Public Meetings - Danbury, Connecticut

On Thursday, June 25, 2026, the City of Danbury Charter Revision Commission held its second public hearing at 7:00 PM in the council chambers at City Hall. The hearing was called to order by the Chair, with six of nine commissioners present. After the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment of silence for those affected by the earthquake in Venezuela, the Chair read the legal notice for the hearing regarding the proposed City of Danbury Charter Revision Draft Report published in the News Times on June 17, 2026. The hearing was limited to Danbury residents, with each speaker allotted three minutes. Twenty-five members of the public addressed the commission, offering a wide range of positions on the proposed charter revisions. Public Comments & Testimony - Kevin Guidati (27 Topfield Road) urged the commission to slow the process, arguing that the charter deserves more public engagement. He raised concerns about the Board of Education language in Section 6-18, stating it gives the mayor broad access to financial records and could blur the lines between oversight and operational control. He asked three questions: why the pace, how the public was engaged, and why the BOE language is so broad without clear protections. - Lorraine Herger (Southern Boulevard) stated the process appears predetermined and lacking data, especially regarding the mayor's four-year term. She suggested broadening the commission to include non-politicians and following structured project management with documented pros and cons. - Jeff Harold (Foster Street) defended the commission's work, noting that the public had many opportunities to speak at previous meetings. He thanked the commission but expressed disappointment that more residents did not participate earlier. - Lauren Daly (22 Spruce Mountain Road), Secretary of the Board of Education, read a formal statement from the board opposing the use of "shall" in the fourth paragraph of Section 6-17, requesting instead the word "may" to protect student data privacy under FERPA. The board expressed concerns that the language conflicts with state statute and could expose sensitive student data. - Lynn Waller (83 Highland Avenue) made numerous points: she opposed staggered Board of Education terms, advocated for the town clerk to be a civil service position, criticized the mayor's appointment of the fifth reapportionment member, questioned where public notices were placed, said the 10% signature threshold for referendum is too high, noted the lack of an ethics committee for the public, objected to changing "elderly services" to "aging services," and argued the mayor's borrowing authority of $5 million lacks limits. She also stated the process was rushed in 11 hours of meetings, compared unfavorably to her previous charter revision experience of 1.5 years. - Karen Palanzo (27 Middle River Road) agreed the process was rushed and one-way. She opposed four-year terms, objected to the town clerk becoming appointed, noted that only 11% of Connecticut towns have appointed town clerks, and raised concerns about removal of newspaper publication requirements and changes to gift reporting thresholds. - Lori Esposito (Town Clerk, 45 Pine Trail) spoke about the importance of stability in her office, noting the two-year term is disruptive and that staff remain regardless. She cautioned that vague language in the draft could affect staff and asked the commission to be thoughtful. - Ryan Hawley (18 Brighton Street, Democratic City Councilman) expressed support for modernized language, gender-inclusive revisions, and four-year terms, but strongly opposed removing the elected town clerk. He argued three points: structural conflict (clerk oversees elections for mayor), data (all larger cities except Hartford elect their clerk), and contradiction with the commission's own four-year term reasoning. He stated the current clerk has proven the elected model works. - Abu Karim (Lindencraft off Mill Plain Road) supported four-year terms for stability, noting he is tired of frequent elections and signs every two years. - Jan Maria Jagish (One Coach Hill Drive) listed several arguments for four-year terms (more time to accomplish goals, less campaigning, stability for businesses and grants) and also argued for staggering Board of Education terms to retain institutional knowledge and continuity. - Will Sweeney (19 Ironwood Drive) supported four-year terms but expressed strong concern about the Board of Education financial oversight language, arguing it could allow the city to shape outcomes indirectly without formal directives, and that this could be exploited by future administrations regardless of party. He stated that students lose when politics intertwine with schools. - Diane LePine (14 Lilly Drive) thanked