Agenda
Board of Finance - Agenda - Jun 16, 2026
Jun 16, 2026
A public record published by the Town of Simsbury (simsbury-ct.gov). mySimsbury indexes it and makes it readable; it is not the official copy. View the original file.
Page 1 of 2 Board of Finance Regular Meeting June 16, 2026 – 5:45 p.m. Simsbury Town Hall – Main Meeting Room 933 Hopmeadow Street *Meeting May Be Held in a Virtual Only Format if Inclement Weather is Expected on Day of Meeting* AGENDA Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Public Audience Presentation: Simsbury Volunteer Ambulance Association Finance Director’s Report (Pages 1-8) Vacancy Sub-Committee Update (Pages 9-10) Agenda Items a) Supplemental Appropriation: AARP Community Challenge Flagship Grant (Page 11) b) Capital Planning Discussion for July Review of Minutes c) May 19, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes (Pages 12-30) Communications d) Fixed Asset Disposition Policy (Pages 31-36) e) Assessment Taxable and Exemptions State Reports: M-13 & M13a (Pages 37-44) f) Simsbury Performing Arts Center Band Shell Expansion Project Update (Pages 45-63) g) Board of Education Tecton Presentation (Pages 64-76) Adjourn Board of Finance Regular Meeting Agenda June 16, 2026 Page 2 of 2 Board of Finance Meeting Schedule: 7/21/26, 8/18/26, 9/15/26, 10/20/26, 11/17/26, 12/15/26, 1/12/27 Marc S. Nelson, MPA Amy Meriwether Town Manager Director of Finance/Treasurer FINANCE DEPARTMENT www.simsbury-ct.gov Mon. 8:30 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Tel. (860) 658-3200 933 Hopmeadow Street Tue. Wed. Thu. 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Fax. (860) 658-3206 Simsbury, CT 06070 Fri. 8:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. finance@simsbury-ct.gov MEMORANDUM To: Board of Finance From: Amy Meriwether, Finance Director/Treasurer cc: Marc Nelson, Town Manager Date: June 16, 2026 Subject: Finance Director’s Report Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Approved Supplemental Appropriations Below is a listing of supplemental appropriations approved by the Board of Selectmen and the Board of Finance as of May 11, 2026: Aquarion Paving Funds - $196,000 Eno Memorial Hall Parking Lot - $110,000 15 Sugar Loaf Cut Improvements - $100,000 State of CT Early Voting - $17,467 Public Works Crew Leader Truck - $63,100 Total Supplemental Appropriations - $486,567 or 0.38% of the FY25/26 adopted budget Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Tax Abatements Below is listing of approved abatements and fiscal impact for the period ending June 30, 2026: Entity Address Assessment Reduction Tax Reduction Abatement Year Solectran 690 Hopmeadow 1,696,881 56,031 5 of 10 Ensign Bickford 632 Hopmeadow 1,366,717 45,129 5 of 10 Totals 3,063,598 101,1601 Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Grants Applications and Awards Below is a chart of all grant applications and their current status as of May 11, 2026: Grant Application Amount Status Enhanced Dial A Ride Grant 35,367 Awarded Youth Service Bureau 32,272 Awarded State of CT Early Voting Grant 17,467 Awarded FY26 Greater Hartford Transit District Dial A Ride Grant 6,660 Awarded Aging & Disability Commission's Souper Thursday 5,000 Awarded Tai Ji Quan Moving for Better Balance Grant 2,880 Awarded Simsbury Greater Together Community Grant - Souper Thursday Program 7,500 Denied Connecticut Humanities Quick Grant 2,017 Denied CRCOG LOTCIP Grant - County Rd/Hoskins Rd Intersection Improvements 1,300,000 Pending CT DEEP 2025 Recreational Trails Grant 248,000 Pending Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Savings Initiatives Police Department Bullet Proof Vest Grant anticipated to yield savings of approximately $10,500 Reduced the cost for uniform cleaning by approximately $10,000 moving to a uniform cleaning services instead of a monetary distribution. Most of the patrol fleet has been converted from combustion to hybrid cruisers and we continue to see a reduction in gallons of gas. Although overall department total gallon usage is not a true measure of savings due to combustion versus hybrid vehicles, it is an indicator. We have further data that shows a significant reduction in miles per gallon between the two types. The hybrids are getting on average 4‐5 more miles per gallon and the idle times are drastically reduced with the hybrid vehicles. The police budget in FY26 is for 3 hybrids to replace the last of the combustion engines. We also plan to have the 2025 model cost and not the 2026 model cost.2 Human Resources Transitioned retiree health benefits from Anthem to Retiree First. Monthly expenditures reduced from $25K/month to $17K/month. Library Through partnerships, collaborations and the use of volunteers to present programs, the Library saved over $56,000 in program costs. The Library’s membership in the CT Library Consortium (CLC) (annual dues of $971) saved the Library $54,170 in FY 2024/2025 with purchases made through CLC’s negotiated contracts. (Data just made available) Fraud Risk Assessment Implementation Update All fraud risk assessment recommendations have been communicated to the respective department heads, policies developed and any procedural changes scheduled for implementation (ie Student Activity Funds being put into Munis effective 7/1 instead of the last two weeks of year-end). Management is currently going back and forth with departments for any control refinements based on actual practice to ensure efficiency for the department as well as compliance with strengthening of internal controls. Pooled Investments The Town’s pooled cash deposit balance as of May 31, 2026 was $3,728,045.03. As of month-end, the investment balances for all funds combined were as follows: Type of Investment Amount Rate Maturity Date CT STIF $ 10,751,834.68 3.70% N/A NW - Money Market $ 10,060,897.88 3.77% N/A Liberty - Money Market $ 27,373,541.85 3.70% N/A Liberty CD – 9 Month $ 10,291,230.38 3.83% 6/5/26 TOTAL: $ 58,477,504.79 Financial Summary as of May 31, 2026 Attached for review is the General Fund revenue and expenditure budget status report as of May 31, 2026.3 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 ORIGINAL AMENDED ACTUAL 5/31/2025 PROJECTED Description BUDGET BUDGET As of 5/31/26 $ Variance % Recvd % Recvd As of 3/31/26 Notes (Prior Year Comparison) GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE 353,331 353,331 419,581 66,250 118.75% 95.92% 419,581 Timing of World Skate payment; increased funding for State owned property and telephone access grant funding TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 353,331 353,331 419,581 66,250 118.75% 95.92% 419,581 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS LAND USE COMMISSION 20,000 20,000 22,167 2,167 110.84% 106.71% 20,000 Timing of payments TOTAL BOARDS & COMMISSIONS 20,000 20,000 22,167 2,167 110.84% 106.71% 20,000 TOWN CLERK TOWN CLERK 652,520 652,520 763,101 110,581 116.95% 79.84% 768,720 Increased payments in the current year for conveyance taxes TOTAL TOWN CLERK 652,520 652,520 763,101 110,581 116.95% 79.84% 768,720 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 208,013 208,013 156,010 (52,003) 75.00% 75.00% 208,013 TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 208,013 208,013 156,010 (52,003) 75.00% 75.00% 208,013 FINANCE TAX DEPARTMENT 112,547,282 112,547,282 112,892,046 344,764 100.31% 101.04% 113,448,871 Projections updated to include $340K payment received for delinquent parcels FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2,325,945 2,325,945 2,784,910 458,965 119.73% 122.54% 3,066,019 Higher interest rates in the prior year ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 6,000 6,000 4,526 (1,474) 75.44% 71.45% 4,526 TOTAL FINANCE 114,879,227 114,879,227 115,681,482 802,255 100.70% 101.53% 116,519,416 PLANNING & BUILDING BUILDING DEPARTMENT 900,000 900,000 1,107,480 207,480 123.05% 151.25% 991,520 September and October 2024 permit fees totaled $428,003 for larger projects TOTAL PLANNING & BUILDING 900,000 900,000 1,107,480 207,480 123.05% 151.25% 991,520 PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE DEPARTMENT 240,575 240,575 187,844 (52,731) 78.08% 84.40% 231,988 Timing of payments ANIMAL CONTROL 100 100 270 170 270.00% 32.00% 225 Increased animal control fines in the current year TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 240,675 240,675 188,114 (52,561) 78.16% 84.29% 232,213 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 25,050 25,050 28,964 3,914 115.63% 125.74% 29,589 Increased fees in the prior year ENO MEMORAL HALL 3,000 3,000 7,640 4,640 254.67% 480.00% 8,000 Increased building rentals in the prior year HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 3,250 3,250 - (3,250) 0.00% 83.43% 2,312 Increased fees in the prior year TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 31,300 31,300 36,604 5,304 116.95% 133.14% 39,901 COMMUNITY & SOCIAL SERVICES ELDERLY/HANDICAPPED TRANSPORT 42,037 42,037 36,867 (5,170) 87.70% 84.13% 42,037 Timing of DOT grant payment TOTAL COMMUNITY & SOCIAL SERVICES 42,037 42,037 36,867 (5,170) 87.70% 84.13% 42,037 LIBRARY LIBRARY 15,800 15,800 16,007 207 101.31% 79.88% 16,519 Total payments consistent year to year, budget decreased in the current year TOTAL LIBRARY 15,800 15,800 16,007 207 101.31% 79.88% 16,519 PARKS & RECREATION PARKS & RECREATION 225,215 225,215 168,911 (56,304) 75.00% 75.00% 225,215 COMMUNITY GARDENS 5,200 5,200 4,069 (1,131) 78.25% 71.48% 3,500 Increased payments in the prior year MEMORAL POOLS & FIELDS 11,500 11,500 15,633 4,133 135.94% 238.30% 14,198 Increased memorial pool receipts in the prior year TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 241,915 241,915 188,613 (53,302) 77.97% 81.75% 242,913 GENERAL FUND REVENUE FINANCIAL COMPARISON4 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 ORIGINAL AMENDED ACTUAL 5/31/2025 PROJECTED Description BUDGET BUDGET As of 5/31/26 $ Variance % Recvd % Recvd As of 3/31/26 Notes (Prior Year Comparison) EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION 8,626,737 8,626,737 8,880,996 254,259 102.95% 102.09% 8,568,196 TOTAL EDUCATION 8,626,737 8,626,737 8,880,996 254,259 102.95% 102.09% 8,568,196 INSURANCE INSURANCE REFUNDS - - 58,304 58,304 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 58,304 Payment not budgeted for TOTAL INSURANCE - - 58,304 58,304 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 58,304 INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFER IN - BELDEN TRUST 28,930 28,930 28,930 - 100.00% 100.00% 28,930 TRANSFER IN - SOCIAL SERVCES SRF 180,000 180,000 180,000 - 100.00% 0.00% 180,000 TRANSFER IN - SIMSBURY FARMS FUND 95,225 95,225 95,225 - 100.00% 0.00% 95,225 TRANSFER IN - CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 182,128 182,128 182,128 - 100.00% 100.00% 182,128 TRANSFER IN - CAPITAL RESERVE FUND 1,304,132 1,304,132 1,304,132 - 100.00% 100.00% 1,304,132 TOTAL INTERGOVERNEMENTAL 1,790,414 1,790,414 1,790,414 - 100.00% 64.99% 1,790,414 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES 128,001,969 128,001,969 129,345,740 1,343,771 101.05% 101.27% 129,917,7475 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 ORIGINAL AMENDED ACTUAL 5/31/2025 PROJECTED Description BUDGET BUDGET As of 5/31/26 $ Variance % Spent % Spent As of 3/31/26 Notes (Prior Year Comparison) GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE 397,365 408,572 382,240 26,332 93.56% 84.75% 418,357 Intern in the current year HUMAN RESOURCES 305,473 311,931 229,685 82,246 73.63% 0.00% 249,814 New department in current year HEALTH DEPARTMENT 190,890 190,890 187,148 3,743 98.04% 100.00% 187,148 LEGAL SERVICES 171,000 171,000 145,371 25,629 85.01% 112.34% 160,000 Increased expenditures in the prior year from negotiations GENERAL GOVERNMENT 175,346 175,346 134,505 40,841 76.71% 62.99% 145,368 Dues & subscriptions expenditures moved from Community Services budget and paid out TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT 1,240,074 1,257,739 1,078,949 178,790 85.78% 88.69% 1,160,687 BOARDS & COMMISSIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 93,150 93,150 92,500 650 99.30% 84.45% 92,500 Timing of public agency support payments BOARD OF FINANCE 59,660 59,660 51,144 8,516 85.73% 91.44% 55,214 Audit expenditures less in the current year from timely audit LAND USE COMMISSION 14,650 14,650 8,890 5,760 60.68% 46.61% 11,455 Timing of expenditure payments BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE 6,000 6,000 2,026 3,974 33.76% 18.54% 4,100 Timing of expenditure payments DEI COUNCIL 4,550 4,550 1,650 2,900 36.26% 100.00% 4,550 Timing of expenditure payments PUBLIC BUILDING COMMISSION 