At its July 30 meeting, the Miami Lakes Blasting Advisory Board discussed publishing a simplified summary of the state pilot-program monitoring data and using complaint emails for outreach. Board members said complaint counts have risen and asked staff to prepare a dated, one‑page summary, a short glossary explaining terms (for example, PPV and “unknown” allocations), and to submit the materials to town marketing and legal review before posting. Board member Edwin Orr presented the monitoring numbers and usage summary, saying, “This month we’ve reached 110” and reporting a three‑year total of “16,867” complaints from the pilot dataset. Board member Francesca, who led the group’s marketing work, said the July 4 event showed “a pretty good turnout” and argued the board should tap the complaint list to notify residents and request photos or damage reports.

The discussion centered on two related problems: the technical presentation of the pilot data and a mismatch between pilot-program readings and the mining companies’ official filings. Members asked the staff who prepares the summary to (1) label each summary with the data cutoff date (the current draft uses May 31), (2) highlight the key metrics on a single front page, and (3) append a short glossary and source links so readers can verify underlying files. Members also requested that the revised packet compare pilot-program PPV readings with the mining companies’ official reports where possible; a board member described the comparison as “damning” if the two sources diverge substantially.

Board members and staff detailed how the compromise summary should look: a single, easy‑to‑read page that includes total complaints (three‑year total and month), unique complaining addresses, a short map or bar showing city comparisons, and a labeled PPV maximum. Members recommended changing graph colors and adding clear legends (for example, marking “unknown” allocations and the meaning of PPV max). Several members emphasized the legal and records implications of any mass email outreach: materials shared under the board’s name would be subject to public‑records retention and require town counsel review. The board asked staff to send the revised summary and the underlying export to Ayo in town marketing a few days before the next meeting so marketing and legal can advise whether the town will send outreach emails from an official account or whether the board should use other mechanisms.

No formal vote to publish the report on the Miami Lakes website or to begin an email campaign was recorded at the meeting. Instead, members agreed on next steps and deadlines: staff will (a) prepare a dated summary (front page) and glossary; (b) export and, where possible, extract a comparable official/miner dataset to enable a pilot vs. official comparison; and (c) forward all files to town marketing (Ayo) and the board’s legal contact for review before any public posting or town‑sponsored mailing. Board members said they will review the revised materials at the next scheduled meeting and decide then whether to post the summary publicly.

Why it matters: The pilot program data—complaints, sensor‑recorded PPV measurements and the mines’ official reports—are the principal factual record the board uses in public outreach and in communications with county and state officials. Board members described rising complaint counts in Miami Lakes and neighboring jurisdictions (Miramar was singled out repeatedly for high complaint activity) and emphasized that a clear, dated public summary will help residents and policymakers verify trends and preserve the board’s credibility.

Next steps: Staff will produce the revised one‑page summary and glossary, forward the data and materials to town marketing and legal, and circulate the package to board members several days before the next meeting. The board will revisit publication and any town‑sponsored email outreach after marketing and legal provide guidance.