the commission for their work and professionalism, stating that the public had opportunities to attend or watch meetings. She supported making the town clerk an appointed or permanent civil service position. She noted that the News Times has no circulation, explaining why public notices might not be seen. - Christina Sweeney (19 Ironwood Drive), an educator, found the Board of Education language in Section 6-17 problematic, contradictory, and potentially in conflict with state statute. She argued that the city cannot force the Board of Ed to surrender financial systems while claiming not to impair its authority, and that the language should be cleaned up. - Jim Maloney (15 Worcester Heights) thanked the commission and supported four-year terms, stating they are modern and necessary for a growing city. However, he opposed creating standing committees for the common council, arguing they become dominated by the entities they oversee (the "iron triangle"), and noted that Danbury previously eliminated them for that reason. - Warren Levy (Pilgrim Drive) opposed four-year terms (arguing they reduce accountability), supported ad hoc committees, opposed eliminating the elected town clerk (all major cities elect theirs), and argued the legislative assistant should be accountable to the council, not the mayor. - Candice Fay (31 Old Lantern Road, Councilwoman) said the process was rushed and the document was being "crammed down our throats" to meet the November ballot. She criticized conflicts of interest (eight of nine commissioners donated to the mayor's campaign, and the chair's mother chaired the Board of Ed). She opposed the $5 million borrowing limit, the four-year term, and the BOE oversight. She asked for a slowdown. - Michael Henry (11 Corinthsel Road) made specific recommendations: add "taxpayer" to preamble, make the fifth reapportionment member unaffiliated, require city council approval for mayoral appointments to vacancies, protect the legislative assistant from mayoral removal, add a residency clause for boards, and adopt "may" instead of "shall" for BOE language. - Robert Mulillo (One Lois Street) acknowledged the commission's effort but felt rushed. He opposed four-year terms, favored keeping the town clerk elected or civil service, argued the legislative assistant should be removed only by two-thirds council vote, and opposed the BOE language, urging use of "may" to protect student privacy. - Emil Bazid (Seven Wilders Wood Way, former councilman) opposed four-year terms for the council, emphasizing that council members are volunteers and that elections every two years ensure accountability. He said successful councilors engage constituents year-round. - An unnamed speaker (Mr. Casagrande) raised many points, including that the process is rushed to give the mayor a four-year term, objected to the composition of the commission (not answered), criticized the removal of "God" from the oath, proposed ecumenical prayers, noted many vacancies on volunteer boards, called for term limits (max 8 years for mayor), questioned the $5 million borrowing limit, and raised concerns about investigations, technology department qualifications, and ID badges for employees. - Michael Coello (47 East Lake Road, City Councilman at large) thanked the commission and speakers. He stressed that the charter must meet three tests: transparency, public participation, and accountability. He expressed concern that proposed changes (four-year terms, higher borrowing limits, appointed positions) reduce accountability. He asked the commission to carefully consider all comments and ensure the charter strengthens public confidence. - Jennifer Doran (Longridge Road, Assistant Town Clerk) suggested more discussion on the town clerk position and recommended restoring the reference to state general statutes in that section to clarify that many duties are state-mandated. - Lou Giordano (23 Maple Crest Drive, City Council 7th ward) expressed strong support for four-year terms, updated fiscal thresholds, and shifting elected roles to appointed ones based on qualifications. - Ed Vacovitz (Thaddeus Avenue) opposed four-year terms because they reduce accountability, stating that power granted by the charter belongs to the people and should be regulated. - Barry Rickert (26 Schoolhouse Drive) addressed the seating of council members, arguing that the requirement for the majority party to yield seats to the minority disenfranchises voters and should be eliminated. Key Outcomes - The public hearing was closed by a unanimous vote at approximately 8:47 PM. - The commission then adjourned the hearing, with a five-minute break scheduled before a regular meeting. - No decisions or votes were taken on the charter revisions during the public hearing; all comments were received for consideration.