2,000 2,000 482 1,518 24.08% 26.90% 650 AGING & DISABILITY COMMISSION 7,250 7,250 7,469 (219) 103.02% 108.52% 7,250 POLICE COMMISSION 750 750 - 750 0.00% 2.00% - PARKS & REC COMMISSION 750 750 142 608 18.87% 0.00% 207 No expenditures in the prior year TOTAL BOARDS & COMMISSIONS 188,760 188,760 164,302 24,458 87.04% 80.64% 175,926 SELECTMEN - COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES 242,358 247,358 227,372 19,986 91.92% 84.32% 230,868 Dues & Subscriptions expenditures moved to General Government budget in the current year offset by timing of public agency support payments in the current year TOTAL SELECTMEN - COMMUNITY SERVICES 242,358 247,358 227,372 19,986 91.92% 84.32% 230,868 PROBATE REGIONAL PROBATE COURT 13,874 13,874 13,874 - 100.00% 100.00% 13,874 TOTAL PROBATE 13,874 13,874 13,874 - 100.00% 100.00% 13,874 ELECTION ADMINSTRATION ELECTION ADMINISTRATION 183,783 183,783 156,175 27,608 84.98% 89.02% 165,452 Additional expenditures in prior year related to an additional election and timing of those expenditures at the beginning of the fiscal year TOTAL ELECTION ADMINSTRATION 183,783 183,783 156,175 27,608 84.98% 89.02% 165,452 TOWN CLERK TOWN CLERK 294,904 301,235 255,833 45,402 84.93% 82.76% 280,470 TOTAL TOWN CLERK 294,904 301,235 255,833 45,402 84.93% 82.76% 280,470 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 547,615 555,926 466,859 89,067 83.98% 81.25% 513,565 TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 547,615 555,926 466,859 89,067 83.98% 81.25% 513,565 FINANCE FINANCE DEPARTMENT 639,191 668,061 589,883 78,178 88.30% 88.22% 657,319 ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 411,988 420,043 344,676 75,367 82.06% 80.36% 396,569 TAX DEPARTMENT 201,300 205,022 174,160 30,862 84.95% 73.70% 197,049 Timing of contractual services payments TOTAL FINANCE 1,252,479 1,293,126 1,108,719 184,407 85.74% 83.05% 1,250,937 PLANNING & BUILDING GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE FINANCIAL COMPARISON6 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 ORIGINAL AMENDED ACTUAL 5/31/2025 PROJECTED Description BUDGET BUDGET As of 5/31/26 $ Variance % Spent % Spent As of 3/31/26 Notes (Prior Year Comparison) PLANNING DEPARTMENT 429,777 441,116 375,448 65,668 85.11% 82.42% 422,047 BUILDING DEPARTMENT 333,502 340,496 311,909 28,587 91.60% 78.23% 328,056 Fully staffed in the current year TOTAL PLANNING & BUILDING 763,279 781,612 687,357 94,255 87.94% 80.62% 750,103 PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE DEPARTMENT 6,157,228 6,017,558 5,152,520 865,038 85.62% 86.05% 5,724,368 DISPATCH 615,550 615,550 514,194 101,356 83.53% 88.09% 578,136 ANIMAL CONTROL 80,166 82,084 50,203 31,881 61.16% 78.54% 59,065 Staff vacancy in the current year EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 73,012 73,012 73,043 (31) 100.04% 83.47% 73,043 Increased tech and program supply purchases in the current year offset by a decreased budget TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 6,925,956 6,788,204 5,789,959 998,245 85.29% 86.12% 6,434,612 PUBLIC WORKS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 3,223,578 3,434,167 3,040,041 394,126 88.52% 87.70% 3,386,022 Increased overtime in the current year due to snow storms BUILDINGS & MAINTENANCE 576,848 589,665 516,323 73,342 87.56% 91.62% 564,806 Increased seasonal expenditures in the prior year ENGINEERING 370,614 377,835 305,847 71,988 80.95% 80.80% 334,132 Increased use of consultant in the prior year PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 384,340 393,811 349,434 44,377 88.73% 81.74% 379,035 Timing of expenditure payments TOWN OFFICE BUILDINGS 208,100 208,100 155,359 52,741 74.66% 90.23% 181,271 Timing of equipment maintenance expenditures LIBRARY 196,501 196,501 133,101 63,400 67.74% 82.44% 145,342 Timing of equipment maintenance expenditures ENO MEMORAL HALL 104,841 104,841 81,169 23,672 77.42% 88.54% 99,823 Timing of equipment maintenance expenditures OTHER BUILDINGS 49,343 49,343 32,730 16,613 66.33% 79.14% 40,639 Timing of expenditure payments LANDFILL 87,000 87,000 25,000 62,000 28.74% 38.65% 76,800 Time of household hazardous waste expenditures TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 5,201,164 5,441,263 4,639,005 802,258 85.26% 86.26% 5,207,870 COMMUNITY & SOCIAL SERVICES SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 358,351 365,842 310,690 55,152 84.92% 83.59% 351,635 SENIOR CENTER SERVICES 174,247 177,987 157,929 20,058 88.73% 83.87% 176,194 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 182,409 182,409 162,437 19,972 89.05% 84.11% 180,000 Timing of Dial A Ride program payments TOTAL COMMUNITY & SOCIAL SERVICES 715,007 726,238 631,056 95,182 86.89% 83.79% 707,829 LIBRARY LIBRARY 1,824,821 1,863,583 1,605,051 258,532 86.13% 81.81% 1,756,145 Timing of reference material expenditures TOTAL LIBRARY 1,824,821 1,863,583 1,605,051 258,532 86.13% 81.81% 1,756,145 PARKS & RECREATION PARKS & OPEN SPACE 1,156,841 1,178,392 1,009,152 169,240 85.64% 83.30% 1,137,848 Increased facilities maintenance expenditures this time last year MEMORIAL POOL 95,225 95,225 46,916 48,309 49.27% 58.61% 70,835 Sewer use fees paid in July in the prior year, not yet in the current year RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 77,648 82,964 64,237 18,727 77.43% 87.81% 77,647 Timing of special activities expenditures MEMORIAL FIELD 42,041 42,041 24,883 17,159 59.19% 58.31% 29,536 TOTAL PARKS & RECREATION 1,371,756 1,398,622 1,145,188 253,434 81.88% 81.14% 1,315,866 EDUCATION BOARD OF EDUCATION 88,823,111 88,823,111 78,427,831 10,395,280 88.30% 90.83% 88,823,111 TOTAL EDUCATION 88,823,111 88,823,111 78,427,831 10,395,280 88.30% 90.83% 88,823,111 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 7,830,160 7,804,160 7,358,873 445,287 94.29% 93.12% 7,436,184 TOTAL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 7,830,160 7,804,160 7,358,873 445,287 94.29% 93.12% 7,436,184 INSURANCE LIABILITY INSURANCE 519,523 534,523 560,953 (26,430) 104.94% 98.61% 554,447 Heart & hypertension settlement in the current year TOTAL INSURANCE 519,523 534,523 560,953 (26,430) 104.94% 98.61% 554,447 TRANSFERS TRANSFER OUT - SIMSBURY FARMS 151,715 151,715 151,715 - 100.00% 100.00% 151,7157 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 FY2026 ORIGINAL AMENDED ACTUAL 5/31/2025 PROJECTED Description BUDGET BUDGET As of 5/31/26 $ Variance % Spent % Spent As of 3/31/26 Notes (Prior Year Comparison) TRANSFER OUT - MSP SENIOR FUND 10,480 10,480 10,480 - 100.00% 100.00% 10,480 TRANSFER OUT - YOUTH SERVICE BUREAU 8,000 8,000 8,000 - 100.00% 100.00% 8,000 TRANSFER OUT - ATHLETICS FIELDS 2,250 2,250 2,250 - 100.00% 100.00% 2,250 TRANSFER OUT - SIMSBURY CELEBRATES 5,300 5,300 5,300 - 100.00% 100.00% 5,300 CONTINGENCY RESERVE 264,493 - - - #DIV/0! 0.00% - CONTINGENCY VACANCY (350,000) (350,000) - (350,000) 0.00% 0.00% - TRANSFER OUT - CNR 416,250 416,250 416,250 - 100.00% 100.00% 416,250 TOTAL TRANSFERS 508,488 243,995 593,995 (350,000) 243.45% 102.95% 593,995 DEBT SERVICE PRINCIPAL 7,103,207 7,103,207 4,860,000 2,243,207 68.42% 67.84% 6,930,000 INTEREST 2,451,650 2,451,650 2,133,025 318,625 87.00% 86.29% 2,229,625 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 9,554,857 9,554,857 6,993,025 2,561,832 73.19% 72.45% 9,159,625 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 128,001,969 128,001,969 111,904,376 16,097,593 87.42% 89.09% 126,531,5668 June 10th, 2026 Board of Finance RE: Office Space Vacancy Committee Update Simsbury Main Street Partnership Inc. (SMSP) has established an Office Space Vacancy Committee in response to what we have identified as one of the biggest issues facing economic development in town. Problem to address – Simsbury, like most of the State and Country, is seeing a rise in vacant office spaces/professional office buildings as employers have downsized or modified their needs post-pandemic. Simsbury is currently at an all-time high for vacant office space with more vacancies expected. Windsor, as an example, showed in a recent survey that they have a 31% office vacancy rate and that within the next twelve months it is expected to almost double to 60% vacancy or shadow spaces. Shadow spaces are defined as offices currently being paid for but not occupied. This is compounded by buildings selling for far less than the town’s appraised value – a great example of this is 10 Mill Pond Lane, which the Town had appraised at $1,804,600 but just sold within the last month for $675,000. With a looming revaluation within the next two years, these factors will drive the residential tax base even higher without a plan of action. SMSP, in partnership with the Town Manager’s office, constituted this committee. It consists of a member of the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance, Zoning Commission, EDC, Planning Commission, SMSP Board, State Representative and several at-large members. It also includes the Town Manager, Town Planner and Director of SMSP. Goals the group has agreed upon: *Identify potential office spaces that can be adaptively re-used and maximized for the highest and best value *Look at what, if any, programs or incentives would assist in getting the desired development or expansion of existing offices *Look at what, if any, permitting processes could be improved or implemented to incentivize desired development/make shovel ready (this includes infrastructure) The committee followed the suggestion of the Town Planner to focus on 82/86 Hopmeadow and 125/175 Powder Forest. The committee also agreed they would like to add 10 Mill Pond Lane to the list. Other properties could be added as we make progress. Discussions and tours have already begun. The committee discussed the need/importance of focusing on for-sale housing options over apartment rentals, and the types of things that would be a value-add to the desired development such as an entrepreneur center for innovation. We also discussed types of incentives the State and Town could provide, culling out ideas for things such as providing infrastructure abatements/grants to incentive specific development we want. An example of9 this could be providing grants for WPCA hook-ups for for-sale projects so that we incentivize that over typical apartments. The committee will continue working with the Town Manager’s office. The TM will present the group’s findings and recommendations to the appropriate boards and commissions. We have compiled a number of reports – Top Taxpayers of Simsbury (McGregor), Housing Statistics and Trends (Barnett/Battos) Here are some other resources: Article about what is missing in our housing options: https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/project/missing-middle-housing-keys-to-unlock-the-missing-middle/ Commercial loans for multifamily developments: https://hdfconnects.org/ CHFA's financing for affordable units - https://portal.ct.gov/doh/doh/main/press-releases/twelve-housing-developments-across-ct Connectict Main Street Center webinar last year specifically focused on converting office space to housing: https://ctmainstreet.org/2025/01/23/exploring-office-to-residential-conversions-webinar- recap/ In there, is a list of questions to ask if a building is a good candidate to be converted. The proposed Connecticut Greyfield Revitalization Program (sSB 1247) is a 2025 legislative initiative aimed at repurposing underutilized commercial retail or office properties that are not eligible for traditional brownfield cleanup. It authorizes $50 million in bond funds for grants or loans to redevelop these obsolete sites, often focusing on converting them into residential developments. Key Details of the Program: • Definition: "Greyfields" are defined as economically nonviable, previously developed commercial/office properties with redevelopment challenges (e.g., outdated design, lack of investment), distinct from contaminated brownfields. • Purpose: The initiative, managed by the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), aims to address the impact of online shopping and remote work on commercial real estate. • Funding: The program authorized up to $50 million in total bonds for grants and loans to facilitate redevelopment. • Context: This initiative is aimed at stimulating economic growth and revitalizing local communities by turning struggling sites into productive use. Sarah Nielsen, Executive Director Simsbury Main Street Partnership, Inc.10 Page 1 of 1 Board of Finance Agenda Item Submission 1. Title of Submission: Supplemental Appropriation: AARP Community Challenge Flagship Grant 2. Date of Board Meeting: June 16, 2026 3. Individual or Entity Making the Submission: Marc Nelson, Town Manager 4. Action Requested of the Board of Finance: If the Board of Finance supports the recommendation of the Board of Selectmen to accept the Flagship grant, the following motion is in order: Move, effective June 16, 2026, to approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $14,000 for the purchase of mobimats to improve access to various town facilities. Any unspent funds as of the end of FY26 will be rolled forward into FY27. 