 2022 Joint Meeting with the Eagan ARC
4. Public Comments
5. Unfinished and New Business
a. ARC Data/Metrics Review b. Homes and Noise Mitigation Discussion
c. Noise Oversight Committee Update i. Eagan Request to FAA
ii. NOC 2023 Draft Workplan
6. Acknowledge Receipt of Reports and Correspondence a. Review of Airport Operational Statistics (link:
https://www.macenvironment.org/reports/) i. Complaint Information
ii. Runway Use Information iii. Turboprop Information
iv. Noise Monitor Information b. News Articles
7. Commissioner Comments
8. Adjourn Meeting
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION
May 18, 2022 6:00 p.m.
City Hall 1101 Victoria Curve
The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission was held on
Wednesday, May 18, 2022, at Mendota Heights City Hall; 1101 Victoria Curve.
1. Call to Order
Chair Norling called the meeting to order at 6:01pm. The following commissioners were
present: Gina Norling, William Dunn, David Sloan, Kevin Byrnes, and Arvind Sharma.
Absent (excused): Jim Neuharth, Jeff Hamiel. Staff present: City Administrator Cheryl
Jacobson and Office Support Assistant Sheila Robertson.
2. Approval of Agenda
Motion by Dunn/Second by Sloan to approve the agenda.
Discussion: Chair Norling suggested deferring #5a. and #5b. to another meeting in which
Commissioners Hamiel and Neuharth can both speak on those items.
Motion passed 5-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Approval of Minutes of the March 16, 2022 Regular Meeting
Motion by Dunn/Second by Sloan to approve the minutes.
Motion passed 5-0.
4. Public Comments
No public comments.
5. Unfinished and New Business
a. ARC Data/Metrics Review
Chair Norling suggested deferring this agenda item until the September 21st meeting.
The commission reviewed an email sent by Commissioner Neuharth regarding this
agenda item.
Commissioner Sloan was glad to see the note about talking to the freight airlines.
City Administrator Jacobson discussed a resident complaint regarding noise in the
mornings.
b. Homes and Noise Mitigation Discussion
Chair Norling suggested deferring this agenda item until the September 21st meeting.
6. Acknowledge Receipt of Reports and Correspondence
a. Review of Airport Operational Statistics (link:
https://www.macenvironment.org/reports/)
Chair Norling noted there was no information for items i, ii, iii, or iv, as the data
system was down.
Commissioner Dunn added that the Top 10s in Mendota Heights wouldn’t come
close in comparison to those in Minneapolis.
Commissioner Sharma noted that the commission will always have a six week lag
with data, based on the meeting schedule.
i. Complaint Information
ii. Runway Use Information
iii. Turboprop Information
iv. Noise Monitor Information
b. News Articles
Commissioner Byrnes noted there were no new news articles.
Commissioner Sharma asked if there was any feedback on the latest Heights
Highlights Article.
City Administrator Jacobson noted there was none.
The commissioners all commented that the article was well done and thanked those
who contributed.
7. Commissioner Comments
Chair Norling reminded the commission of the Tower Tour on June 14 with the Eagan
ARC. Chair Norling also reminded that the July 12 meeting will be with the Eagan ARC at
Eagan City Hall. City Administrator Jacobson will follow up with a times for those
meetings.
City Administrator Jacobson attended the latest NOC meeting and was elected Co-Chair.
Rick King, Chair of the MAC board, presented. She noted that at the meeting they
discussed how overall complaints were down in March and April. She also commented
that the NOC is practicing hybrid meetings, and they discussed the construction at the
airport.
8. Adjourn Meeting
Motion by Sloan/Second by Dunn to adjourn the meeting.
Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Norling adjourned the meeting at 6:32pm.
Minutes taken by Sheila Robertson
Office Support Assistant
Minutes Taken By: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION JOINT MEETING MINUTES
CITIES OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS AND EAGAN
EAGAN CITY HALL
July 12, 2022
A joint meeting of the Airports Relations Commissions of the Cities of Mendota Heights and
Eagan was held on Tuesday, July 12, 2022, at Eagan City Hall.
1.Call to Order/Roll Call
Chair William Raker of the Eagan ARC called the meeting to order at 6:32 pm. The following
Eagan ARC members were present: Jeff Spartz and Steve Francisco. Mendota Heights ARC
members present: Gina Norling, David Sloan, William Dunn, Kevin Byrnes, Arvind Sharma,
and Jeff Hamiel. Absent (Excused): Jim Neuharth.
Eagan staff present: Assistant City Administrator Sarah Alig. Mendota Heights staff present:
City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson
MAC staff present: Michelle Ross, Brad Juffer, Roy Fuhrmann
2.Introductions
The individuals present introduced themselves.
3. Presentation—State of the Airport
Roy Fuhrmann, MAC Chief Operating Officer presented on the current state of the MSP
airport and the recovery of the airport post-pandemic. He reported that the airport had
received $295 million in stimulus funding of which $21 million went to concessions. The
airport is hovering at about a 19 percent decrease in monthly enplanements. Parking is
down about 10-12 percent. Airport officials expect a full recovery by 2024 for Minnesota.
5.Updates on Current Efforts
Chair Norling of Mendota Heights ARC provided an overview of its strategic goals and work
plan items. She noted the importance of the partnership between the two commissions.
Eagan Chair Raker shared that the purpose and mission of the Eagan ARC had changed. He
stated that the approach of the Eagan ARC is to be flexible in meeting the needs of the
community. He noted that the Eagan ARC is a 3-member commission that meets in January
and July, however, if there is a need for more engagement then broader participation and
additional meetings would be “spun up”.
6.Other Business
There was no other business presented.
7.Adjourn
Chair Raker adjourned the meeting at 7:50 PM.
DATE: September 21, 2022
TO: Mendota Heights Airport Relations Commission
FROM: Cheryl Jacobson, City Administrator
SUBJECT: ARC Data/Metrics Review
As part of the Commission's priority to Enhance City Governance and Services, the
Commission has identified the following strategy and resulting actions to complete in 2022:
Strategy: Monitor airport operations, trends and advocate for the Mendota Heights
community.