The Danbury Charter Revision Commission held its regular meeting on June 25, 2026, at 8:57 PM. The primary agenda item was the approval of the draft charter report for submission to the City Council. The commission discussed public comments from the earlier public hearing, debated the bond borrowing limit, and voted to approve the draft report. The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM. Consent Calendar - Minutes Approval: The minutes from the June 17, 2026, regular meeting were accepted with a spelling correction for Board of Education member Kate Canetta's last name. The motion passed with one abstention (Commissioner Armstrong). Public Comments & Testimony - Public comments were heard earlier in the meeting (referenced but not transcribed). Comments addressed concerns about public participation, noticing, and the process. The Chair noted that the commission had held nine regular meetings, two public hearings, and two City Council meetings, with additional opportunities for public input upcoming, including a Council-led public hearing and a potential ballot vote in November. Discussion Items - Draft Report Approval: The main motion to approve the draft report and authorize its submission to the Town Clerk for transmittal to the City Council was made and seconded. Commissioners expressed varying views: some wanted more time to consider public comments, while others noted that the commission had thoroughly discussed all raised issues in prior meetings and that the Council could make changes before the final report. Corporation Counsel clarified that the commission would have another opportunity to review and amend the report after the Council sends back its recommendations. - Bond Borrowing Limit: Commissioner Jowdy raised a question about the proposed increase in the mayor's bond borrowing authority from $3 million to $5 million without Council approval per transaction. Corporation Counsel confirmed that the process remains unchanged—the Council must approve any borrowing by a two-thirds vote via ordinance. The increase was justified by inflation and emergency needs (e.g., school roof repairs). The prior increase was from $500,000 to $3 million. - Elected vs. Appointed Town Clerk, Board of Education terms, City Council composition, and four-year terms were also noted as topics on which the commission had previously deliberated and which were raised in public comments. Key Outcomes - Vote on Draft Report: The commission voted 6-0 in favor of approving the draft report, with two abstentions (Commissioners Armstrong and Svenick). The report will be submitted to the Town Clerk for transmittal to the City Council. - Next Steps: The City Council will hold a public hearing and may propose changes. The commission will then hold a joint meeting with the Council and issue a final report. A meeting in late July is anticipated to review Council feedback and finalize the report for potential inclusion on the November ballot.

The Ad Hoc Committee of the Danbury City Council met on June 22, 2026 at 7 PM (per agenda) to consider a water main extension request for 15 Great Pasture Road. Councilman Peter Bazade chaired the meeting, joined by Councilwoman Claire Jabbar and Councilman Michael Henry. The committee had previously reviewed the application materials and the Planning Commission's approval of the extension. Discussion Items - The committee considered the proposed water main extension for 15 Great Pasture Road. Chairman Bazade noted that all members had reviewed the submitted information and the referral, including the Planning Commission's approval. No members offered additional comments. Key Outcomes - Councilman Bazade called for a motion to grant the water extension as proposed, subject to the applicant abiding by zoning regulations and engineering department requirements for waterline extensions. The motion was made, seconded, and carried unanimously (voice vote). - The meeting was then adjourned by motion.

The Ad Hoc Committee of the Danbury City Council, chaired by Councilman Peter Bazade and including Councilwoman Claire Jabor and Councilman Michael Henry, met to consider amendments to the Danbury-Bethel interlocal sewer and water agreement. The amendment pertains to a property on Great Pasture Road that straddles the Danbury-Bethel line. The meeting included input from City Attorney Eric Gotchuk, DPU Superintendent David Day, and engineering staff. Discussion Items - Amendment Overview: The amendment addresses sewer service for a property with an existing building in Danbury. The proposed development includes three new buildings in Danbury and one new building in Bethel, for a total of five buildings. The property is currently in the site plan review process. - Sewer Allocation Details: The property’s sewer allocation is 13,000 gallons per day (gpd), with a built-in cushion as the expected flow is under that amount. Sewer usage from the Danbury portions of the property will not count against Bethel’s overall allocation of 2 million gpd under the existing interlocal agreement. - Flow and Design: Due to the property’s location and existing sewer infrastructure, sewage from the Danbury buildings will flow to Bethel and then be pumped back to Danbury. This design requirement was confirmed by engineering. - Legal Process: Attorney Eric Gotchuk drafted the amendment with input from Danbury’s engineering and public works departments, and after minor changes by Bethel’s attorney. The Town of Bethel has already approved the amendment; Danbury’s approval is the final step. Key Outcomes The committee voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the amendment to the 2008 Danbury-Bethel interlocal sewer and water agreement. The motion carried with all members in favor. The ad hoc committee then adjourned.