5. Summary of Submission: Flagship Grant The concept behind the Flagship Grant application is to purchase mobimats to improve access to various town facilities. The locations envisioned are at the Simsbury Meadows facility and then other various parks and trails locations throughout town. The grant request targeted the grant category of “expanding transportation and mobility options”. The Town Manager’s office, with the assistance of a team from the Aging and Disability Commission, applied for this grant and it was awarded in the amount of $14,000. There is no required Town match for this grant or any other expenditures to be funded by the Town. This grant application was reviewed and approved by the Board of Selectmen at their meeting on February 23, 2026. 6. Financial Impact: Included in “Summary of Submission” section 7. Description of Documents Included with Submission: None11 1 Town of Simsbury Board of Finance Regular Meeting Minutes May 19, 2026 Present: Members in attendance: Lisa Heavner, Lalitha Shivaswamy, Regina Pynn, Art Wallace, Bert Helfand, and Mike Doyle. Others in attendance included: Amy Meriwether, Finance Director; Marc Nelson, Town Manager; Wendy Mackstutis, First Selectman; Tom Roy, Director of Public Works; and Seth LaVigne, Consultant (Lockton) (by Zoom) Call to Order: Ms. Heavner called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m.in the Main Meeting Room in the Simsbury Town Hall. Pledge of Allegiance: Everyone stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. Public Audience: Joan Coe, 26 Whitcomb Drive, spoke about low voter turnout at the budget referendum, escalating costs, the impact of state mandates on costs related to special education, the use of town funds to support private groups, and the high cost of living and tax burden in Simsbury. Presentation: Lockton: Seth LaVigne introduced himself as the consultant assigned to Simsbury from Lockton, the Town’s health insurance advisor. He said he is in charge of overall strategy, including monitoring claims, budgeting, working with unions, and long-term planning. Ms. Heavner asked Mr. LaVigne to explain what it means to be self-insured. Mr. LaVigne said that being self-funded means that Simsbury is taking on the entire liability for all claims. He said there are protections in place, specifically stop loss insurance, which does limit our liability. He said that the goal of a self-funded plan is long-term flexibility and cost savings as compared with a fully insured plan. Ms. Heavner referenced a GFOA publication regarding self-funded employee health insurance and asked that the document be attached to the meeting minutes. Ms. Heavner said that the Board wants to understand the best way to budget for health insurance, and noted that during this year’s budget process the Board initially decided to use $1 million from the reserves but reduced that amount after receiving updated claims information in the third quarter. She said the Board wants to understand what happened between January and April, how do we monitor that, and what are the triggers for notifying the policy board. She asked where the reserve level is today, and what the impact is of our planned use of reserves moving forward. Mr. LaVigne said that Simsbury has had several positive years when looking at the actual claims as compared with the budget. He said that state and national wide trends are showing an increase in large claims as well as in the cost of care. He said that Simsbury currently has five claimants that exceed the stop loss amount of $275,000 per member per year. He said that from March to April, we gained an additional four claimants over $125,000, adding an additional $400,000 in claims for the month. Mr. LaVigne said that for rating purposes, we look at prior year activity rather than what we anticipate to see in the next year. Therefore, prior year overages are factored into the next year’s budget. Ms. Heavner asked whether the12 2 budget would then also account for keeping the reserves at 25% of expected claims. Mr. LaVigne said that the recommendation for self-funded plans is to have between 8.5%-11% held for incurred by not recorded (IBNR) and between 7%-9% for large claim fluctuations. Mr. LaVigne said that if we budgeted for the projected increase plus 20% of expected claims in reserves, that is a good place to be in. He said that the maximum that we should hold is 25%. Ms. Heavner asked what would be the lowest amount they would recommend; Mr. LaVigne said 15.5%. Ms. Heavner said that is different from the guidance we received about seven years ago, and Mr. LaVigne said the IBNR landscape has changed since then. He said that we should not drop below 8.5%, and that because the budget builds in losses from prior years, we are able to put funds back into reserves as long as claims are not worse from the prior year. Ms. Heavner asked about budget projections after next year. Mr. LaVigne said that when we do projections, we have to assume annual trend which is around 9.7% right now. If next year’s projection of 14% holds, the following year should be around a 9.5% increase. He said that we use the actuarial projections for trends. Dr. Shivaswamy asked when they would know if that trend is expected to change. Mr. LaVigne said that the actuaries get information in December that would indicate whether the trend would change for the upcoming year. He said that Lockton looks at the data quarterly, but that Simsbury is not a large enough group to be able to be able to gauge trends by quarter. He said looking at the data monthly would not help with projections. Dr. Shivaswamy asked what can we do next year to ensure that we have solid numbers before the Board of Finance approves a budget for referendum. Mr. LaVigne said one of the primary issues is that stop loss does not provide the necessary information until mid-April. Lockton does not know until end of April or early May what stop loss will be. He said this year we also had the added issue of the sudden onset of large claims. Ms. Heavner said that the referendum may need to be moved out next year to allow time to review the data. Ms. Heavner asked if we should revise our stop loss limit of $275,000. Mr. LaVigne said that our limit is on the higher end and while we can lower it, the carrier will pass that cost onto us. Discussion ensued regarding the long-term benefits of remaining fully insured. Ms. Heavner asked if there is an impact to the fund based on active members versus retirees; Mr. LaVigne said that the expectation for the retirees is similar to actives. Ms. Heavner asked if Lockton has draft policies that the Board can look at. Ms. Meriwether said we already have a policy that she can send to Mr. LaVigne for review and feedback. Mr. LaVigne left the meeting at 6:20 p.m. Mr. Wallace said that our reserves are at 20%, and Mr. LaVigne was advocating for a bottom of 15.5% and a top of 20%-25%. He noted that we did fund the anticipated premium increase of 14% in FY27. Discussion ensued regarding when the Board should be notified of the level of reserves. Ms. Heavner asked Mr. Nelson for an update on the take-home vehicle policy. Mr. Nelson said that staff is on a second draft of the policy and we expect to have it circulated in the middle of June for an effective date of July 1. Ms. Meriwether said the disposition policy will be prepared on the same timeline. Ms. Heavner said that the Board will discuss capital planning at the July meeting. She also said SVAA would like to make a presentation to the Board in June. Finance Director’s Report: Ms. Meriwether said that there is one supplemental appropriation on the agenda, and that this is the only item added since the last meeting. If this supplemental appropriation is approved, that will bring the total13 3 amount to $486,000 or 0.38%. She said we monitor this amount to ensure that we do not go over 3% for the year, which is the threshold for referendum. Ms. Meriwether said that the CRCOG LOTCIP grant and DEEP grant are pending, with notifications expected at the end of the summer. Ms. Meriwether said that the fraud risk implementation is a priority of the Town Manager and that the proposed policy will be implemented by mid-June. Regarding the pooled investments, Ms. Meriwether noted the steady rates of 3.7%-3.8%. In regards to revenues, Ms. Meriwether directed the Board to the bottom of page 5, noting that the general fund revenues are comparable year over year. She noted the major variances on page 4, including the increased amount received for state owned property/telephone access grant, and the increased conveyance taxes. She said the building department revenue is slightly lower as compared with last year due to two large projects that occurred last year. She noted that while the social services grant amount did not vary from last year, the timing of the payment was different this year. Ms. Heavner asked about anticipated tax collections, and Mr. Nelson said that we are anticipating resolution on a couple of pending payments by the end of the fiscal year. Ms. Heavner asked for an update on projected investment income; Ms. Meriwether said that we are anticipating to end the year as projected. In regards to expenditures, Ms. Meriwether directed the Board to page 8, indicating that expenses are comparable year over year and that there is nothing significant to report. Pension Plans Experience Study: Ms. Heavner said that this study assists with comparing the performance of the plan with actuarial assumptions. She said the recommendation is to complete a study every 3-5 years to adapt to changing conditions and that we saw cost savings the last two times we had one, but noted that this will not always be the case. Ms. Heavner said that the Board is requesting the Town Manager or Finance Director to obtain an estimate from our actuary for the cost of an experience study and request a report to be delivered prior to December 26 so that any recommendations can be incorporated into the FY28 budget. Ms. Meriwether said she did reach out the Milliman and the cost is $14,000 per plan. Mr. Wallace said that this cost is appropriate as compared with the level of assets in the plan. Mr. Wallace made a motion to authorize the pension plan experience study at the cost of $14,000 per plan and to request that the actuary provide the estimates for the annual required contribution by December 26, 2026. Mr. Helfand seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Vacancy Sub-Committee Update: Dr. Shivaswamy said that she attended this meeting which included the Town Manager, First Selectman, and members of the Economic Development Commission. The group discussed vacant properties and strategies for filling them as quickly as possible, potentially as co-working or incubator space. She said that one property did close at almost half of what was expected, which will lower the amount of taxes collected on that property. Ms. Heavner asked if we know what percentage of commercial space is vacant. Mr. Nelson said we can get that information. He said one way to mitigate the anticipated shift in tax burden from commercial to14 4 residential properties is by generating grand list growth, so we are monitoring potential developments and working on projections for future tax revenue. Mr. Nelson said the committee is looking at three properties in particular. Dr. Shivaswamy said the next meeting is in June, and that the committee will be touring the properties. She noted that Melissa Osborne may be able to advocate for this at the state level. Agenda Items: a) Setting of the FY2026/2027 Mill Rate (Pages 9-12) Ms. Heavner said that the state law changed regarding the supplemental education funding, such that the funds are to be treated like ECS. She said those funds come into the general fund and can be used to offset the FY27 budget. She said the two options are to use the funds to lower the mill rate or leave it in the general fund. Ms. Meriwether reviewed the levy calc worksheet based on the budget approved at referendum, which reflects a mill rate of 33.78 and a 2.3% tax increase. She said that after the referendum date was set, the Town was notified that it would receive additional