Action: 1.) Research and surveillance of MAC provided data to confirm or request additional
data needed; and
2) Determine custom made for Mendota Heights metrics to continue to monitor
Currently, monthly operations data is collected from the MAC website. Commissioners and
staff develop charts and graphs using this data. Specific operational statistics are assigned to
the following:
Complaint Information – City Administrator Cheryl Jacobson
Runway Use Information – Commissioners Byrnes and Neuharth
Turboprop Information – Commissioner Neuharth
Noise Monitor Information – Commissioners Norling and Dunn
Additionally, the MAC produces a monthly operations summary report.
[ website link: https://customers.macnoms.com/reports/]
TTIIPPSS FFOORR IINNSSUULLAATTIINNGG YYOOUURR HHOOMMEE
AAGGAAIINNSSTT AAIIRRCCRRAAFFTT NNOOIISSEE
Provided by the
Metropolitan Airports Commission
October 2020
2
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
The Purpose of This Guide
Who May Find This Guide Useful
Disclaimers
NOISE CONTROL BASICS ………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
How Outside Noise Gets Inside a Home
Noise Level Reduction
Reducing Sound Transmission into a Home
THE MAC’S PROGRAM ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Windows and Doors
Insulate Sidewalls
Baffle Roof Vents
Install Central Air‐Conditioning
A Word about House “Tightness” and Maintaining Proper Ventilation
TIPS ON CHOOSING CONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTORS ……………………….………….. 7
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES ……………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Appendix A …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9
Products Installed by the Metropolitan Airports Commission
Residential Sound Mitigation Program
3
INTRODUCTION
The Purpose of This Guide
This guide has been developed in response to numerous requests from homeowners asking for
information about methods the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) has implemented
successfully to reduce interior noise levels in homes. This guide is intended as a means to share
information with homeowners about sound transmission; it explains the elements of the MAC’s
Residential Sound Mitigation Program within the federally‐recognized 65 DNL contour area.
This guide is not intended for use as a “how to” manual.
Who May Find This Guide Useful
Homeowners/Homebuyers
Builders
Cities
Realtors
DISCLAIMERS
This guide is intended to be used as an informational guide ‐ it is not
intended for use as a “how to” manual.
Insulating a home for noise reduction tends to tighten a home. Homeowners
should have their homes tested for indoor air quality before and after home
modifications.
Homeowners should consult with professional contractors for their home’s
individual needs (e.g., HVAC, windows and doors, etc.).
The Metropolitan Airports Commission claims no responsibility for decisions
homeowners make based on the information contained in this guide.
The Metropolitan Airports Commission takes no responsibility for decisions
homeowners may make based on any of the recommended reading and/or
reference materials contained in this pamphlet.
Any modifications completed by homeowners are the sole responsibility of
the homeowner.
4
NOISE CONTROL BASICS
How Outside Noise Gets Inside a Home
Sound travels from the exterior to the interior of a home in two ways: through solid structural
elements and through the air.
Although sound energy in the form of vibrations can be deflected by solid structural elements
of a home – such as walls – some of those vibrations can make it through the walls and into a
home.
Openings in a home, such as space around windows and doors, mail slots and vents, allow air to
travel directly from the exterior to the interior of a home. Wherever air can infiltrate a home,
sound can as well.
Noise Level Reduction
A home’s Noise Level Reduction (NLR) is the number of decibels a home attenuates from its
exterior to interior when all openings (windows and doors) are closed.
Homes constructed in cold climates like Minnesota typically provide a NLR of between 27‐30 decibels
without additional measures to insulate against noise. So, for example, if 75 decibels of sound were
produced on the ground by a single aircraft overflight, 45 decibels of sound would be produced inside a
home that attenuates 30 decibels.
Reducing Sound Transmission into a Home
Some primary approaches for reducing sound transmission into a home are:
1. Eliminating openings
2. Using higher‐rated Sound Transmission Class (STC) windows and doors
3. Adding mass to walls or ceilings
4. Adding absorptive materials between the studs or joists in a wall
The STC rating is a measure of a material’s ability to insulate against sound; the higher the STC
rating, the better insulating properties the material will have. The MAC’s sound insulation
program uses a standard of 40 STC.
Generally, windows allow more noise inside a home than do walls. Because of this, the more
space windows take up on a wall the more the overall noise protection decreases. Typically,
using acoustical windows does more to improve the sound insulation performance than any
other design modification does.
5
THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION’S (MAC) PROGRAM
The MAC’s Residential Sound Mitigation Program within the federally‐recognized 65 DNL noise
contour was very successful in reducing interior noise levels for homes within the most noise‐
impacted areas. According to homeowner surveys, the program has increased homeowners’
enjoyment of their homes by making it easier to watch television, talk on the phone and sleep
at night.
Below are the methods typically used to reduce transmission of exterior noise into a home; the
MAC has employed all of these methods to some degree:
Re‐conditioning or replacement of prime windows/doors
Installing acoustical storm windows/doors
Adding wall and attic insulation
Baffling roof and attic vents
Installing central air ‐conditioning (if not existing)
Modifying ventilation (when necessary for health and safety reasons)
Windows and Doors
A home’s interior noise level can be reduced through differing degrees of treatment. For
instance, some homes may only need their windows or doors re‐conditioned, while others may
need all new windows or a combination of the two.
To ensure the tightness necessary to achieve an STC 40 rating, homeowners may be able to re‐
condition their home’s existing prime windows or doors by:
Re ‐glazing panes that are loose
Replacing cracked or broken panes
Installing weather stripping (both windows and doors)
Adding insulation to weight cavities
Installing vinyl jamb liners
Trimming sides of existing sashes to fit with new jamb liners
In more severe cases, complete replacement of window sashes or the entire window or door
may be necessary.
The MAC’s research showed that adding an operable acoustic storm window to a tight ‐fitting
prime window results in an STC rating of 40. (A typical window with storm can provide an STC
rating between 27 and 30.)