The Danbury Charter Revision Commission met on Thursday, June 17, 2026, at 7:00 PM to continue its work on the proposed charter revisions. The meeting began with public speaking, followed by approval of minutes, a detailed discussion of Section 6-17 (Board of Education) with the Superintendent and her team, and a line-by-line review of the entire draft charter report. The commission aims to finalize the draft for a public hearing on June 25, 2026, and subsequent adoption. Public Comments & Testimony - Michael Henry (11 Castle Road) questioned the compliance of the Board of Education's 11-member composition with state statutes, requested that the commission address all prior public hearing comments, and asked for a review of parks and recreation control and legislative assistant protections. He also suggested recommitting the Board of Education section for further discussion if it falls under the home rule act. - Louisa Britton (14 Fairfield Avenue, Board of Education Chair) thanked the commission for allowing the board to discuss the adopted Board of Education portion and for working with the superintendent to draft mutually agreeable language. - Pete Canetta (Topfield Road) expressed appreciation for the process but wished that the Board of Education proposal had been discussed before being presented to the commission. - Lauriet Bosito (45 Pine Trail) raised concerns about the removal protections for town clerk employees under the proposed appointment system, noting that the mayor could remove them at will, and asked that the commission consider merit system protections. - Beth Cooper (back one southern blah blah blah) criticized the commission for not inviting the Board of Education leadership to the initial committee meeting, calling it disrespectful, and noted the positive strides made in the city-school relationship. Discussion Items - Board of Education Section (6-17): Superintendent Kara Casimiro, joined by her cabinet and board members, expressed concerns about the proposed language requiring the Board of Education to grant the city's finance department access to its financial systems. She argued that state statute (10-222) gives the board exclusive authority over expenditures and that the charter cannot override state law. She cited privacy risks under FERPA, HIPAA, and IDEA, and noted that school district financial systems are purpose-built for educational compliance, not municipal oversight. She proposed changing "shall grant access" to "may grant access" for targeted purposes such as audits. Commissioner Sefranic countered, citing past financial mismanagement with six CFOs, delayed audits, and millions in unspent funds, arguing that "shall" is necessary to ensure taxpayer accountability. Chair Britton noted that the language had been vetted by attorneys, includes student data privacy safeguards, and limits access to one designated finance employee for audit purposes. The commission ultimately agreed to keep "shall" for that specific provision. - Town Clerk Position: The commission discussed changing the town clerk from an elected to an appointed position, with the mayor appointing and the council confirming. Language was added to require qualifications and certifications, and to ensure that assistant employees remain subject to the merit system. - Four-Year Terms: The commission confirmed that municipal elections will shift to four-year terms starting in 2027. For the Board of Education, the staggered terms will be unified: in 2027, six members will be elected for four years; in 2029, the remaining five will be elected for two years; and in 2031, all 11 will be elected for four-year terms. - Bonding Threshold: The threshold for projects requiring a referendum was increased from $3 million to $5 million, adjusted for inflation from the original $3 million benchmark. - Other Changes: The commission agreed to increase the donation acceptance threshold to $5,000; remove the requirement that unencumbered appropriations can only be transferred within the last four months of the fiscal year; add a code of ethics reference; mandate charter revision at least once every 10 years; and make various technical and gender-neutral language updates. Key Outcomes - Vote on Minutes: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved with a correction to include the Board of Education discussion, with one abstention from a commissioner who was absent. - Consensus on Draft Language: The commission reached consensus on all proposed changes to the draft charter report, subject to proofreading by legal counsel. The draft will be circulated for the public hearing. - Public Hearing Scheduled: The next public hearing is set for Thursday, June 25, 2026, at 7:00 PM, to be followed immediately by a commission meeting to adopt the final draft report. - Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:54 PM.