state funding in the amount of $407,895. This amount includes $165,475 as supplemental education funding, $165,475 categorized as District Relief and Compensatory Use Learning Aid (DRACULA), and $76,945 in the Pequot-Mohegan grant. Ms. Meriwether said that if the funds were used for tax relief, the mill rate would be 33.65 and the tax increase would be 1.91%. Ms. Mackstutis noted that the Pequot-Mohegan funding is one-time. Ms. Heavner said that the education funding could potentially be one-time as well. Ms. Mackstutis said that she is hearing at state level that this is not a one-time fix, and that education funding is a priority for CCM and CRCOG. Ms. Pynn said that if these additional funds are not going to continue into the next budget, we should consider not using the funds to reduce the mill rate. Further discussion ensued regarding the impact of using each of the three sources of additional funds. Ms. Meriwether said if we use only the additional education funding, the tax increase would be 1.97%, and if we only use the ECS funding and not the DRACULA funding, the tax increase would be 2.15%. Mr. Wallace asked how we would have treated this funding had we been notified earlier in the budget process. Ms. Pynn said that keeping the mill rate low and increasing cash for capital were priorities, and we compromised a bit to accommodate the health insurance situation. Ms. Heavner said that we did partially tax for the health insurance costs, so this would be a way to give back to the taxpayers. Discussion ensued regarding the potential risks of using the funds for mill rate relief if the funds are not recurring. Mr. Helfand made a motion, effective May 19, 2026 to utilize the Supplemental Education Aid Grant and District Relief and Compensatory Use Learning Aid Grant for a total amount of $330,950 and to set the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 mill rate accordingly at 33.67 mills for the Town only, which would result in a tax increase on the Town side, exclusive of motor vehicles, of 1.97%. Dr. Shivaswamy seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Dr. Shivaswamy made a motion, effective May 19, 2026 to set the motor vehicle mill rate for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 at 32.36 mills. Ms. Pynn seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously.15 5 b) Supplemental Appropriation – Purchase of a Crew Leader Truck (Pages 13) Mr. Roy said that one of the items not approved during the FY27 budget process was the replacement of a crew leader truck. He said the crew leader trucks are used year-round, but most importantly are used during snow events. He said these trucks are front line vehicles and respond directly to emergency scenes. Mr. Roy said that Public Works recently traded in old vehicles and equipment, generating $63,100 in revenue that can be used to cover the cost of the truck. Mr. Wallace asked if the revenue generated from the sale of old vehicles and equipment will cover the cost of the purchase; Mr. Roy said yes. Mr. Doyle asked about the mileage of the vehicle to be sold; Mr. Roy said it is around 100,000 miles and that 98,000 is normally the threshold. He noted the level of wear and tear on these types of vehicles. Mr. Helfand expressed concern with supplemental appropriations in that they are considered outside of the broader budget context. He asked Mr. Nelson why this truck was not prioritized in the budget process. Mr. Nelson said that we are trying to get away from year end savings requests, and that this is a supplemental for FY26, not the budget that was just passed. He said the fact that Mr. Roy is choosing to purchase this truck with the revenue from sales proves that this is, in fact, his priority. Ms. Heavner expressed concern that we do not have a prioritized list of capital. Mr. Nelson said it would be easier to prioritize if we knew how much we could spend above the standard $416,250 per year. Ms. Pynn said that Mr. Roy should be commended for his work on this, and that she supports the supplemental appropriation. Mr. Wallace agreed. Mr. Doyle made a motion, effective May 19, 2026 to approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $63,100 for the purchase of a crew leader truck to be funded by the sale of equipment. Ms. Pynn seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. c) Simsbury Performing Arts Center – Bandshell Expansion Project Update Mr. Roy said the project is on schedule and on budget, and that the schedule is very tight. He said there is anticipated to be three days between final construction and the first summer concert. He said the fire alarm system is critical, and that this will take the longest to complete. Mr. Roy said there have been some change orders, but that we are anticipating returning $130,000-$155,000. Mr. Helfand asked if any of the project elements have been scaled back. Mr. Roy said that we have scaled back where we can, and that we may add back in the window treatments and blinds. However, that would be done outside of the current contract. Dr. Shivaswamy asked if the decision regarding whether or not to proceed with high school graduation at this location is relevant to this discussion. Mr. Roy said there is nothing we can do to accelerate the construction, and that the decision will be made with the fire marshal at the end of the month. The full fire alarm and fire suppression system may not be complete in time. Mr. Doyle noted that prior graduations were held at this location without those system in place. Mr. Nelson said that the difference in this case is that it is an active construction site. It was noted that the back-up location for graduation is the high school. d) Approval of Tax Collector Suspense List (Pages 14-32) Ms. Heavner said this item is required annually by state statute and details the taxes that are deemed uncollectable. Mr. Helfand made a motion, effective May 19, 2026 to approve the suspense list in the amount of16 6 $93,998.02 and authorize Tax Collector, Sherry Clemens to transfer these accounts to the Suspense Tax Book. Mr. Doyle seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. e) Appointment of the Auditor for FY 2025/2026 (Pages 33) Ms. Heavner said that this Board is required by state statute to appoint the auditor. She said this is the third year of the contract. Mr. Wallace asked if the contract fee was built into the budget; Ms. Meriwether said yes. Dr. Shivaswamy made a motion, effective May 19, 2026 to appoint CliftonLarsonAllen LLP as the Town of Simsbury’s auditors for the fiscal year audit ending 2025/2026. Ms. Pynn seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. f) Public Audience Discussion (Pages 34-36) Ms. Pynn said she has received questions from members of the public as to why there is public audience on some Board agendas but not others, and that we should be clear as to how and when people can come speak to the Board. Ms. Heavner said that the Board of Finance used to offer public audience once per year in addition to the budget hearing, and that this Board includes public audience anytime there is a supplemental appropriation on the agenda. Mr. Helfand said the recommendations from the Charter Revision Commission include a provision that requires all boards to have public audience. There was consensus among the members that public audience should be set at three minutes. Ms. Pynn made a motion, effective May 19, 2026 to amend the Board of Finance Rules of Procedure by amending #8 as follows: “8. All Board of Finance regular and special meetings shall include a public audience period at the beginning of the meeting, providing any member of the public an opportunity to speak for three (3) minutes. Any resident or taxpayer so speaking shall identify him/herself by name and address and if he/she is representing a group or organization, he/she may so state. The Chair may, at his or her discretion, recognize specific members of the public for participation on an agenda item under discussion, if he or she feels that member of the public has knowledge or input of value to the board.” Dr. Shivaswamy seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Doyle reminded the public that they can email the full Board via the website at any time. g) Annual Report for FY 2024/2025 (Pages 37-99) Ms. Heavner thanked those who worked on the report. She asked if the IT Department could assist with making the document look presentable online. Dr. Shivaswamy made a motion, effective May 19, 2026 to approve the Board of Finance Annual Report Statement. Ms. Pynn seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Review of Minutes: h) April 21, 2026 Regular Meeting Minutes (Pages 100-105) Mr. Helfand made a motion, effective May 19, 2026, to approve the minutes of the April 21, 2026 Regular Meeting. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed17 7 unanimously. i) April 29, 2026 Special Meeting Minutes (Pages 106-193) Ms. Pynn made a motion, effective May 19, 2026, to approve the minutes of the April 29, 2026 Special Meeting. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Adjourn: Dr. Shivaswamy made a motion to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Board of Finance at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Wallace seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Appleby Budget Director18 By SHAyNE KAVANAGH Smart Practices for Self-Funded Employee Health Insurance19 October 2018 | Government Finance Review 11 S elf-funded health-care coverage is a potentially pow- erful way for governments to save money. One study, for example, showed a cost reduction of 10 percent compared to commercial insurance.1 With self-insurance, the local government maintains its own fund to cover the cost of claims, administration of benefits, and reinsurance rather than purchasing a commercial insurance plan to cover these costs. Self-insurance generates savings by eliminating the profit margin of commercial insurers, designing the benefit plan to the employer’s exact specifications, and avoiding some legisla- tive mandates and tax implications that apply to commercial insurers, the costs of which are passed on to customers. In the past, local governments have not self-insured as often as private firms,2 but this could change as health- care cost pressures continue to mount. The purpose of this article is to review smart practices for running a self-insured employee health plan. For governments that already have a self-insured plan, these practices can be implemented to make sure it remains sustainable. For those that are considering self-insurance, these practices can form the basis of a plan’s design. FUNDING THE PLAN Just as a private insurer charges premiums to cover the cost of health insurance, a local government must devise a system of internal charges. Under commercial insur- ance, the market effectively “enforces discipline” on a health plan because commercial insurers will charge the govern- ment commensurately with the cost of providing services. Under self-insurance, a government must discipline itself — if internal charges are insufficient, the plan will not be sustainable. Funding Smart Practice No. 1: Make sure the costs for the amounts needed to cover the use of benefits and to fund the desired reserve levels are transparent. Foremost, charges should be set at a level sufficient to cover the cost of medical services, administering the health plan, and purchasing reinsurance, or “stop loss” coverage. Local governments can calculate a range of likely costs and then set charges high enough to cover it. Local governments can engage an actuary or work with other external experts to help set rates. Outside advice is needed because in addition to accounting for the plan’s own experience, rates should also cover external factors like medical cost inflation or changes in the market for medical services. An outside firm that helps the local government run the plan could even “bill” rates to the government, mimicking a premium payment and enforc- ing the discipline that commercial insurance would impose. Charges should also be sufficient to make progress toward accumulating the desired reserves for the plan, protecting it against unforeseen circumstances. Funding Smart Practice No. 2: Align participant con- tributions with the cost of the plan. Employees should contribute to the funding of the plan, and the size of the contribution should be related to the plan’s overall cost. This means that local governments should adopt a policy stipulat- ing that employee contributions will change with the cost of the plan, giving employees a stake in cost management. This