A major topic of discussion was the presentation and categorization of complaint data linked to a pilot program. Participants highlighted the importance of distinguishing between state-level complaints and those specific to the Miami-Dade program, though some questioned the necessity of such a division given that both ultimately reach the same office. The meeting noted a decrease in complaints from previous years, with 2023 seeing around 10,000 compared to 4,600 and 3,700 in prior years. This decline was partly attributed to the reduction in remote work, affecting the volume of complaints filed.

Council members engaged in a conversation about the clarity and accuracy of the data, especially concerning the implications of the pilot program’s implementation. There was an observed uptick in complaints following the program’s launch, leading to suggestions that the data presentation needed simplification. One participant encapsulated the strategy with the sentiment, “Less is more,” emphasizing the need for concise and clear data representation.

The conversation also delved into the intricacies of categorizing complaints based on zip codes and jurisdictions, a task complicated by overlapping boundaries and manual address verification processes. Members expressed concerns about the potential for misclassification, which could inflate complaint numbers for certain cities erroneously. The importance of accurately representing data for outreach to neighboring municipalities was also emphasized, as it could bolster the council’s position when addressing concerns with other city officials.

Participants proposed categorizing complaints by zip code to enhance accuracy. The discussion acknowledged the labor-intensive nature of the current manual process and suggested that implementing a key system could streamline the categorization, using tools like pivot tables to automate the process.

The technical aspects of data presentation were another focal point, with particular attention to the charts displaying the relationship between peak particle velocity (PPV) and the number of complaints. Concerns were raised about the clarity of these charts, with some participants noting discrepancies that could mislead viewers. The consensus was to focus on total complaint numbers and the overall effectiveness of the pilot program, while deemphasizing the distinction between complaint types for broader audiences. A regional chart illustrating the impact of complaints across different cities was proposed to aid discussions with representatives from those areas.

The meeting also tackled the structure of the report’s cover page, aimed at providing a clear and concise overview of the data. Discussions centered on which graphs to include prominently, with suggestions for featuring total complaints, total blasts, PPV data, and complaints by municipality. The need for clear terminology in the graphs was emphasized, with suggestions to replace terms like “not found” with “not reported” or “not categorized” to more accurately reflect the data.

As the meeting progressed, members debated the inclusion of statistical values such as minimum and maximum figures in the data presentation. While some argued for removing minimum values to streamline the report, others insisted on their inclusion for a more comprehensive analysis. The discussion revealed differing priorities regarding the presentation of statistical information, ultimately reaching a consensus on the need for revisions.