Simsbury Board of Selectmen Meeting February 23, 2026

Board of Selectmen Meeting February 23, 2026

The Board of Selectmen meeting, February 18, 2026, was convened to have a presentation of the Charter Revision draft report and the presentation of the Town Manager’s recommended budget for the fiscal year 26/27, in the public’s interest.

At the beginning of the meeting, First Selectman Wendy Macstutis stated, “No public audience tonight because we have a lot of business to attend to.”

Firat Selectman Wendy Mackstutis does not have the legal authority to remove public audience from the agenda as it is in direct conflict with the negotiated settlement that is pinned to the wall in the Main Meeting Room, stating all Board of Selectmen meetings have public audience.

As an elected official, First Selectman Wendy Macstutis does not have the legal authority to ignore the “Rule of Law.”

First Selectman Wendy Macstutis was elected by the people in a partnership to conduct business in the public interest.

This is not a Democracy but a dictatorship, ruled by First Selectman Wendy Macstutis.

First Selectman Wendy Macstutis is concerned that the Charter will remain with elected officials on the Board of Selectmen to serve a 2-year term.

Connecticut Law does not have a recall for elected officials.

Therefore, the Charter reflects a 2-year term for Selectmen, including the First Selectman, contrary to the proposal made by First Selectman Wnedy Mackstutis for a 4-year term.

When the public determines that the elected official is not serving the people, they can vote them out of office.

The Grand list has only grown by .08%.

Without any growth, budgets should reflect a Zero increase in budgets.

Both boards should be required to reduce staff and increase efficiencies.

Giving tax benefits with abatements and exemptions total in the thousands.

A prime example is the International Skating Center of Connecticut (ISSC).

The ISCC has a contract with the town as a result of leasing town land, that allows them to only pay $90,000 in lieu of taxes when they should be paying for the main building $280,000 and more on the addition.

The lower taxes was used by the Town as a tool to help the ISCC in it’s initial years to become successful.

However, over the years the ISCC has become not only a viable business but has used their resources to buy an office buildings and develop a hotel.

The ISCC’s contract with the Town should be renegotiated to increase the taxable property to its assessed value.

The Town is incentivizing the Simsbury Volunteer Ambulance Association (SVAA) with $200,000 while Avon uses AMR with no cost to the taxpayers.

In addition, they are asking for $250,000 to cover a new ambulance that they purchased.

SVAA can capture revenues.

The Town should not be incentivizing a failed business plan.

The Town gives the high rollers exemption and abatements while the taxpayers are the fools who pay to cover their greed.

Policy that requires all abatements and exemptions given to businesses, an equal amount should be reduced in the expenditures in the budget.

Town Attorney Bob Decrescenzo receives approximately $10,000 a month for his services.

While he is receiving his payment, he contracts with other businesses that are doing business with the Town.

Silverman Group and Ethel Walker are some of Decrescenzo’s clients.

This creates conflicts causing the Town to pay an outside Attorney at market rates.

At the present time, the taxpayers are required to pay the outside Attorney fees for a conflict with the Silverman Group, while DeCrescenzo gets his full fees

When a business is developing a project that requires outside services, the developer pays the fees.

Why should the taxpayers pay for Town Attorney DeCrescenzo’s conflicts?

Curaleaf, the Cannabis Dispensary at 34 Hopmeadow Street, owes $114,665.27 in past due property tax.

Ct Auto Spa, 39 Albany Tpk. , owes $38,000 in property tax over 3 years.

The Cracker Barrell Restaurant, chosen for the Golf Course has not paid their property taxes and appears to have a Federal Tax Lien.

Is the Board of Selectmen ignoring their newly adopted policy?

Afte listening to the comments on the public hearing on horses giving inaccurate and false testimony about staff assessments, the Board of Selectmen should establish a policy for reviewing Public Hearing presentations to the Selectmen for false and inaccurate statements, while blaming staff when the presenters are at fault.

There is an appeal process with the Board of Assessment Appeals for any grievances on assessments.

The Board of Selectmen was remiss in giving the presenters a pass by removing horses from taxation.