policy will also help the employer maintain regular updates to the con- tribution structure and avoid a situ- ation wherein contributions remain stagnant while costs increase. Funding Smart Practice No. 3: Allocate costs to departments. It’s a good idea to allocate the employer’s share of the plan to departments based on the number of employees they have participating in the health plan. This allows governments to make per- sonnel decisions based on true cost of personnel. CONTAINING THE COST OF THE PLAN One of the big advantages of self-insurance is that it gives the employer more latitude in designing the plan, compared to commercial insurance. As a result, it’s often easier to apply cost-containment measures. Cost Containment Smart Practice No. 1: Develop a cost-effective wellness plan. Wellness plans have the poten- tial to generate substantial savings. One large study showed more than $3 in savings for every $1 spent on wellness over a three-year period.3 However, the design of a wellness plan makes a huge difference in the amount savings, or if savings are generated at all.4 Self-insured governments typically have much better access to claims data than their commercially Just as a private insurer charges premiums to cover the cost of health insurance, a local government must devise a system of internal charges.20 12 Government Finance Review | October 2018 insured peers, and these data can be used to align wellness offerings with the conditions that are driving costs up. Biometric evaluation and surveys can complement claims data by pro- viding more forward-looking informa- tion on the conditions that should be of greatest concern; for example, data on high blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and triglycerides can suggest the biggest risks to employee health, which in turn suggests potential areas of focus for wellness. Cost Containment Smart Practice No. 2: Provide more cost-effective ways to access care. A trip to the doctor’s office can be expensive, not only in terms of the payout to the doctor but also in lost work time and, in the case of services that require 24/7 cover- age, the cost of substitute labor. Governments should con- sider creating an on-site clinic to provide medical services on (or near) the workplace. In addition to creating more rapid access for employees, the employer benefits from an on-site clinic by eliminating the profit margin a commercial provider would charge and by gaining ways to negotiate charges with the medical service provider that staffs the clinic. Staffing needs vary from nurse practitioners and physician assistants to a full medical staff, depending on how the clinic is expect- ed to be used. The services offered may range from immuni- zations and limited acute care to physicals, lab work, behav- ioral health services, and even pharmacy services. Research shows that on-site clinics save between $1.60 and $4 for every dollar invested.5 Keep in mind, however, that employees will require incentives to use the clinic, like waiving co-pays for using the clinic instead of a commercial provider. To be effective, a clinic must have a certain number of potential patients — approximately 800 to 1,000.6 But this does not mean that on-site clinics aren’t an option for smaller employers; multiple employers can share a clinic. For exam- ple, the City of Mesquite, Texas, joined with the Mesquite School District to offer a full-service clinic. Another strategy for improving employees’ access to health care is telemedicine. This isn’t as comprehensive a solution as an on-site clinic, but it can create significant savings. A tele- medicine appointment can cost approximately half as much as a typical office visit.7 Cost Containment Smart Practice No.3: Introduce “con- sumerism” into health plans. Conventional health plans don’t give participants accurate price signals. For example, a participant whose co-pay is $50 for an office visit has no incen- tive to choose a doctor who charges $135 for over one who charges $175. “Consumerism” aims to more closely align the costs plan participants face with the actual total charges the plan experiences. At minimum, this could mean charging plan participants more for emergency room visits than for going to an urgent care facility, since emergency room visits cost more. A fuller realization of the consumerism ideal is a high- deductible health plan (HDHP). Simply put, the high deduct- ible (often up to $5,000) theoretically leads employees to be more discerning about which health providers to use, and perhaps even to scrutinize provider invoices more closely. Research has shown that HDHPs do result in lower patient spending, but there is a cloud with this silver lining: Instead of choosing more wisely, plan participants often choose to receive less care.8 Participants may need help making more informed choices. The City of Farmers Branch, Texas, for example, started using a health-care concierge service to help employees navigate health-care choices. The City of Holland, Michigan, gives cash gift cards for choosing lower- cost providers for certain pricey procedures such as colonos- copies. Value-based insurance design, discussed below, can also steer employees toward the most cost-effective services, rather than just encouraging them to spend less. Cost Containment Smart Practice No. 4: Implement a value-based insurance design (VBID). The premise of VBID is that high-cost and chronic cases account for the bulk of an employer’s overall costs.9 These patients usu- ally agree to follow the course of treatment recommended by the provider.10 Therefore, containing costs requires that providers recommend cost-effective treatments and that the patient then follow through on their agreement with the provider. Hence, eliminating or lowering co-payments for high-value treatments eliminates an important barrier that keeps patients from maintaining their treatment regimen. One of the big advantages of self-insurance is that it gives the employer more latitude in designing the plan, compared to commercial insurance. As a result, it’s often easier to apply cost-containment measures.21 October 2018 | Government Finance Review 13 To illustrate, it is far better to subsidize an employee’s $2-a-day drug cost for a high-value drug for a heart condition than to pay for $100,000 heart bypass surgery later.11 In the most basic approach to VBID, the employer simply lowers or elimi- nates co-payments for drugs or treat- ments that are proven to have high value relative to other treatment regimens. An elaboration on this basic model is to have more individualized cost-sharing arrangements, depending on a plan participant’s specific condition. For example, a plan participant with heart prob- lems may have no co-payments for a drug with proven value for heart conditions, while another participant, who doesn’t have a heart problem, would have to make copayments if they sought to use the drug for another condition, where value hasn’t been demonstrated. The crux of the idea is to adjust the out-of-pocket costs for health services based on how clinically beneficial a service is to a particular patient. The City of Asheville, North Carolina, runs a highly suc- cessful disease management program that conforms to VBID principles. Disorders covered by the program include diabe- tes, asthma, depression, hypertension, and high cholesterol. The city has seen positive results from these programs, saving about $4 for every $1 invested.12 Cost Control Smart Practice No. 5: Focus on phar- maceuticals. Because pharmaceuticals are a potentially expensive and complicated aspect of medical treatment, self-insured employers can benefit from engaging a pharmacy benefit management (PBM) company to manage this aspect of the plan. For example, a PBM could focus on managing/ avoiding custom formularies and mitigating the use of drug company coupons (which create incentives to purchase high-cost drugs that employees might otherwise avoid). The downside is that adding a PBM could increase the govern- ment’s administrative overhead. Cost Control Smart Practice No. 6: Conduct a depen- dent eligibility audit.13 Approximately 8 percent of depen- dents who participate in health-care plans are ineligible for coverage — for example, children who have gotten too old or former spouses.14 The City of Corpus Christi, Texas, learned that 9 percent of dependents participating in its plan were ineligible for coverage. Governments should periodically audit plan participants and remove those who aren’t eligible participants, thereby cutting costs. PLAN GOVERNANCE Part of enforcing discipline on a self- insured plan is having a decision-mak- ing structure in place to help make hard choices. Many governments use special committees for this purpose. Plan Governance Smart Practice No. 1: Include employees on a committee. An important barrier to mak- ing hard choices is concern about the negative impact of plan changes on employees in the short term — although employ- ees have a clear interest in the plan’s long-term viability. By including them in plan decision, the government makes hard choices something that is done with the employees rather than done to them. Some governments have bodies made up mostly or exclusively of employee representatives to make recommendations about the plan or even to par- ticipate directly in decision making. For example, in the City of Renton, Washington, the committee makes recommenda- tions for potential changes to benefits based on a cost-benefit analysis. The committee also helps select the city’s stop-loss insurance provider. Approximately 8 percent of dependents who participate in health-care plans are ineligible for coverage.22 14 Government Finance Review | October 2018 Plan Governance Smart Practice No. 2: Consider including expert citizens on a committee. Citizens some- times have expert knowledge that could be helpful in manag- ing the plan. Furthermore, including citizens in the decision- making process could confer greater legitimacy to the deci- sions the committee reaches. The City of Chandler, Arizona, takes applications from interested citizens. Know your State’s Rules Your state may have special requirements for how a self-fund- ed plan must operate, including funding and reporting require- ments. Governments that are considering self-insurance should be aware of these regulations. MONITORING THE PLAN Self-insuring means that local governments can get more access to detailed information about how benefits are used. These data should be used to look for opportunities for better managing the plan. Monitoring Smart Practice No. 1: Engage a partner that will help monitor the plan. Governments often engage third-party firms to help manage the plan. Being able to provide information for monitoring the plan is an important consideration in choosing a firm. Monitoring Smart Practice No. 2: Look for trends that increase costs. Monitoring should be focused on a limited number of high-impact topics, such as: n Impending large claims. Reviewing claims warns the gov- ernment that large expenditures are imminent. n Medical conditions that drive cost. If particular conditions are driving up costs, it may be pos- sible to focus wellness and/or VBID disease management on those con- ditions. For instance, chronic condi- tions like diabetes or hypertension are often major contributors to the rising cost of a plan. n High-growth areas. If a cost area is growing rapidly, the employer can intervene before the costs become too high, perhaps by offering an appropriate service through an on- site clinic. n Value of services. Some providers may have demonstrably better value than others. For example, a hospital with low rate of infection is a better value than a hospital where the rate is higher. The plan could be adjusted to encourage participants to use high-value providers. n Pharmacy trends. Given the high cost of pharmaceuticals, it is wise to measure trends like the underuse of lower-cost generics or the overuse of opioids. n Sufficient use of preventative services. One of the unin- tended consequences of trying to better align participant incentives with plan costs (e.g., with health-care con- sumerism) is that a flawed design can create incentives to underutilize preventative services, leading to higher long-term costs. Underutilization of these services might prompt investigation of strategies to increase use by changing financial incentives or making the services more accessible (via an on-site clinic, for example). Monitoring Smart Practice No.3: Establish a regular monitoring schedule. Staff who are close to the plan (e.g., the