Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Invoices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears both support and opposition for Margery Reservoir Trail; approves consultant invoices and sets invoice‑review process
Summary
Public commenters expressed both strong opposition (claims of bias and privacy concerns) and support for the Margery Reservoir Trail. The committee approved two BNL invoices ($8,040 and $26,132) and agreed to a process for circulating invoices to the committee via Patty to avoid inadvertent quorum issues.
Members of the public offered sharply divided views at the June 17 Margery Reservoir Trail Advisory Committee meeting, pressing the committee on transparency and property impacts even as others praised the project’s accessibility and design work.
Jennifer Pappas of New Fairfield opened public comment with strong criticism, saying the advisory board “is a 100% biased” body and alleging the trail had been decided before surveys concluded. Pappas asked that her prior comments be accurately recorded in the minutes and questioned grant and budget handling related to Danbury‑owned land. Her remarks explicitly referenced a 330‑foot eagle buffer and questioned whether the committee’s alignment respected that distance.
Other speakers voiced different priorities. Olivia Mika of New Fairfield said the trail would provide accessible routes for people with mobility issues and urged residents to support the project. Gloria Boyd of Danbury pointed to the Still River Greenway in Brookfield as a precedent for a safe, accessible, paved corridor that includes bridges and supports diverse users.
Property owner Gary Benedict asked the committee to reroute the alignment away from the rear of his homes (numbers 3 and 5), saying he was ‘‘not against the trail’’ but concerned about privacy and shortcuts across his yard.
In committee business, members acted on invoices and on how invoices will be processed going forward. The committee had earlier added invoices to the agenda by motion (mover: S2; seconder: S5) and then discussed a practical review workflow: Patty (administrative staff) would individually circulate invoice materials to committee members so members’ replies would not create an unauthorised meeting quorum; objections could hold an invoice for discussion at the next meeting.
Votes at the meeting: • Invoice 10763 (BNL), dated 02/04/2025, for $8,040 — a motion to approve was made (motion recorded on the minutes) and carried after discussion; the committee noted one recorded opposition during the voice vote. • Invoice 11307 (BNL, phase 1+2), total $26,132 — motion to approve carried by voice vote.
Committee members said other recent invoices (e.g., one listed as 16584) were not available in printed form at the meeting and were deferred for a special meeting so members could view the invoices visually before voting.
What happens next: the committee will finalize a process with Patty for individual circulation of invoices and will call a special meeting if a payment needs visual review before the regular schedule. The committee also scheduled monthly meetings through December to continue design review and permitting updates.