New acoustic products are superior, but are also more expensive. Acoustical storm windows
and doors are significantly different from regular storms. They may have thicker glass and a
higher grade of aluminum, which act to prevent sound from entering a home, and are also very
6
effective at reducing air infiltration. (These products are not available through the standard
building supply stores.) When acoustical storm windows and doors are installed, two inches of
dead air space is created between the prime window or door and the storm. This dead air space
acts to prevent noise from entering a home.
Casement windows alone do not provide a high STC rating and acoustical storm windows cannot
be installed outside the crank ‐out windows. Some options for casement windows include:
Replace windows with custom, acoustically‐rated casement windows with
extra‐thick glass
Replace windows with a new slider or double‐hung window with an
acoustical storm
Add an interior glazing panel to the existing casement window at the
screen location (not recommended for bedroom windows for safety and
code reasons)
Insulate Sidewalls
Sidewall cavities should be insulated to capacity. (This does not apply to homes
with brick, stucco or stone exterior siding.)
Insulate attic areas to capacity, or up to 14 inches, whichever is applicable.
Consult a home insulation contractor.
Baffle Roof Vents
Baffle roof vents in attic spaces to minimize noise transmission while still allowing airflow. A
baffle can be as simple as installing insulation board under the roof vent, while leaving both
ends open to allow the vent to operate normally.
Vent Baffling
- Attic vent baffling
- Roof vent baffling
- Chimney treatment (if required)
- Mail slot sealing
Sealing Attic Bypasses (This is more a treatment to improve indoor air
quality and to keep warm, moist air from migrating to the attic spaces,
helping to reduce ice dams during the winter.)
Install Central Air‐Conditioning
Installing central air‐conditioning or another type of cooling system allows people inside the
home to be comfortable during the warmer months without the need to open windows and
doors for a breeze.
7
Through‐the ‐wall air‐conditioning units are not recommended, as they allow air, and thus noise,
to infiltrate the home.
The method and cost of adding central air‐conditioning depends on a home’s heating system. It
is relatively easy, in most cases, to add a central air‐conditioning system to homes with a forced
air heating system. It becomes more difficult and costly with hydronic (boiler heat) or gravity
(large “octopus” furnace) systems.
Consult a certified HVAC contractor for the best solution for your home.
A Word about House “Tightness” and Maintaining Proper Ventilation
Acoustic modifications tend to make houses “tighter.” For health and safety purposes, the
following is suggested:
Have your indoor air quality tested by a qualified professional.
Have your home’s furnace/boiler, water heater, and other gas combustion
appliances checked by a professional.
Correct any problems with venting or carbon monoxide production.
Ensure adequate fresh airflow through the house by installing a quiet, low‐
volume exhaust fan or a balanced ventilation system if necessary.
Have your home checked for tightness after acoustical retrofits are
completed.
TIPS ON CHOOSING CONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTORS
Prior to signing a contract with a contractor, know in advance what
treatments or improvements you are planning to have completed.
Invite multiple contractors to visit the home and provide cost estimates on
an identical scope of work.
Determine whether the contractor has experience with acoustic products or
installation of acoustically‐rated storm windows or doors.
Determine whether any of the work will be sub ‐contracted. If so, investigate
the subcontractor(s) to the same degree as the primary contractor.
Ensure the contractor is licensed, bonded and insured. Verify that the
contractor’s license is current.
Ask for references.
Contact the Better Business Bureau to find out if the contractor has any
outstanding, un ‐resolved complaints.
8
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Wyle Laboratories
W eb Site – www.wyle.com
“New Construction Acoustical Design Guide”
(https://www.highpointnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1103/Wyle-
New-Construction-Acoustical-Design-Guide-April-2003-PDF?bidId=)
Federal Aviation Administration
“FAA Guidelines for the Sound Insulation of Residences Exposed to Aircraft Noise” prepared by
Wyle Labs, October 1992 (can be found on www.wyleacoustics.com web site)
(http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/advisory_Circular/150_5000_9a_withReport.pdf)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
“A Do‐It‐Yourself Guide to Sealing and Insulating with Energy Star®: Sealing Air Leaks and
Adding Attic Insulation”
(http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/DIY_Guide_May_2008.pdf)
W eb site: www.energystar.gov
Phone: 1.888.782.7937
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Pat Mosites – Residential Noise Mitigation Program Manager
Phone: 612-713-7499
Address: 6040 28th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55450
E‐mail: pat.mosites@mspmac.org
9
Appendix A
PRODUCTS INSTALLED BY THE METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION
RESIDENTIAL SOUND MITIGATION PROGRAM
PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS’ CONTACT INFORMATION
A. Mon‐Ray, Inc.: 801 Boone Ave N, Golden Valley MN 55427; 800.544.3646
B. Sound Control Systems (SCS): 23 33 Eastbrook Dr, Brookings SD 57006; SD 57006; 800.334.1328
METAL DOORS
A. The following steel door manufactures have been approved by the MAC:
1.Peachtree, Inc. “Avanti” Series
2.Masonite International Corporation “Sta‐Tru‐HD” Series Entry Door System
3.Therma‐Tru “Profiles” or “Pro‐Edge”
4.PEM Millwork
5.Pella Premium Steel Entry Doors
6.Taylor “Uni‐Door” standard and fire‐rated models
B. The following Steel Terrace models have been approved:
1.Peachtree “Prado” Patio Doors
2.Andersen 200 Series Hinged Inswing Patio Door
FIBERGLASS DOORS
A. The following prime door manufacturers, subject to compliance with this Specification and Sound
Insulation requirements, are approved:
1.Peachtree “Newport”
2.Peachtree “Newport Vintage”
3.Masonite International Corporation “Parliament 8 Panel”
4.Therma‐Tru “Fiber Classic” Embossed Series
B. The following terrace door manufacturers subject to compliance with this Specification and Sound
Insulation requirements, are approved:
1.Masonite International Corporation “Wood Grain Textured”
2.Therma‐Tru “Fiber Classic” Patio Door System
WOOD DOORS AND FRAMES
A. The following manufacturers, subject to compliance with the Specifications and Noise Mitigation
requirements are approved:
1.Wood Solid Core doors
a.Doorcraft Doors by Jeld‐Wen
b.Eggers Industries
10
c.Graham Manufacturing
d.Mohawk Doors by Masonite
e.Lynden Flush Door
f.Illinois Flush Door
g.Young Door Company
2.Wood Door Panels
a.Buffelen Doors
b.Simpson Doors
3.Wood Swinging Patio Doors
a.Buffelen “Thermal” B‐5001, B‐5510, B5515
b.Marvin “Wood Inswing French Door”
c.Park‐Vue Swinging Pation Door
d.Simpson “Mastermark” Exterior French Doors
e.Andersen 400 Series Frenchwood Hinged Patio Door
4.Wood Sliding Patio Doors
a.Marvin “Slding” Pation Door
b.Marvin “Ultimate Sliding” French Patio Door
c.Park‐Vue Patio Door
d.Larson W‐82 AL Clad Wood
e.Andersen Narrowline Gliding Patio Door
f.Andersen 400 Series Frenchwood Gliding Patio Door
5.Stave Appearance Doors
a.Pinecrest
B. Approved Acoustical Storm Panels for prime door applications:
1.New acoustical storm panel, 1.4” laminated glass: Monray 603‐DP and Sound Control
Systems (SCS) S703‐D
SLIDING GLASS STORM DOORS
Mon‐Ray, Inc. Sound Control Systems (SCS)
Colors: White, Tan, Brown Colors: White, Tan, Brown
805‐PSD with 1/8" tempered glass T82 w/ insulated glass and integral
3/16” tempered glass storm door
Note: The above products may be used with thicker glass than specified, at the discretion of the
manufacturer. All glazing in sliding glass storm doors shall meet the International Building Code
requirements for safety glass and be clearly labeled.
STORM DOORS
Mon‐Ray, Inc. Sound Control Systems (SCS) Hess Manufacturing
White, Tan, Brown, Green White, Tan, Brown, Green White, Brown, Green
802‐L with 3/16” glass SCS 720‐04 with 3/16” glass ‐‐
803‐S with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐04 with 3/16” glass FL with 1/8” glass
803‐SG with 1/8” glass ‐‐ FL‐G with 1/8” glass
803‐H with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐37 with 3/16” glass WT with 1/8” glass
11
803‐HG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐41 with 3/16” glass WT‐G with 1/8” glass
803‐P with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐36 with 3/16” glass CLA with 1/8” glass
803‐PG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐42 with 3/16” glass CLA‐G with 1/8”glass
803‐X with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐35 with 3/16” glass CB with 1/8” glass
803‐XG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐43 with 3/16” glass CB‐G with 1/8” glass
803‐M with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐36 NP with 3/16” glass HL with 1/8” glass
803‐MG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐42 NP with 3/16” glass HL‐G with 1/8” glass
803‐T with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐35 SPL with 3/16” glass JT with 1/8” glass
803‐TG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐43 SPL with 3/16” glass JT‐G with 1/8” glass
804‐S with 1/8” glass SCS 720‐33 with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐L with 1/8” glass at inserts
and 1/4” laminated glass at
kickpanel
SCS 720‐34 with 3/16” glass at
inserts and 1/4" laminated glass
at kickpanel
‐‐
804‐H with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐07 with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐HG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐41 with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐P with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐03 with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐PG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐42 with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐X with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐06 with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐XG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐06 with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐M with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐03 NP with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐MG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐42 NP with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐T with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐03 SPL with 3/16” glass ‐‐
804‐TG with 1/8” glass SCS 730‐42 SPL with 3/16” glass ‐‐
Acoustical panel at P‐150 with
1/4" laminated glass security
door
SCS S744‐D with 1/4" laminated
glass
‐‐
Note: The above products may be used with thicker glass than specified, at the discretion of the
manufacturer. All glazing in storm doors shall meet the International Building Code requirements for
safety glass and be clearly labeled.
VINYL WINDOWS AND PATIO DOORS
A. Vinyl Windows. Only the following non‐acoustically rated vinyl window models from respective
manufacturers shall be used:
1.Thermal Line Windows
a.Model 1090, Double‐hung
b.Model 1030, Glider
c.Model 1040/1050, Fixed
d.Model 1010, Casement
12
2.Tru‐View by Lindsay Sash, Inc.
a.Model 710 Double‐hung
b.Model 730 Slider
c.Model 840 Casement, Fixed
3.Andersen Windows – Renewal Series (Fibrex)
a.Double‐hung Window
b.Awning Window
c.Fixed Window
d.Gliding Window
e.Casement Window
B. Vinyl Sliding Patio Doors. Only the following non‐acoustically rated vinyl sliding patio doors shall be
used:
1.Thermal Line 5100 patio doors, for use with existing or new wood blindstops and brickmolds
2.Andersen Perma‐Shield Gliding Patio Door
VINYL WINDOWS WITH INTEGRAL STORM WINDOWS
A. Approved Manufacturers:
1.Sound Solutions Windows
404300 Series Min. 40 STC
Vinyl Window Aluminum Storm
White, Tan White,Tan, Brown
DH*: 1/8” DS 1/2” air, 1/4” glass min. 1/8” DS glass
Slider: 1/8” DS 1/2” air, 1/4” glass min. 1/8” DS glass
2.Harvey Windows
Vinyl Window Aluminum Storm
White, Tan White, Tan, Brown
DH: 1/8” glass, 5/8” air, 3/32” glass min. 1/8” glass
Slider: 1/8” glass, 5/8” air, 3/32” glass min. 1/8” glass
3.Mon‐Ray Inc.