human resources and finance departments) should monitor trends monthly, and an outside expert (e.g., bro- ker, consultant, third-party administrator) should conduct a more formal review, along with members of the governing committee(s), at least quarterly. When the governing commit- tee is aware of the trends that drive cost, it will be make more effective decisions. STOP-LOSS COVERAGE Stop-loss coverage caps the amount of money an employer has to pay out, protecting the plan against catastrophic claims by shifting the risk of low-probability, high-consequence events to a third-party insurer. Stop-Loss Smart Practice No.1: Consider both aggregate and indi- vidual stop loss. Organizations can purchase stop-loss coverage to protect against a high claim by any individual participant, which is referred to as individual stop loss. Aggregate stop loss provides a ceiling on the dol- lar amount an employer would be required to pay across all plan partici- pants for the duration of the insurance contract period. Each type provides Part of enforcing discipline on a self-insured plan is having a decision-making structure in place to help make hard choices. Many governments use special committees for this purpose.23 October 2018 | Government Finance Review 15 coverage against extremely poor plan performance, but in different ways, so employers often purchase both. Stop-Loss Smart Practice No. 2: Find the optimal “attachment point” with a risk analysis. In insur- ance parlance, the “attachment point” is the point at which stop-loss insur- ance becomes effective. For example, if a stop-loss policy has an attach- ment point of $1 million, the insurance pays out after the employer has paid $1 million in claims. The relationship between the attachment point and the price of the insurance policy is not linear; rather, it is more like the relationship shown in Exhibit 1. At the ends of the curve, the employer doesn’t get a good deal. At very high attachment points, the employer assumes more risk for very modest decreases in cost, while at the low attachment points, the employer receives modest increases in coverage for much greater increases in cost. The best attachment point varies for each government, but will be a function of the government’s appetite for risk, tolerance for uncertainty, and capacity to absorb higher-than-average claims years through reserves. Stop-Loss Smart Practice No. 3: Beware of treating stop-loss cov- erage as a commodity. Stop-loss coverage is sometimes treated as a commodity — the employer simply picks the policy that appears to offer the best combination of price and attachment point. However, stop-loss policies with the same attachment point may not be equal. The terms and conditions of the policy could result in less protection than the government thought it was getting. For example, during a renewal or re-bid, insurance providers could use information on existing large claims to exclude the services that are the subject of the claim (a practice known as a “laser”). THIRD-PARTy SUPPORT WITH MANAGING THE PLAN Local governments should form partnerships with third par- ties (often, but not always, private firms) that can support the plan’s objectives. Companies that provide commercial health insurance (e.g., Anthem, Blue Cross) can also provide support for a self-insured plan by adjudicating claims and making available a network for medical service providers. Firms that play this role are broadly known as “third-party administra- tors” or “TPAs.” Brokers and benefits consultants can perform analysis and offer guidance on how to best manage the plan. They are independent of the TPA’s interests and may have a broader perspective on the market for medical benefits. Third- parties should be strong partners in helping the government implement smart practices like those described in this article — so the lowest cost provider is not always the best option. Third-Party Smart Practice No. 1: Get a TPA with strong purchasing power for health services. One of the most important features of a TPA is the purchasing power it can bring to bear on behalf of the government. If the TPA can negotiate better pricing with health-service providers, the gov- ernment will benefit. Benefits consultants can be used to help evaluate TPAs for the strength of their networks and the dis- counts they can provide on medical services, and how these strengths compare to the administrative fees the TPA charges. Exhibit 1: The Relationship between the Attachment Point and the Price of the Insurance Policy Cost of Stop Loss Insurance The Attachment Point Self-insuring means that local governments can get more access to detailed information about how benefits are used. These data should be used to look for opportunities for better managing the plan.24 16 Government Finance Review | October 2018 Third-Party Smart Practice No. 2: Insist on claims processing per- formance guarantees for a lower error rate. The TPA’s performance influences how employees perceive the quality of the benefit. For example, a plan might start covering chiroprac- tic services, but if the TPA doesn’t adjust its system promptly and cor- rectly to accept claims for the new service, and claims are rejected, the plan’s reputation will suffer. Governments can therefore require performance guarantees and even have audit rights over in place with their TPAs. Third-Party Smart Practice No. 3: Get a TPA that can help with cost containment. The best TPAs can help the government implement many of the cost-containment techniques described earlier in this article. For example, designing a cost-effective wellness and disease-manage- ment program is much easier with the expert support of a qualified TPA. Third-Party Smart Practice No. 4: Get a TPA that can support plan monitoring. Third-party partners should also be able to help with monitoring the trends described earlier in this article. In fact, the TPA should be an integral partici- pant in the quarterly monitoring meetings. The third party best positioned to do this varies. Some TPAs can provide this support, while in other cases, a broker or benefits consultant might be best. PLAN RESERVE A reserve provides a hedge against the risk that a self- funded plan is subject to. The big question for all employers offering a self-funded plan is “How much is enough?” Reserve Smart Practice No. 1: Make sure the reserve is sufficient to cover incurred-but-not-reported (IBNR) claims. IBNR typically has two parts. The first is claims that have happened but have not been reported. There can be a significant lag time between a coverable event and when it is reported to the plan. The second part is claims that are known but not completely settled. Both of these numbers can be esti- mated based on prior experience or, in the absence of that, the experience of similar sized orga- nizations that are self-insured. A TPA, broker, or consultant could also help estimate this number — or the govern- ment might need the assistance of an actuary. IBNR is important because if the local government were to discon- tinue the plan, it would want to have sufficient reserves to pay off remain- ing claims. Some states also require reporting or verification of plan liquid- ity and viability. Reserve Smart Practice No. 2: Make sure the reserve will cover claim cost variability that is greater than planned revenue inflow. Governments need to be prepared for costs that are higher than the internal charges were designed to cover. At the same time, reserves shouldn’t be greater than the amount that would be covered by aggregate stop-loss insurance. In practice, this can be a complicated calculation, and many governments use a dollar amount that’s equal to two or three months’ worth of claims as a rule of thumb (in addition to the amount required for IBNR). PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: INTERNAL CHARGES, RESERVES, AND STOP LOSS Exhibit 2 shows how internal charges, reserves, and stop loss work together to create a sustainable plan funding strat- egy. The chart shows the total cost of a self-insured plan as a normal distribution, or bell curve. The actual cost of the plan varies from year to year, but it is more likely to be closer to its historical average than to deviate greatly (adjusting for medi- cal inflation, which is substantial). Internal charges are usually set to cover some amount that is greater than the average costs, shown as a line in Exhibit 2. After all, setting charges right at the average would leave a 50 percent chance of coming up short during the year. Reserves serve as a backup in case plan costs exceed the amount that internal charges cover. Reserves that are used in one year will likely be replenished in successive years, as plan costs will probably be less than estimated internal charges in sub- sequent years. The line where internal charges are set can be moved, based on how much money is currently in the reserve and appetite for risk. For example, if reserves are low, tthe Local governments should form partnerships with third parties (often, but not always, private firms) that can support the plan’s objectives.25 October 2018 | Government Finance Review 17 line in Exhibit 2 could be moved to the right to increase the odds that: 1) internal charges will be sufficient to cover the plan’s cost, and; 1) charges will exceed the amount needed to pay for that year’s service costs, allowing reserves to be built back up. Finally, stop-loss insurance covers extreme cases beyond reserves; it is not cost-effective for a govern- ment to accumulate reserves large enough to cover the most extreme cases. CONCLUSIONS Self-funded health insurance is a promising way for govern- ments to have more control over the cost of employee health benefits. However, managing a self-funded plan requires dis- cipline in setting charges and reserves at the right level and adjusting how the plan is operated in response to information about plan performance. Verifying the plan against the smart practices outlined in this article can ensure that self-insurance remains a smart choice for your organization. y Notes 1. The Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust Employee Health Benefits Survey 2010. 2. GFOA’s 2011 report, “Containing Health Care Costs,” showed that approx- imately 40 percent of member governments are self-insured, compared to 59 percent of all private firms. 3. ROI figures include soft-dollar savings such as productivity gains and reduced absenteeism. See Katherine Baicker, David Cutler, and Zirui Song, “Workplace Wellness Programs Can Generate Savings,” Health Affairs, February 2010. 4. For example, wellness programs are usually more effective at helping people improve blood cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood glucose, but less effective at weight loss. Steve Aldana, “5 Workplace Wellness Statistics Every Employer Should Know,” WellSteps, January 10, 2018. 5. Xuguang Tao, David Chenoweth, Amy S. Alfriend, et al, “Monitoring Worksite Clinic Performance Using a Cost Benefit Tool,” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Volume 51, Number 10, October 2009. ROI figures often include soft-dollar savings like less sick time used and higher productivity. Xuguang and colleagues cite the most modest ROI figures; consulting groups and industry advocates cite higher figures. Differences likely stem from differences in how ROI are Exhibit 2: How Internal Charges, Reserves, and Stop Loss Work Together to Create a Sustainable Funding Strategy Frequency Total Cost Stop Loss Covers Extreme Cases Average Annual Plan Cost Internal Charges Might Be Set to Cover Up to Here Reserves cover cost in excess of internal charges, but before stop loss. Half of the time cost will be less than average.26 18 Government Finance Review | October 2018 calculated (e.g., which benefits of clinics are included in calculation and how they are monetized) and the structure of the clinics being evaluated. 6. “Employers Implement On-Site Health Clinics to Manage Costs,” Hewitt Associates LLC, August 2008. 7. Terena Bell, “Can Telemedicine Be Both Cost Efficient and High Quality,” US News and World Report, February 27, 2018. 8. Rajender Agarwal, Olena Mazurenko, and Nir Menachemi, “High-Deductible Health Plans Reduce Health Care Cost and Utilization, Including Use Of Needed Preventive Services,” Health Affairs Vol. 36, No 10. 9. Samuel H. Fleet, “Self-Funding: Taking Control of an Employer’s Health Benefits Destiny Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” Compensation & Benefits Review 43: 30, 2011. 