The Charter Revision Commission convened on Wednesday, June 10, 2026 at 6:35 PM. The meeting focused on finalizing red-line revisions to chapters 4, 6, 7, and 8 of the city charter, addressing public comments, and setting the date for a second public hearing. Consent Calendar - The minutes from the previous meeting (June 3, 2026) were approved unanimously after review. Public Comments & Testimony - Jeff Harold (18 Foster Street) noted that the charter language in section 63 says "all police and fire officers shall be appointed by the mayor." He argued that this is antiquated because firefighters are not officers until they promote to command ranks. He suggested the language should read "all police officers and firefighters" to accurately reflect current operations. - Michael Henry (11 Corn Castle Road) expressed concern about non-residents serving on city boards and commissions. He stated that there are currently six non-resident members and argued that no process exists to prioritize qualified Danbury residents. He urged the commission to create a vetting process and to require residency for appointments. - An additional speaker (name not given) advocated for making the legislative assistant position more permanent and explicitly mentioned in the charter. He emphasized the role's institutional knowledge and the need for continuity across administrations, suggesting that the position should not be subject to political turnover. Discussion Items - Red-Line Review (Chapters 4 & 7): - February 15 Budget Date: The commission debated whether to retain the February 15th deadline for budget submissions. Joe (legal counsel) noted the statutory requirement exists but the date is not mandatory. The commission agreed to keep February 15th (or next business day) and to adjust section 7.3E so that the planning commission presents the capital budget to the mayor by that date, rather than the mayor presenting directly to the council. - Section 8 – Expenditure Violations: Commissioner Mike argued that the language "every payment made in violation shall be deemed illegal" is too severe and could lead to firing for honest mistakes. Joe explained that this mirrors state statute 7-348. After discussion, the commission kept the "shall" language but noted that discipline would be determined by the department head, mayor, and HR, and that collective bargaining agreements would apply. - Bonding Limit: The commission agreed to keep the bonding limit at $5 million. Joe advised against indexing due to state statutory caps. Commissioner Peter explained the original $3 million figure was set in 2008 based on bridge replacement costs; the increase to $5 million was deemed reasonable. - Chapter 6 – Administrative Departments: - Treasurer: Staff suggested adding "or their designee" to the voucher approval language; the commission agreed. - Department Names: Accepted name changes: Civil Preparedness to Emergency Management; Elderly Services to Aging Services; and creation of a new Department of Technology Services (IT). - Appointments Language: Following Jeff Harold's public comment, the commission revised section 6.3 to read: "all department heads, and all police officers and firefighters, shall be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the city council." This replaces the previous phrase "all police and fire officers." - Corporation Counsel: Changed the title from "assistant corporation counsel" to "deputy corporation counsel" to match current practice, and clarified that the mayor may appoint additional assistants. - Official Bonds: Removed the obsolete position of "agent of the town deposit fund." - Board of Education Fiscal Oversight: A proposed new section was introduced to allow the city to impose uniform accounting, auditing, purchasing, and fiscal control procedures on the school district (without impairing educational policy). It would also require the Board of Education to submit an annual financial report by August 15th and grant the mayor and finance director access to financial records for oversight. The commission deferred final action to next week to allow legal review of state statutes regarding board composition (e.g., why Danbury has 11 members). - Residency Requirements: Commissioner Glenda raised the issue of residency requirements for appointed officials. The commission agreed to research which positions may legally require residency under state law, with a focus on police and fire chiefs (already required) but noted that other positions like Emergency Management Director currently have no such requirement. - Town Clerk: After hearing from the current town clerk (Lori) about the complexity of the role and the importance of certification, the commission reached consensus to change the town clerk from an elected to an appointed position. The appointing authority would be the mayor with council confirmation; qualifications (including certifications) would be determined by the Human Resources department. - Legislative Assistant: The commission agreed to keep the current appointment process (mayor appoints, council confirms by two-thirds vote) but added a removal clause: the council can disapprove a removal by two-thirds vote, mirroring the appointment threshold. This ensures the council's role in both hiring and firing. Key Outcomes - Minutes approved unanimously. - Red-line revisions for chapters 4, 6, 7, and 8 were approved with the noted changes. - Second public hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 25, 2026 at 7:00 PM at City Hall. The commission will meet immediately afterward to approve the final draft. - Next regular meeting will be held on June 17, 2026 (likely at 7:00 PM, to be confirmed) to finalize the full draft and ensure all public hearing comments have been addressed. - Chairman's report included thanks to the commission, legal counsel, staff, department heads, and members of the public for their participation. The chairman will prepare a cover letter explaining the commission’s decisions and omissions. - Adjournment at 8:37 PM.