Vinyl Window Aluminum Storm
White, Tan White, Tan, Brown
DH (8400): 1/8” glass, 9/16” air, 1/8” glass min. 1/8” glass
Slider (8500): 1/8” glass, 1/2” air, 1/8” glass min. 1/8” glass
DH (7400): 1/8” glass, 9/16” air, 1/8” glass min. 1/8” glass
Slider (7500): 1/8” glass, 7/16”, air, 3/16” glass min. 1/8” glass
4.Sound Control Systems (SCS)
Vinyl Window Aluminum Storm
White, Tan, Brown White, Tan, Brown
Casement (T803): 3/16” glass, 15/32” air, 1/8” glass min. 3/16” glass
Slider (T603/604): 1/8” glass, 9/16” air, 1/8” glass min. 3/16” glass
DH Extreme Tandem: 1/8” glass, 9/16” air, 1/8” glass min. 3/16” glass
Picture (T503/504): 1/8” glass, 9/16” air, 1/8” glass min. 3/16” glass
*DH = Double‐hung
13
Note: The above products may be used with thicker glass than specified, at the discretion of the
manufacturer. All glazing in storm windows shall meet the International Building Code requirements
for safety glass and be clearly labeled.
STORM WINDOWS
Mon‐Ray, Inc. Sound Control Systems
White, Tan, Brown White, Tan, Brown
DH* Recessed 604 w/ min. 3/16” glass at single glazed
or w/ min. 1/8” glass at thermal glazed
or w/ min. 1/8” glass
S203 w/ min. 3/16” glass
DH Flush 504 w/ min. 3/16” glass at single glazed,
or w/ min. 1/8” glass thermal glazed, or
w/ min. 1/8” glass
S204 w/ min. 3/16” glass
DH Overlap 404 w/ min. 3/16” glass at single glazed,
or w/ min. 1/8” glass thermal glazed, or
w/ min. 1/8” glass
‐‐
DH Overlap 604 w/ min. 1/8” glass w/min. 3/16”
glass
S203 OL w/ min. 3/16” glass
Slider Recessed 605 w/ min. 1/4” glass S603 w/ min. 1/4 “laminated glass
Slider Flush 505 w/ min. 3/16” glass S604 w/ min. 3/16” glass
Slider Overlap 405 w/ min. 1/4” glass ‐‐
Slider Overlap 605 w/ min. 1/4” glass S603 OL w/ min.1/4” laminated
glass
Fixed Recessed 603 w/ min. 3/16” glass S503 w/ min. 3/16” glass
Fixed Flush 503 w/ min. 3/16” glass S504 w/ min. 3/16” glass
Fixed Overlap 402 or 403 w/ min. 3/16” glass ‐‐
Fixed Overlap 603 w/ min. 3/16” glass S503 OL w/ min. 3/16” glass
Fixed Min. Frame P‐170 w/ min. 3/16” glass ‐‐
Fixed Min. Frame ‐‐ S703 w/ min. 3/16” glass
Exterior Storm Panel
at Inswing Sash
P‐170‐PL w/ min. 3/16” glass S703 w/ min. 3/16” glass
Interior
Glazing Panel
P‐150 w/ min. 3/16" tempered glass
P‐150 w/ V‐seal, min. 1/4" lam. glass
P‐150 w/ adjustable stop, min. 3/16”
tempered glass
‐‐
Interior
Glazing Panel
503‐PL w/ min. 3/16” tempered glass
603‐PL w/ min. 3/16” tempered glass
‐‐
Interior
Glazing Panel
P‐130 w/ min. 3/16” tempered glass S744 w/ min. 3/16” safety glass
Operable Skylight
Glazing Panel
503‐POS w/ 1/4" laminated glass S734 O w/ min. 3/16” laminated
glass
14
Fixed Skylight
Glazing Panel
503‐PFS w/ 1/4" laminated glass S734 S w/ min. 3/16” laminated
glass
Metal Prime
Window Slider
1500 w/ 1/8” DSB glass ‐‐
Metal Prime
Window DH
1400 w/ 1/8” DSB glass ‐‐
*DH = Double‐hung
Note: The above products may be used with thicker glass than specified, at the discretion of the
manufacturer. All glazing in storm windows shall meet the International Building Code requirements
for safety glass and be clearly labeled.
WOOD AND CLAD WOOD WINDOWS
A. Fixed acoustical window units listed below may be of any sash construction type as long as the sash
frame and glazing type match the unit that was tested and approved. Only the following wood
window manufacturers and models shall be used:
1.Marvin Windows: Double‐hung, slider and fixed windows. Acoustical casement, acoustical
awning and acoustical fixed windows and clad Ultimate double‐hung w/ operable aluminum
storm window ‐ 1/8" annl
2.Vetter Windows: Fixed windows
3.Windsor Windows: Fixed windows
4.A‐Craft Windows: Double‐hung and fixed windows. Acoustical fixed window.
5.Loewen Windows: Acoustical casement, awning and fixed windows. Double‐hung and fixed
windows.
6.H‐Window Company: Acoustical pivot awning and fixed windows
7.For Cottage/Inswing windows:
a.Sashes: A & A Millwork, Marvin, A‐Craft, Kampmann Sash & Door Inc.
b.Frames: A & A Millwork, Shaw Lumber, A‐Craft, Kampmann Sash and Door Inc. and
Lamperts.
8.Kolbe & Kolbe: Double‐hung and fixed windows. Only non‐clad units are approved.
9.Pella Architect Series: Aluminum Clad Wood
a.Casement: Insulated Glass
b.Double‐hung: Insulated Glass
c.Fixed Frame: Insulated Glass
10.Andersen Windows – Renewal Series (Fibrex)
a.Double‐hung
b.Awning Window
c.Fixed Window
d.Gliding Window
e.Casement Window
12.Larson Manufacturing – Larson AL Clad Wood Windows
a.Double‐hung, W200
b.Picture Window: W500
c.Horizontal Sliding Window: W‐600
15
d.Fixed Narrow Lite w/storm: W‐700
13.Hurd Windows – Premium Clad Wood
a.Double‐hung
b.Sliding Window
14.SP Custom Carpentry Windows
a.Double‐hung
b.Sliding Window
c.Fixed Window
B. The styles for wood prime double‐hung, including fixed windows of double‐hung sash construction,
shall be classified as follows:
1.Wood finish jambs Marvin Windows, Loewen Windows
2.Vinyl jamb liners A‐Craft Windows, Kolbe & Kolbe, Lindsay Windows
PRIME WINDOW RECONDITIONING AND SASH REPLACEMENT
A. Only the following replacement wood sashes/jamb liner kits from respective manufacturers shall be
used: A‐Craft Windows, Marvin Windows, Lindsay Windows, Loewen Windows or Kolbe & Kolbe.
