The meeting began with a public comment segment where various residents spoke in favor of Town Manager Edward Peterman. Bonnie Cron, Connie Peña, and John Alamman were among those who praised Peterman’s competence, transparency, and dedication to Miami Lakes. They questioned the rationale for the special meeting and the need for a performance improvement plan, advocating for dialogue instead of formal complaints. Residents emphasized Peterman’s positive impact on municipal operations, financial management, and community relations, urging the council to consider these factors in their evaluation.

Councilman Sanchez initiated a discussion on Peterman’s contract, clarifying that the meeting’s purpose was to review compliance with contractual and charter obligations, not to terminate the town manager. Sanchez proposed a PIP to outline expectations and set measurable goals, focusing on communication and procedural adherence, particularly regarding Peterman’s notification of absences and appointment of interim managers. He stressed the importance of public discourse in addressing such concerns, stating that discussions about the town manager must occur in a public setting.

Another council member acknowledged the residents’ support for Peterman but highlighted issues with the manager’s responsiveness to council requests. This member cited challenges in addressing community issues, such as the aesthetics of local infrastructure, and advocated for more effective collaboration and communication with the town manager.

The council explored the absence of performance evaluations for Peterman since his appointment in 2019. A council member questioned why evaluations had not been conducted, referencing a former vice mayor’s view that silence could imply approval of Peterman’s performance. The town attorney clarified that evaluations were not mandated. Concerns were raised about the potential implications of lacking evaluations, emphasizing the need for a structured evaluation process.

The discussion then shifted to procedural matters, with members addressing the town manager’s appointments during absences and the notification process. Some council members expressed a preference for handling concerns directly with Peterman rather than through a formal PIP. Others underscored the importance of maintaining a collaborative working relationship, focusing on accountability and results.

Council members were divided on the necessity of a PIP, with some supporting the manager and others advocating for transparency and communication improvements. The council ultimately moved to table the performance improvement plan indefinitely, opting to focus on other procedural matters.

Attention then turned to the formation of a charter revision commission, as required by the town charter every ten years. Councilman Sanchez proposed that the council appoint all seven members of the commission at the upcoming November meeting. The importance of adhering to the charter’s timeline was emphasized, with council members discussing the procedural aspects of appointing commission members and the potential impact on future elections.

The topic of timing and logistics was addressed, with reminders about deadlines for submitting charter amendments for the November 2026 election. Council members were urged to consult with their appointees regarding the potential costs and logistics of a mail-in election, should that be the chosen route.

The meeting concluded with the decision to proceed with appointing the charter revision commission members at the next council meeting. The council adjourned the meeting after confirming the plan for the upcoming appointments.