Note: The meeting transcript indicates a date of June 3, 2026, but the user-provided date is June 9, 2026. This summary uses the given date. The Danbury Planning Commission met to conduct a public hearing, discuss and act on a site plan application, and consider two major zoning referrals related to state housing mandates and design standards. The meeting included detailed presentations from Planning Director Walid Al-Bakri on required zoning amendments and a new mixed-use transit-oriented district. Consent Calendar - Minutes of May 6, 2026: Accepted unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - UB Danbury LLC (Jersey Mike's): No members of the public spoke in favor or opposition. The public hearing was closed. Discussion Items - Public Hearing – UB Danbury LLC: Application for a revised special exception and site plan to permit a fast food restaurant (Jersey Mike's) at 20–28 Bacchus Avenue in the CG20 zone. Applicant representative Jason Montagno (Soli Engineering) presented parking calculations (275 spaces provided vs. 249 required) and trip generation data showing 608 fewer daily trips than the 2010 approved uses. The project involves only interior renovations with no site changes. Commission members asked questions about the store layout and traffic methodology. The hearing was closed, and the matter was moved to old business for action. Commission members expressed support, noting all departments had signed off. No formal vote was taken on the application itself; guidance was given to staff to approve. - 83A Referrals – Zoning Regulation Amendments (Two Items): Planning Director Walid Al-Bakri presented two referrals for the Zoning Commission’s June 23, 2026 public hearing. - First Referral: Amendments to multiple zoning sections (2B, 5A, 5B, etc.) to implement state mandates under HB 8002/PA 25-1, including: new design standards for residential and mixed-use projects (e.g., building orientation, parking placement, materials, stepbacks), middle housing definitions (2–9 units allowed in commercial zones), parking needs assessments (PNA) allowing reduction of required parking for developments with 2–16 units, creation of two conservation and traffic mitigation districts (near the hospital and west of Main Street) where parking requirements can be enforced, accessory apartment rules, and increased protest petition thresholds (20% to 50%). Extensive discussion ensued about the loss of local control over parking, potential impacts on commercial corridors, and height bonuses for affordable housing in the MU-TOD district. Walid emphasized that state law supersedes local plans like the POCD. The commission voted unanimously to forward a positive referral. - Second Referral: Amendments to the zoning map to create a Mixed-Use Transit Oriented District (MU-TOD), a priority housing development overlay zone, and the two conservation/traffic mitigation districts. This new district would unify seven existing zones along the corridor from downtown to the Padanaram–Stacey intersection, making existing businesses conforming and allowing mixed-use and multifamily residential with a 10% affordable housing requirement for projects over 10 units. Design standards include 12-foot ground-floor heights and 60% glazing for commercial spaces. The commission voted unanimously to forward a positive referral. Key Outcomes - UB Danbury LLC (Jersey Mike's): Public hearing closed; the application was moved to old business and received Commission guidance for approval. (No formal vote recorded.) - First 83A Referral (Regulation Amendments): Motion for positive referral made by Commissioner Helen, seconded by Mr. Nazario, passed unanimously. - Second 83A Referral (Map Amendments): Motion for positive referral made by Commissioner Helen, seconded (unclear who), passed unanimously. - Next Regular Meeting: Scheduled for June 17, 2026. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:32 PM.

An ad hoc committee of the Danbury City Council, chaired by Councilwoman Andrea Gardner (Fifth Ward), met to consider the appointment of Robert Brea to the Richter Park Authority as a full member and as the required liaison for the Richter Association for the Arts. The meeting included Councilman Lou Jordano and Councilwoman Candice Fay, along with Richter Park Authority Chairman Pete Susinski, Corporation Counsel Tracy Norris, and Community Economic Development Director Farley Santos. The discussion centered on concerns about residency requirements and potential conflicts of interest, but the committee ultimately voted 2–1 to recommend the appointment. Discussion Items - Councilwoman Candice Fay expressed reservations about the appointment, stating that in a city of over 90,000 residents, there should be suitable Danbury residents for the position. She also noted a potential conflict of interest, as Mr. Brea serves as the executive director of the musicals at Richter, which pays a user fee to the authority. Fay argued that the authority would benefit from a new perspective. - Chairman Pete Susinski strongly supported the appointment, noting that Mr. Brea has been a consistent contributor since 2014, attends all meetings, and has the respect of both the authority and the arts community. He emphasized that the appointment fills a crucial gap by giving the arts association a vote on the authority. - Farley Santos, representing the mayor's office, stated that the mayor has been systematically updating boards and commissions, and that finding willing volunteers is challenging. He noted that Chairman Susinski had specifically recommended Mr. Brea, and that no other qualified candidates have come forward. - Councilwoman Gardner clarified that the Richter Park Authority does not have a residency requirement, so the mayor's appointment is within his purview. She also noted that Mr. Brea's long involvement with the park makes him a suitable candidate. - Councilwoman Fay also raised concerns that the appointment process might be a rubber stamp of the mayor's choice, but other committee members disagreed, stating that the process was working appropriately. Key Outcomes - The committee voted 2–1 to recommend the appointment of Robert Brea to the Richter Park Authority. Councilwoman Gardner and Councilman Jordano voted in favor; Councilwoman Fay voted against. - The committee adjourned unanimously.