B. Only the following jamb liner assemblies shall be used for reconditioning existing double‐hung wood
sashes: A‐Craft Windows, J.W. Window Components, Marvin Windows, Mon‐Ray MR‐RC, or Lindsay
Windows.
AIR‐CONDITIONING AND FURNACE COMPONENTS
A. Gas‐fired furnaces and sealed combustion gas‐fired furnaces: Armstrong, Gibson, Nordyn, Trane,
Lennox, Carrier, Bryant, Arcoaire, RUUD, Heil, Tempstar, Amana, Luxaire, Comfortmaker, Janitrol by
Goodman Manufacturing, Evcon, York or equal.
B. Residential air‐cooled condensing units: Trane, Lennox, Carrier, Bryant, Arcoaire, RUUD, Heil,
Tempstar, Luxaire, Comfortmaker, Janitrol by Goodman Manufacturing, Villager ACS Series, Evcon,
York, Gibson, Nordyne, Philco or equal.
C. Ductless air conditioning units: Sanyo, Mitsubishi, Bryant, Carrier, Goodman, Samsung, Fujitsu, LG
Electronics or equal.
D. High‐velocity air‐conditioning: SpacePak ‐ Local rep: J.L.Sontag 952‐933‐7768, Model No: ESP‐2430
D/V Unico (Auer Steel 763‐971‐2010), Model M Series.
FIREPLACE DAMPERS
A. The following exterior fireplace damper shall be used (no substitutions):
1.Chim‐A‐Lator Delux
INSULATION
A. The following insulation shall be used in attics and in non brick, rock, stucco, or masonry side walls:
1.Blown Cellulose
MEMORANDUM ITEM 4.1
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
FROM: Brad Juffer, Assistant Director, Terminal Operations and Facilities
SUBJECT: UPDATE ON EAGAN REQUEST TO FAA
DATE: September 7, 2022
In September 2019, the Eagan City Council sent a letter to the NOC requesting endorsement of the
recommendations developed by the Eagan Airport Relations Commission to modify MSP runway use and
procedures in an effort to reduce the number of departures from MSP that fly over residential portions of
Eagan.
MAC staff conducted a thorough analysis of the eight requested adjustments and presented these analyses
to the NOC for consideration in November 2019. Analyses included review of headings, abatement
procedure use, altitude of Runway 17 departures and aircraft noise modeling using the Aviation
Environmental Design Tool (AEDT). Four of the recommendations were found to be infeasible as they would
move air traffic from one residential area to another and/or would adversely affect the efficiency of the
airport.
The NOC forwarded its unanimous endorsement of the other four requests to the MAC Commission for
review. In December 2019, the MAC Commission unanimously approved forwarding the proposals to the
FAA.
The FAA provided the results of their high-level review in February 2020. This review determined that two
of the recommendations, with some modification, had merit and warranted further consideration. The first
that the FAA determined had merit was to move departures from Runway 17 with an initial departure fix of
COULT and ZMBRO to Runways 12L or 12R; however, the FAA noted that ATC would need to limit the
proposal to a departure fix of only COULT and only moving the departures to Runway 12L to maintain safety
and efficiency. The other recommendation that the FAA determined had merit was to move Runway 12R
and 12L westbound departures to Runway 17 to direct these aircraft over noise-compatible areas of the
Minnesota River. The FAA’s evaluation was that this proposal would need to be limited to nighttime
operations. Figure 1 below shows monthly departures at MSP with initial departure fix and Figure 2 shows
monthly departures at MSP with a COULT initial departure fix.
The NOC reviewed the FAA’s response and MAC staff further evaluated the two remaining
recommendations in May 2020. This evaluation included comprehensive noise modeling and analysis to
determine the potential impact of the changes. One recommendation that FAA determined to have merit
was ultimately not supported by the NOC after further evaluation given that residential areas on the north
and south boundaries of the Minnesota River would be impacted by the nighttime departures that would
be moved from the Eagan Mendota Heights (EMH) Corridor to Runway 17, and therefore not in the spirit of
the NOC’s practice to not move noise from one neighborhood to another.
Figure 1 – Monthly MSP Departures with Initial Departure Fix
Figure 2 – Monthly COULT Departures
Modeling results of the other recommendation, moving departures with a COULT fix from Runway 17 to
Runway 12L, anticipated that a change of 9.2 average daily departures would be shifted from Runway 17
to Runway 12L. The results of modeling found that most of the area where the number of noise events
would increase were over compatible land uses within the EMH Corridor or east of the EMH Corridor.
Decreases in the number of noise events were found to occur in western Richfield, southeastern
Minneapolis, eastern Bloomington, and central Eagan. The NOC determined that this adjustment could
provide relief to Eagan residents without moving air traffic noise from one incompatible area to another and
should be forwarded to the MAC Board for support.
In June 2020, the MAC Commission reviewed and unanimously supported sending the recommendation to
move departures with an initial fix of COULT from Runway 17 to Runway 12L to the FAA to conduct the next
step in the process: a feasibility and safety assessment.
The FAA responded to the MAC Commission’s June 2020 letter and participated in the September 2020
NOC meeting. The FAA tentatively determined that the suggested procedure was feasible but was unable
to do a more detailed feasibility and safety analysis due to the low traffic levels at the airport due to the
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. FAA indicated that once traffic levels and the use of Runway 17
returned to regular levels, ATC would be able to begin to test this procedure.