10. A. Mark Fendrick, “Value-Based Insurance Design Landscape Digest,” Center for Value-Based Insurance Design at University of Michigan, July 2009. 11. Example taken from “Value-Based Insurance Design Landscape Digest.” 12. These programs are collectively known as “The Asheville Project.” They were extensively studied and written about in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. ROI figures include soft-dollar savings (e.g., pro- ductivity enhancements, less time off work). 13. Information from this section is from: Mark Mack, “Controlling Health Care Costs with Dependent Eligibility Audits,” Government Finance Review, June 2015. 14. Research focused on the health-care firms HMS, ConSova, and the Society for Human Resource Management. See the following: ConSova Resource Center — Dependent Eligibility Audit Case Studies, January 1, 2010; Gary Claxton, 2014 Employer Health Benefits Survey, September 1, 2014; Healthcare 411, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Medical Expenditure Panel Survey; “Modest health benefit cost growth continues as consumerism kicks into high gear,” Mercer, November 19, 2014; Stephen Miller, “Health Care Savings with Dependent Eligibility Audits, Society for Human Resources Management, April 19, 2009; and Understanding Dependent Eligibility Audits, HMS, October 1, 2013). SHAYNE KAVANAGH is GFOA’s senior manager of research. He can be reached at skavanagh@gfoa.org. A reserve provides a hedge against the risk that a self- funded plan is subject to. The big question for all employers offering a self-funded plan is “How much is enough?”27 Marc S. Nelson, MPA Thomas J. Roy, PE Town Manager Director of Public Works Town Engineer DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM To: Marc Nelson – Town Manager; Board of Finance From: Thomas J. Roy, PE, CEM – Director of Public Works/Town Engineer CC: Amy Meriwether – Director of Finance; Adam Kessler – Deputy Town Engineer Date: May 18, 2026 Subject: SMPAC Band Shell Expansion – Project Update The Simsbury Meadows Performing Arts Center Band Shell Expansion project, also known as "The Next Act," has been actively under construction since October 2025. We are pleased to report that the project remains on schedule for a completion date of June 30, 2026, just in time for the Hartford Symphony Orchestra (HSO) season and the Celebrate America concert on Friday, July 3rd. Following the successful budget referendum on January 24th, the total project allocation is now $3,170,881. After crediting $100,000 for the development of design plans, the funded budget stands at $3,070,881. Attached for your review is a summary of project expenditures to date, along with anticipated costs to complete the project, excluding any future change orders. As of the end of April, construction is 76% complete, and the project currently has $157,699, or 5% of its budget, in unallocated funds. To date, the construction project has incurred seven change orders, totaling $213,656. A summary of the change orders and proposed change orders (PCO’s) is attached.28 CIP ‐ Bathrooms FY23 $ 350,000 DECD ‐ Urban Act Grant FY25 $ 900,000 Capital Reserve Fund FY25 $ 500,000 SMPAC Donation (Per 12/10/2025 BOF Meeting) FY25 $ 1,032,881 Capital Reserve Fund ‐ January Referendum $388,000 FY26 $ 388,000 Project Funding $ 3,170,881 100% Paid or Contracted to Date Value Remaining % SMPAC Design Cost* (100,000.00)$ 3,070,881$ Design/Bid/Grant Costs (32,713.67)$ 3,038,167$ Incidentals to Construction (79,464.00)$ 2,958,703$ Town Costs for Unsuitables (2,692.16)$ 2,956,011$ Contract Value (Millennium Builders) Bid + Alt. No. 2 (2,516,000.00)$ 440,011$ CO No. 1 ‐ Value Engineering 96,680.00$ 536,691$ CO No. 2 ‐ PCO 3r2, 4, and 5 (65,776.00)$ 470,915$ CO No. 3 ‐ PCO 7 (VE) & 8 (22,775.00)$ 448,140$ CO No. 4 ‐ PCO 9, 10, 11r1, and 12 (183,534.00)$ 264,606$ CO No. 5 ‐ PCO 13, 17, and 18 10,287.00$ 274,893$ CO No. 6 ‐ Schedule Only ‐$ 274,893$ CO No. 7 ‐ PCO 20, 21, 23r2, 24r1, and 25 (48,538.25)$ 226,355$ Cameras & Server (Three‐Way Communications)** (42,200.00)$ 184,155$ Sub‐Total (2,986,726.08)$ Current Funds Available 184,154.92$ 5.8% In‐Process CO's / Additional Project Expenses Value Remaining % Parking Lot Trench Paving (by DPW)** (5,000.00)$ 179,154.92$ 5.7% New Hydrant** (3,966.00)$ 175,188.92$ 5.5% Field Hydroseed (Due to time of year)** (2,980.00)$ 172,208.92$ 5.4% POC 26 ‐ Credit for Bathroom Partition Change 490.00$ 172,698.92$ 5.4% As‐Built Survey** (15,000.00)$ 157,698.92$ 5.0% Sub‐Total (26,456.00)$ Funds Remaining 157,698.92$ 5.0% Potential Future Work / Projects Value Remaining % Replace Sanitary Sewer Pumps and Controls (12,000.00)$ Add Blinds / Window Treatments (7,000.00)$ Additional Signage (8,000.00)$ Sub‐Total (27,000.00)$ Funds Remaining 130,698.92$ 4.1% *Accounts for unfunded portion of authorization **Work done outside of contract with Millennium Builders Updated May 14, 2026 Project Expenditures ‐ SMPAC Band Shell Expansion Project29 Description PCO Status Revision Description Original Increase/(Reduction) Approved Increase/(Reduction) CO# VE Items Approved (96,680)$ (96,680)$ 1 Fire Separation Not Approved 209,088.00$ Sprinklers (Bldg. Only) Not Approved 207,647$ Sprinklers (Bldg. Only) - REVISED Not Approved Add Exit Signs & Wproof Outlet 204,347$ Sprinklers (Bldg. Only) - REVISED Approved Removed Site Work Which Became PCO-9 & PCO-10 67,353$ 67,353$ 2 Bottle Filler Approved 522$ 522$ 2 Stage Door Panels Approved (2,099)$ (2,099)$ 2 Doors 101A & 101B Not Approved 12,311.00$ VE Items Approved (8,000)$ (8,000)$ 3 Water Line Repl Approved 30,755$ 30,755$ 3 6" - Road to Hydrant Approved 107,586$ 107,586$ 4 4" Fire Svs Approved 45,141$ 45,141$ 4 TPO Roofing Approved 16,929$ 16,929$ 4 Add Back Siding Approved 13,878$ 13,878$ 4 Future Shower Approved 2,363$ 2,363$ 5 Add Tile Not Approved 3,019.00$ Add Plywood @ Shakes Not Approved 10,455.00$ Furring Sys. For AWP Not Approved 9,567.00$ Hardie Sub Approved (10,823)$ (10,823)$ 5 1" Rigid Ins. Approved (1,827)$ (1,827)$ 5 1/2" Rigid Ins. Not Approved PRV Domestic Svs Approved 1,959$ 1,959$ 7 Backwater Valve Upgrade Approved 563$ 563$ 7 Add Roof Blocking Not Approved 3,372$ Fire Alarm System Not Approved 34,560$ Fire Alarm System - REVISED Not Approved Add Smoke 39,532$ Fire Alarm System - REVISED Approved Add Stage Pulls/Alerts 42,747$ 42,747$ 7 Ext. Camera Drops Not Approved 1,248$ Ext. Camera Drops - REVISED Approved Adds Cost Detail - No changes 1,248$ 1,248$ 7 Hand Dryer Elec. - Reduced by PBC Approved & Reduced 2,021$ 2,021$ 7 PCO-26 Credit for Toilet Partitons Waiting on Approval (490)$ 8 PCO-25 PCO-22 PCO-23 PCO-23r1 PCO-23r2 PCO-24 PCO-24r1 PCO-21 PCO-10 PCO-11 PCO-12 PCO-13 PCO-14 PCO-15 PCO-16 PCO-17 PCO-18 PCO-19 PCO-20 PCO-9 PCO # PCO-1 PCO-2 PCO-3 PCO-3r1 PCO-3r2 PCO-4 PCO-5 PCO-6 PCO-7 PCO-830 Town of Simsbury Fixed Asset Disposition Policy Purpose The purpose of this policy is to establish uniform procedures for the review, authorization, removal, sale, transfer, donation, recycling, or disposal of Town-owned fixed assets. This policy ensures that asset disposition is conducted in a controlled, transparent manner that protects public assets, maintains accurate financial records, and complies with applicable laws and audit requirements. Scope This policy applies to all Town departments, offices, boards, commissions, and employees responsible for Town-owned fixed assets, including but not limited to: Vehicles and equipment Furniture and fixtures Technology and IT equipment Tools and machinery Infrastructure-related equipment (where applicable for tracking purposes) Any other tangible capital assets recorded in the Town’s fixed asset system Definition of Fixed Assets Fixed assets are real or personal property that have a value equal to or greater than the capitalization threshold for the particular classification of asset and have an estimated life of greater than one year. See “Capital Planning & Financing Policy” for capitalization thresholds. General Policy All fixed assets remain the property of the Town until formally disposed of in accordance with this policy. No asset may be sold, discarded, donated, transferred, scrapped, or otherwise removed from Town custody without prior authorization. Disposal of assets shall be conducted in a manner that: Maximizes value to the Town where feasible Ensures appropriate stewardship of public property Maintains accurate inventory and financial records31 Prevents unauthorized personal benefit or misuse Ensures compliance with audit standards and applicable laws Identification of Assets for Disposition Departments shall periodically review assets under their control to identify items that are: Surplus to operational needs Obsolete or no longer functional Beyond economical repair Replaced by newer equipment or systems No longer required due to operational changes Departments shall notify the Finance Department when assets are identified for disposition consideration. Approval Requirements All fixed asset dispositions must be approved in writing prior to removal from Town records or physical disposal. Approval Authority $10,000 - $250,000 estimated value (book or fair market value): Finance Director Over $250,000 or high-risk assets (specialized equipment): Finance Director and Town Manager Donations to other governmental entities: Finance Director and Town Manager approval required Trade-ins or asset exchanges: Finance Director approval required with documentation of value received The Town Manager may establish additional approval thresholds as needed. Methods of Disposition Approved fixed asset dispositions may include: Transfer Within Town Government Assets may be reassigned between departments when operationally beneficial. Transfers must be documented and updated in the fixed asset system.32 Sale of Assets Assets may be sold through: Public auction Competitive bidding process Online surplus auction platform Other methods approved by the Finance Director Sales shall be conducted in a manner that ensures fairness, transparency, and maximization of value. Trade-In Assets may be traded in toward the purchase of replacement equipment when it is in the best interest of the Town. Trade-in value must be documented and approved. Donation Assets may be donated to another governmental or nonprofit entity only when: The asset has minimal or no market value The donation is in the public interest Recycling or Scrap Assets with no resale value shall be recycled or scrapped through approved vendors. Documentation of destruction or recycling must be maintained. Disposal as Waste Assets with no residual value and not suitable for resale or recycling may be disposed of as waste in accordance with environmental and safety regulations. Employee Purchase Prohibition Town employees, officers, and their immediate family members are prohibited from purchasing Town surplus property unless: The sale is conducted through a publicly advertised, competitive process open to the general public, and The employee has no involvement in the determination of value, approval, or sale process Any appearance of conflict of interest shall be avoided.33 Asset Removal and Physical Control No asset shall be physically removed from Town premises prior to: Approval of disposition Completion of required documentation Coordination with Finance or designated property control staff Departments are responsible for ensuring assets remain secure until officially transferred or removed. Documentation Requirements All disposals must be documented and retained in accordance with the Town’s records retention policy. Required documentation includes: Asset description Reason for disposal Method of disposition Approval documentation Estimated and/or realized value Supporting bids, auction results, or trade-in documentation Certificate of destruction (if applicable) Update to fixed asset inventory records Accounting and Financial Reporting The Finance Department shall ensure that: Fixed asset records are updated promptly upon disposition Gains or losses on disposal are recorded in accordance with applicable accounting standards (GASB requirements where applicable) Proceeds from asset sales are deposited into appropriate Town accounts Asset retirement is properly reflected in the general ledger and fixed asset system34 Internal Controls and Audit Requirements The Town shall maintain adequate internal controls over asset disposition, including: Segregation of duties between asset custodians and disposal approval authorities Documentation review by Finance prior to removal from inventory Periodic reconciliation of fixed asset records to physical inventories Audit testing by internal or external auditors Surplus asset dispositions shall be