The Danbury Charter Revision Commission held its sixth meeting on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, at 6:30 PM in City Hall. The commission reviewed proposed changes to Chapters 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the city charter, heard public comments, and reached several consensus decisions. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 PM. Public Comments & Testimony - Warren Levy (5 Silver Drive) urged renaming the "Corporation Counsel" to "City Law Department" for clarity and consistency with other municipal departments. He recommended that the charter distinguish between full-time assistant corporation counsel and outside counsel, require written engagement terms for outside counsel, and mandate a monthly report to the city council summarizing pending litigation, claims, settlements, and consultant costs. - Jeff Harold (Foster Street, New Fairfield) questioned the requirement in Section 4-2 that the city council hold a special meeting within 14 days to disapprove the mayor’s appointment of a chief of staff. He suggested changing the language to allow the council to act at the next regularly scheduled meeting, noting that scheduling a special meeting could be a significant burden. Discussion Items - Residency Requirements for Boards and Commissions (Chapters 5 & 8): The commission reviewed proposed language adding residency requirements for appointed board and commission members. After discussion, - Mayor Alves noted that only six current non-resident members serve, all with strong ties to Danbury, and that many boards and commissions already have their own rules. - The commission reached a consensus to retain the current charter language without adding mandatory residency requirements. - Chapter 8 – General Provisions: The commission approved cleanup language in Sections 8-2, 8-3, 8-5, and 8-10, including striking outdated employee protections, adding reference to the ethics ordinance, updating language to include authorities, and revising the charter review cycle to “at least once every 10 years.” - Chapter 4 – Mayor’s Office: - Chief of Staff Appointment: The mayor argued that requiring a two-thirds council vote within 14 days to remove a chief of staff infringes on executive authority. The commission agreed to strike that provision entirely. - Gifts and Donations: The commission agreed to raise the threshold requiring council approval from $1,000 to $5,000. All gifts must still be reported. - Annual Report: The commission agreed to remove the requirement to print the annual report. The report will be made available online, with printed copies available upon request, subject to state statutory requirements. - Chapter 7 – Finance and Taxation: Director of Finance Dan presented several proposed changes: - Budget Presentation: Change the mayor’s budget submission date from “no later than April 7” to “at the first meeting of the city council in April.” - Capital Program Date: Strike “no later than February 15” for the capital program presentation to the city council but retain it for the planning commission’s submission to the mayor. - Newspaper Publication: Remove specific newspaper circulation references and align with current state statute regarding public hearing notices. - Section 7-9 (Expenditures and Accounting): Eliminate “or both of them” from language allowing the mayor to substitute for the director of finance and treasurer to maintain segregation of duties. - Transfers (Section 7-9E): Remove the restriction that intra-departmental transfers can only occur in the last four months of the fiscal year. - Additional Appropriations (Section 7-9F): Reconciled with Section 7-5 to establish consistent procedures; likely to remove 7-9F. - Project Abandonment (Section 7-9G): Delete automatic three-year abandonment; require council action to abandon a project. - Violations (Section 7-9H): Change “shall be cause for removal” to “shall be cause for discipline” to allow for progressive or flexible disciplinary actions. - Borrowing Limit (Section 7-10): Proposed increase from $3 million to a higher amount. Discussion included $5 million (inflation-adjusted), $8 million for future flexibility, or tying to an inflation index or step increases. The commission tabled the decision to research borrowing limits in comparable cities and consider indexing mechanisms. - Special Elections: Change language to allow bond referendums to be held at the next general election or at a special election, rather than only at a municipal election or special meeting. Key Outcomes - Votes: The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously by voice vote. - Consensus decisions: - Retain current charter language on residency for appointed boards/commissions. - Strike the council confirmation requirement for the mayor’s chief of staff. - Raise gift approval threshold to $5,000. - Remove the print requirement for the annual report (subject to state statute). - Accept all proposed changes to Chapter 7 as discussed, except the borrowing limit increase (tabled for further research). - Next steps: The commission will next meet to review Chapter 6 (departments) with HR present, followed by a meeting to finalize the draft report, a final public hearing, and eventual transmission to the city council.