Beginning in January 2022, ATC began to direct departures with a COULT fix that would have typically
been assigned Runway 17 to Runway 12L or 12R when airport traffic demand allowed. This practice is
consistent with the request from the City of Eagan and the documented Runway Use System (RUS) at
MSP. Figures 3 through 5 below, show departures that utilized Runways 12L, 12R, and 17, respectively,
with an initial COULT departure fix.
Figure 3 – Runway 12L COULT Departures (2022)
Figure 4 – Runway 12R COULT Departures (2022)
Figure 5 – Runway 17 COULT Departures (2022)
Since implementation of this as a best practice for controllers, there has been measurable change in the
use of Runway 17. MAC staff conducted an analysis of departures on Runways 17, 12L and 12R between
the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. with a COULT departure fix for the months of January through July
for 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022. The table below lists runway use for MSP departures with an initial fix of
COULT.
As shown, the use of Runways 12L and 12R for departures to the COULT fix has increased 4 and 1 percent,
respective to runway, for all time periods. During low demand periods, the use of Runways 12L and 12R
increased 17 and 4 percent, respectively. Comparably, the use of Runway 17 for COULT departures has
decreased 5 percent in all time periods, and 21 percent in low demand time periods.
Implementation of this best practice by ATC has had a measurable achievement of the City of Eagan’s
objective to reduce the number of departures from MSP that fly over residential portions of Eagan.
At the September NOC meeting, FAA and MAC staff will provide an update on this item.
Runway 2017 2018 2019 2022 Trend
12L 6%9%11%15%
12R 4%3%2%3%
17 90%88%87%82%
Runway 2017 2018 2019 2022 Trend
12L 9%11%11%28%
12R 5%4%3%7%
17 86%85%86%65%
All Time Periods
Low Demand (5 or fewer Arrivals; 5 or fewer Departures in 15 minute segment)
U,S Depalment
of TrorporHicr
EedcttJ Ardd[rxrAffin
Septcmber 15,2U22
RickKing
Chairmaq Mehopolitan Airports Commission
6040 2SrilAvenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55450
SIIBJECT: MinncapolislSt Paul Intsnttiond Airport (MSP)
Follow-up on feesibility of prcposed departure adiustments
Dear Mr. King:
This is to follow up on the FA,A's September 2020 letter about the feasibilig md safeqy of
directing aircraft to depart from Rrmway 12L (instead of Runway Ifl under certain conditions"
As noted in the FAA's S€etember 2020lffisr, due to the reduced kaffic levels as a result of
COVID-I9, the FAA had not been able to conduct an indepth analysis of whethsr this
proposal was feasible or safe. However, as ftaffic levels at MSP have begun to dso, the FAA
was recently able to assess this proposal md consider its feasibility at MSp.
The FAA has vsrificd 1tra1this proposal would be feasible drning limitod pedods of time. This
wilt t5pically be during lower-activity periods between arrival and deparhre banks, ifthe
FAA's Air Traffic Coffiollers determine that ryprroprime ope,rational and meteorrological
conditions(itrchdingvisibilitymdwindcoditions)permit Atthesetimes,theprroposd
opem*ingpffiem would already fall wiftin existing bestpmactice md Rrmway tlse System
priority of directing fromparallelnrnways t2L md 12R
We thankthe MAC andNOC memhrs fortheircollaboration and patience throughthe
process of assessing this proposal. We would also like to acknowldge the importance of
addressing the interests of comrrnmity membors while also ensuring safe and efficierd fligilt
operations at MSP.
We hope you find this infomation addnesses your questions ,nd concerns- Ifyou or a member
ofyour staffrequire firrfter assistance, please feel frw to contact my office at(U7)29+7294-
Great Lakes Regbml Omoe
23fi1 EastDevonArenrr
Des Plaines. lL 6001&4696
[;:e^-
Elliott Black
Acting Regional Administrator
Grcat I^akes Region
MEMORANDUM ITEM 4.3
TO: MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC)
FROM: Michele Ross, Assistant Manager, Community Relations
SUBJECT: DRAFT 2023 NOC WORK PLAN
DATE: September 7, 2022
Each September, the NOC membership reviews the proposed draft Work Plan for the coming year. The
final draft is presented as a NOC agenda item at the November meeting and is then presented to the MAC
Planning, Development and Environment Committee by the NOC Co-chairs. The preliminary list of 2023
Work Plan topics are provided below:
DRAFT 2023 MSP NOC WORK PLAN
1. Residential Noise Mitigation Program
a) Review Residential Noise Mitigation Program Implementation Status
Description: Staff from MAC Airport Development will update the NOC on the current Mitigation
Program.
2. MSP Noise Program Specific Efforts
a) 2022 Actual Noise Contour Report
Description: Each year in March, under the terms and conditions of the amended 2007 Consent
Decree, MAC publishes an Annual Contour Report for the previous year. Staff will provide an
update on the Contour Report and mitigation efforts underway in support of the Amended
Consent Decree program.
b) MSP Fleet Mix and Nighttime Operations Assessment
Description: MSP is federally obligated to stay open 24 hours per day. Recognizing the impacts of
nighttime operations, the NOC regularly assesses nighttime trends in airport operations. This is
an annual assessment reviewing actual and scheduled nighttime operations at MSP.
c) MSP Annual Aircraft Noise Complaint Data Assessment
Description: Complaints are one of the tools the MAC uses to communicate with the community
about aircraft activity and report to the NOC about concerns received from airport neighbors.
This annual assessment reviews MSP complaints and households filing complaints.
d) Status of FAA Center of Excellence/ASCENT, TRB, and FICAN Research Initiatives
Description: This is an annual report on the status of scientific, engineering, and medical research
literature prepared by universities, governmental organizations, and transportation boards
located within the United States.
• PARTNER – Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction
• TRB – Transportation Research Board, which manages Airports Cooperative Research
Program (ACRP)
• FICAN – Federal Interagency Committee on Aviation Noise
e) Update on Converging Runway Operations at MSP
Description: The FAA began applying new CRO mitigation strategies for both parallel runways in
March 2016. The FAA will provide updates on CRO strategies.
f) Update on the MSP Long Term Plan Update and Associated Stakeholder Engagement
Description: The MAC is currently preparing the 2040 Long-Term Plan. The MAC will provide
updates to the NOC on the progress of the LTP and associated stakeholder engagement until the
Plan’s expected completion in early 2023.
g) Update on the FAA’s Neighborhood Environmental Survey
Description: In 2021, the FAA released a summary of the research programs it sponsors on civil
aircraft noise that could potentially inform future aircraft noise policy. The agency is assessing
the survey results to determine if changes to the federal noise measurement methods and/or
compatible land use considerations are warranted. The NOC will receive updates on this process
as developments are made.
h) Guest Speaker: Brian Ryks, MAC Executive Director / CEO
Description: NOC will receive an update on the MAC organization, recent accolades, trends in
passengers and operations, and future development at MSP in addition to other pertinent topics.
i) VOR-MON
Description: In 2020, the FAA presented to the NOC information about the nationwide VOR
Minimum Operational Network (MON) program. The FAA will be invited to provide an update on
the status of the regional VOR network set for decommissioning, the proposed timeline for these
activities, community engagement plan and the potential impact to airport operations at MSP.
3. Continue to Review Input Received from the NOC Listening Sessions as Possible Agenda Items
This is an information item; no NOC action is requested at this time. The October Listening Session will be
held to solicit Work Plan ideas from the public. MAC staff will report the results to the NOC at its November
meeting.
The final 2023 Work Plan will be placed on the NOC Agenda for November 16, 2022, with a request to
recommend approval of the final 2023 NOC Work Plan to be presented by the NOC Co-Chairs to the MAC
Planning Development and Environment Committee on December 5, 2022.
Complaints by Location—By Month
(2021, 2022)
Location = Complainants
2021 Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
January 65 32 3 6 3
February 57 27 4 4 2
March 112 49 16 8 4
April 84 48 16 10 11
May 115 62 13 14 10
June 111 67 12 10 8
July 102 90 8 8 11
August 90 74 10 10 11
September 124 55 15 11 6
October 135 55 11 14 5
November 50 45 7 6 3
December 43 41 6 4 3
2022 Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
January 39 33 6 2 2
February 39 29 7 2 3
March 68 45 21 5 3
April 54 37 6 6 3
May 92 55 10 10 6
June 132 63 8 12 8
July 109 67 14 10 11
August 123 83 19 16 16
September
October
November
December
Percent of All Departures by Location
(2021, 2022)
2021
Mpls/
Richfield
30R
Eagan
12R
Edina
30L
MH
12L
Blmgtn
17
January 25% 26% 32% 16% 1%
February 30% 17% 39% 11% 2%
March 16% 27% 26% 20% 11%
April 34% 13% 28% 11% 15%
May 24% 15% 11% 21% 29%
June 25% 7% 18% 14% 35%
July 16% 9% 15% 19% 41%
August 16% 8% 16% 19% 41%
September 23% 7% 24% 13% 34%
October 20% 21% 21% 20% 19%
November 25% 7% 29% 11% 28%
December 20% 11% 27% 14% 28%
2022
Mpls/
Richfield
30R
Eagan
12R
Edina
30L
MH
12L
Blmgtn
17
January 23% 8% 28% 12% 29%
February 29% 6% 36% 8% 21%
March 27% 7% 39% 9% 19%
April 12% 14% 19% 18% 37%
May 18% 11% 22% 15% 33%
June 22% 9% 25% 12% 31%
July 20% 9% 22% 15% 33%
August 19% 7% 21% 16% 38%
September
October
November
December
115 62 13 14 1092551010 6
24%
15%
11%
21%
29%
18%
11%
22%
15%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
May Complaints by Location and Departures by Location
Complaints 2021 Complaints 2022 Departures 2021 Departures 2022
May Complaints May Night Departures
2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022
Minneapolis (30R) 1,401 4,693 2,248 8 18 109
Eagan (12R) 559 3,531 2,697 28 92 191
Edina (30L) 72 403 219 30 50 160
Mendota Heights (12L) 162 394 128 7 22 136
Bloomington (17) 0 146 187 3 2 42
Total 2,194 9,167 5,479 76 184 638
111 67 12 10 813263812 8
25%
7%
18%
14%
35%
22%
9%
25%
12%
31%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
June Complaints by Location and Departures by Location
Complaints 2021 Complaints 2022 Departures 2021 Departures 2022
June Complaints June Night Departures
2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022
Minneapolis (30R) 1,761 2,308 2,292 11 167 132
Eagan (12R) 412 3,265 2,279 27 91 157
Edina (30L) 155 263 241 39 55 148
Mendota Heights (12L) 358 347 154 15 101 105
Bloomington (17) 5 129 367 2 42 22
Total 2,691 6,312 5,333 94 456 564
102 90 8 8
11
109 67 14 10 11
16%
8%
16%
19%
41%
20%
9%
22%
15%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
July Complaints by Location and Departures by Location
Complaints 2021 Complaints 2022 Departures 2021 Departures 2022
July Complaints July Night Departures
2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022
Minneapolis (30R) 3,083 2,588 1,938 33 121 98
Eagan (12R) 759 3,082 1,788 37 119 135
Edina (30L) 264 321 334 48 73 168
Mendota Heights (12L) 453 402 160 40 162 61
Bloomington (17) 11 153 294 3 60 38
Total 4,570 6,546 4,514 161 535 500
90 74 10 10
111238319
16 16
16%
8%
16%
19%
41%
19%
7%
21%
16%
38%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Mpls Eagan Edina MH Blmgtn
August Complaints by Location and Departures by Location
Complaints 2021 Complaints 2022 Departures 2021 Departures 2022
August Complaints August Night Departures
2020 2021 2022 2020 2021 2022
Minneapolis (30R) 5,535 3,374 2,916 15 75 113
Eagan (12R) 995 3,921 3,780 66 184 119
Edina (30L) 386 225 301 51 101 145
Mendota Heights (12L) 482 448 614 25 216 134
Bloomington (17) 17 151 322 4 28 28
Total 7,414 8119 7,933 161 604 539