subject to periodic audit review. Roles and Responsibilities Department Heads Identify surplus or obsolete assets Ensure assets are safeguarded until disposition Submit requests for disposal Maintain departmental accountability for assigned assets Finance Director Approve disposals within authority limits Maintain fixed asset system integrity Ensure compliance with accounting standards Oversee surplus sales process Town Manager Approve high-value or sensitive asset dispositions Ensure policy compliance and governance oversight Finance Department Maintain fixed asset records Process accounting entries for disposals Verify supporting documentation35 Manage proceeds and financial reporting Effective Date This policy shall become effective upon approval by the Town Manager and shall remain in effect until amended or rescinded.36 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2025 GRAND LIST OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR TOWN OF SIMSBURY M-13 REPORT 04/28/2026 PAGE: 1 TYPE OF ACCOUNTS YEAR # OF ACCTS GROSS ASSESSMENT BAA ADJUSTMENT TOTAL EXEMPTIONS TOTAL NET VALUE REAL ESTATE REGULAR 2025 8804 2,980,173,710 -1,189,860 14,704,983 2,965,468,727 REAL ESTATE ELD H.O 2025 127 23,823,310 0 465,701 23,357,609 REAL ESTATE EXEMPT 2025 505 455,575,610 0 455,575,610 0 REAL ESTATE TOTALS 2025 9436 3,459,572,630 -1,189,860 470,746,294 2,988,826,336 PERSONAL 2025 1208 195,192,348 945,466 28,851,139 166,341,209 MOTOR VEHICLE 2025 21755 283,912,800 0 400,424 283,512,376 FINAL TOTAL 2025 32399 3,938,677,778 -244,394 499,997,857 3,438,679,921 TAX FOR THIS LIST IS COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS: REAL ESTATE REGULAR NET 2,965,468,727 MOTOR VEHICLE NET 283,512,376 PERSONAL PROPERTY NET 166,341,209 ELDERLY HOME OWNERS NET 23,357,609 TOTAL NET ASSESSMENT 3,438,679,92137 PART I - REAL ESTATE 2025 GRAND LIST OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR TOWN OF SIMSBURY PAGE: 2 CODE # OF ACCTS DESCRIPTION OF CLASSIFICATION GROSS ASSESSMENT 100 8,425 RESIDENTIAL 2,409,156,850 200 252 COMMERCIAL 281,613,710 300 28 INDUSTRIAL 24,937,130 400 4 PUBLIC UTILITY 3,664,900 500 214 VACANT LAND 24,179,570 600 53 USE ASSESSMENT 869,700 800 51 APARTMENTS 259,575,160 9,027 GRAND TOTAL 3,003,997,02038 PART II - MOTOR VEHICLE 2025 GRAND LIST OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR TOWN OF SIMSBURY PAGE: 3 CODE # OF ACCTS DESCRIPTION OF CLASSIFICATION GROSS ASSESSMENT 01 18128 PASSENGER 256,805,650 02 185 COMMERCIAL 4,173,910 03 1173 COMBINATION 16,547,740 04 33 FARM 322,550 08 2231 ALL OTHER REGISTERED MV 6,062,950 21750 GRAND TOTAL 283,912,80039 PART III - PERSONAL PROPERTY 2025 GRAND LIST OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR TOWN OF SIMSBURY PAGE: 4 CODE # OF ACCTS DESCRIPTION OF CLASSIFICATION GROSS ASSESSMENT 09 37 NON REG VEHICLE 1,545,980 10 32 INDUSTRIAL M&E. 9,109,690 11 21 HORSES/PONIES.. 2,046,000 13 13 MAN. M & E..... 15,920,900 16 848 FURN/FIX/EQP... 31,520,883 17 15 FARM MACH...... 405,890 18 11 FARM TOOLS..... 11,710 19 41 MECHANICS TOOLS 777,840 20 690 EDP EQUIPMENT.. 6,510,352 21 37 TLLECOM 3,026,000 22 18 CABLES/COND/ETC 94,966,910 23 687 SUPPLIES....... 753,170 24 496 MISC TAX PROP.. 23,327,280 25 426 25% PENALTY.... 5,269,743 3,372 GRAND TOTAL 195,192,34840 PART IV - TAX EXEMPTIONS 2025 GRAND LIST OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR TOWN OF SIMSBURY DATE: 04/28/2026 PAGE: 5 CODE EXEMPTION DESCRIPTION NUMBER REAL ESTATE NUMBER MOTOR VEHICLE NUMBER PERSONAL TOTAL A NON-REIMBURSED VETERANS 568 11,563,841 81 266,559 11,830,400 B REIMB ADDL VET / INCOME 20 51,000 3 6,000 57,000 C REIMB ADDL VET/NON INCOME 447 319,250 63 48,000 367,250 D DISABILITY - NON REIMB 1 5,505 9 65,865 71,370 E 100% DISABLED - REIMB 38 38,000 8 8,000 46,000 F BLIND 5 15,000 2 6,000 21,000 G ECONOMIC &DEVELOPMENT NON 2 2,703,148 2,703,148 H ECONOMIC & DEVELOPMENTAL I FARM AND MECHANICS 4 296,860 43 606,846 903,706 J RENEW ENERGY/POLLUT CNTRL 1 178,080 33 4,740,704 4,918,784 K PP/TAX EXEMPT INSTITUTION 28 7,582,689 7,582,689 L INDIVIDUALS M MISCELLANEOUS O PHASE-IN RESIDENTIAL P PHASE-IN NON RESIDENTIAL Q RESIDENTIAL FIXED ASSMNT R MANUFACTURE EQUIP (6YRS+) S ENERGY EFFICIENT MOTORVEH T SEC. 12-81(74) MC XMT U MAUFACT MACHINERY BIOTECH 13 15,920,900 15,920,900 GRAND TOTAL 1086 15,170,684 166 400,424 117 28,851,139 44,422,24741 SUMMARY TOTAL PAGE 2025 GRAND LIST OF TAXABLE PROPERTY FOR TOWN OF SIMSBURY PAGE: 6 TOTAL EXEMPTIONS GROSS ASSESSMENT NET VALUE TOTAL PART 1: REAL PROPERTY (CODES 100 THRU 800) 3,003,997,020 TOTAL PART 2: REG.MOTOR VEHICLE (CODES 01-04, #8) 283,912,800 TOTAL PART 3: PERSONAL PROPERTY (CODES 9 THRU 27) 195,192,348 TOTAL GROSS GRAND LIST VALUES 3,483,102,168 TOTAL PART 4: PROPERTY EXEMPTION (CODES A-U) REAL ESTATE 15,170,684 MOTOR VEHICLE 400,424 PERSONAL PROPERTY 28,851,139 TOTAL PART 4: 44,422,247 TOTAL NET GRAND LIST VALUE 3,438,679,92142 STATE OF CONNECTICUT M-13A REPORT 04/28/2026 PAGE: 1 CODE EXEMPTION DESCRIPTION CODE CODE DESCRIPTION TOTAL MUNICIPAL BAAX XMT MUNICIPAL 100 RESIDENTIAL 13,749,940 200 COMMERCIAL 205,600,160 300 INDUSTRIAL 25,999,230 500 VACANT LAND 12,503,820 600 USE ASSESSMENT 11,970 800 APARTMENTS 4,783,910 BEAX 200 COMMERCIAL 10,269,210 500 VACANT LAND 113,750 SUBTOTAL 273,031,990 VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT CAAX XMT VOL FIRE CO 100 RESIDENTIAL 17,850 200 COMMERCIAL 9,360,820 500 VACANT LAND 96,320 SUBTOTAL 9,474,990 SCI, EDU, HIST, CHAR DAAX XMT S12-81(7) SCIENTIFIC 100 RESIDENTIAL 1,842,190 500 VACANT LAND 1,004,710 DBAX 100 RESIDENTIAL 10,286,130 200 COMMERCIAL 87,320,760 500 VACANT LAND 3,923,290 800 APARTMENTS 8,071,830 DDAX 100 RESIDENTIAL 189,630 200 COMMERCIAL 996,100 DEAX 100 RESIDENTIAL 601,720 200 COMMERCIAL 1,659,840 500 VACANT LAND 148,400 DCAX 300 INDUSTRIAL 190,050 SUBTOTAL 116,234,650 AGRICULTURAL & HORTICULTURAL FAAX XMT S12-81(10) AGRICULT 200 COMMERCIAL 186,480 SUBTOTAL 186,480 CEMETARY GAAX XMT CEMETERIES 100 RESIDENTIAL 68,740 500 VACANT LAND 2,779,840 SUBTOTAL 2,848,580 HOUSE OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP HAAX XMT CHURCHES 100 RESIDENTIAL 523,510 200 COMMERCIAL 33,476,820 300 INDUSTRIAL 15,540 500 VACANT LAND 277,270 800 APARTMENTS 1,502,130 SUBTOTAL 35,795,270 HOUSE USED BY CLERGYMAN JAAX XMT HSE OF OFF CLERGYMAN 100 RESIDENTIAL 499,100 SUBTOTAL 499,100 RECREATION FACILITIES NBAX 200 COMMERCIAL 177,450 SUBTOTAL 177,450 STATE OWNED FACILITIES OEBX 100 RESIDENTIAL 350,910 OGBX 100 RESIDENTIAL 802,830 200 COMMERCIAL 9,683,870 500 VACANT LAND 1,982,890 600 USE ASSESSMENT 14,980 OIBX 100 RESIDENTIAL 200,690 500 VACANT LAND 2,882,670 OJAX 100 RESIDENTIAL 212,030 OFBX 200 COMMERCIAL 415,100 OHBX 200 COMMERCIAL 433,860 500 VACANT LAND 70,000 SUBTOTAL 17,049,830 UACX CT INSTITUTE FOR BLIND 100 RESIDENTIAL 277,270 SUBTOTAL 277,270 GRAND TOTAL 455,575,61043 Wednesday, 29 April 2026 11:53:35 - OPM Portal — Mozilla Firefox44 Marc S. Nelson, MPA Thomas J. Roy, PE Town Manager Director of Public Works Town Engineer DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 66 Town Forest Road Tel. (860) 658-3222 West Simsbury, CT 06092 www.simsbury-ct.gov/public-works MEMORANDUM To: Marc Nelson – Town Manager From: Thomas J. Roy, PE, CEM – Director of Public Works/Town Engineer CC: Amy Meriwether – Director of Finance; Adam Kessler – Deputy Town Engineer Date: June 9, 2026 Subject: SMPAC Band Shell Expansion – Update from Public Building Committee Attached is the packet for the Performing Arts Center project from the Public Building Committee (PBC) meeting on Monday, June 1, 2026. The project remains on schedule, and the project costs paid to date are $2,016,289. The Town is withholding a retainage of $145,814.76 from the contractor, and the remaining contingency is currently $184,155 (5.8%). During the meeting, the PBC reviewed and approved the following: 1. PCO 26 - Credit for Bathroom Partition Change. This PCO will credit the project $460. 2. Parking Lot Paving - Work to be performed by DPW with cost of material only. Cost to the project is estimated as not-to-exceed $5,000. 3. New Hydrant Quote - New hydrant to replenish the Fire District's stock. Cost to the project is $3,965.93. 4. Millennium Builders for work through May 30, 2026 - Pay Application No. 7 - $329,917.50. a. Colliers Invoice for construction services - Invoice #8818 - $4,000.00 b. DW Burr Invoice for hydroseeding - Invoice #31640 - $2,980.00 The attached packet includes the documentation for each PCO, quote, and invoice. Attachment: SMPAC Report June 2026.pdf45 Town of Simsbury6 6 T O W N F O R E S T R O A D , W E S T S I M S B U R Y , C O N N E C T I C U T 0 6 0 9 2 ~ Department of Public Works ~ An Equal Opportunity Employer www.Simsbury-ct.gov 0HPRUDQGXP 3URMHFW6XPPDU\ 603$&%DQG6KHOO([SDQVLRQ 7R 5LFKDUG'HUU3XEOLF%XLOGLQJ&RPPLWWHH && 7RP5R\'LUHFWRURI3XEOLF:RUNV 7RZQ(QJLQHHU )URP $GDP.HVVOHU'HSXW\7RZQ(QJLQHHU 'DWH 0D\ 7KHIROORZLQJUHSRUWUHSUHVHQWVWKHVWDWXVRIWKH6LPVEXU\0HDGRZV3HUIRUPLQJ$UWV&HQWHU 603$& %DQG6KHOO([SDQVLRQSURMHFWDVRI0D\ 3URMHFW7HDP $UFKLWHFW±&ROOLHUV'HVLJQDQG(QJLQHHULQJ &RQWUDFWRU±0LOOHQQLXP%XLOGHUV 0DWHULDOV7HVWLQJ ,QVSHFWLRQ±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±&UHGLWIRU%DWKURRP3DUWLWLRQ&KDQJH &UHGLW 'XHWRDQXQDFFHSWDEOHOHDGWLPHIRUWKHEDWKURRPSDUWLWLRQVWKH&RQWUDFWRUVXJJHVWHGD ORZHUJUDGHIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQWKDWZRXOGILWWKHSURMHFWVFKHGXOH7KHORZHUJUDGHSDUWLWLRQLV SRVVLEOHVLQFHWKHEXLOGLQJLVQRZVSULQNOHUHG 3DUNLQJ/RW7UHQFK3DYLQJ±'3: 17( HHUHUHUUHUUUUUUUHUUUUUUUUUUUHUHUUUHUUUUHUUUUUHUUUUUHUUUUUUUUUUUHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHUUH 46 Town of Simsbury Department of Public Works Page 2 of 2 An Equal Opportunity Employer www.Simsbury-ct.gov '3:ZLOOSDYHWKHDVSKDOWWUHQFKHVUHODWHGWRZDWHUDQGILUHVHUYLFHVIRUWKHEXLOGLQJ $QWLFLSDWHGFRVWLVQRWWRH[FHHGIRUPDWHULDOVRQO\ 1HZ+\GUDQW±(-3UHVFRWW,QF $'' )LUH'LVWULFWSURYLGHGDK\GUDQWIRUWKHSURMHFW¶VXVHGXHWRWKHZHHNOHDGWLPH7RZQZLOO RUGHUDQHZK\GUDQWIRUWKH)LUH'LVWULFW¶VLQYHQWRU\ )LHOG+\GURVHHG±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±-XQ:HKRSHDQHDUOLHUVWDUWLVSRVVLEOH &ULWLFDO,WHPV )LUH$ODUP6\VWHP±3URJUDPPLQJDQGWHVWLQJLVVFKHGXOHGWREHFRPSOHWHE\-XQHQG $FWLRQ,WHPV D 3&2±&UHGLWIRU%DWKURRP3DUWLWLRQ&KDQJH7KLV3&2ZLOOFUHGLWWKHSURMHFW Recommend approval E 3DUNLQJ/RW3DYLQJ±:RUNWREHSHUIRUPHGE\'3:ZLWKFRVWRIPDWHULDORQO\&RVWWRWKH SURMHFWLVHVWLPDWHGDVQRWWRH[FHHG Recommend approval. F 1HZ+\GUDQW4XRWH±1HZK\GUDQWWRUHSOHQLVKWKH)LUH'LVWULFW¶VVWRFN&RVWWRWKHSURMHFW LV Recommend approval. G 3D\$SSOLFDWLRQ1R :RUN7KURXJK0D\See Attached Recommend approval. H &ROOLHUV,QYRLFH ,QY I ':%XUU,QYRLFH ,QY 47 SDWACandShell džƉansion ǀerette:.WresscottInc.Yuote EewHLJdrant 48 TOWN OF SIMSBURY DPW TEAM EJP Vernon CT 933 HOPMEADOW STREET Everett J. Prescott Inc. ATTN: JOAN SIKORSKI 32 Prescott Street SIMSBURY, CT P.O. Box 600 Gardiner, ME 06070 04345 Telephone: 860-875-9711 Bid expires on 04/19/26 5/06/26 Bid ID: 5598377 HYDRANT PACER Page 1 Sell Unit Extended Quantity Per Description Price Price 1 EA 5W HYD 5-6 OL BRSEAT 16 3,965.93 3,965.93 TOP RED Subtotal: 3,965.93 Tax: .00 Bid Total: 3,965.9349 SDWACandShell džƉansion WCOη26 CreditĨorathroomWartitionChanŐe 50 MILLENNIUM BUILDERS, INC. 176 OLD WINSTED ROAD TORRINGTON, CT 06790 CHANGE PROPOSAL COST SUMMARY PROJECT NAME: Simsbury Meadows Performing Arts Center CHANGE PROPOSAL NUMBER: 26 DATE OF PROPOSAL: 5/12/26 SUMMARY OF COSTS ITEM 1 LABOR COSTS RATE HOURS LABORER $64.55 $0.00 CARPENTER $71.22 $0.00 MASON $77.50 $0.00 FOREMAN $90.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL LABOR COSTS $0.00 ITEM 2 MATERIAL $413.00 ITEM 3 EQUIPMENT COSTS $0.00 FREIGHT & DELIVERY CHARGES $0.00 TOTAL DIRECT COST BEFORE OVERHEAD AND PROFIT $413.00 ITEM 4 SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS $0.00 SUBTOTAL OF COSTS $413.00 10% OH&P ON SUBCONTRACT WORK $0.00 15% OH&P MBI WORK $61.95 TOTAL COST & PROFITS BEFORE BONDS, INSURANCE & OTHER COSTS: $474.95 BOND COST $0.00 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE $7.46 PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BONDS $7.60 ITEM 5 UNIT PRICE ITEM $0.00 TOTAL PRICE OF CHANGE PROPOSAL: $490.00 TIME REQUIRED: 0 Days SCOPE OF WORK: Credit to change toilet partition material from class A fire rating to class B fire rating Page 1 of 251 MILLENNIUM BUILDERS, INC. 176 OLD WINSTED ROAD TORRINGTON, CT 06790 CHANGE PROPOSAL COST SUMMARY ITEM 2 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES MATERIAL / SUPPLY ITEMS COST QUANTITY COST 1 Toilet partitions $413.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL MATERIAL AND SUPPLIES: $413.00 ITEM 3 EQUIPMENT COSTS EQUIPMENT ITEM COST QUANTITY COST 1 $0.00 2 $0.00 3 $0.00 4 $0.00 5 $0.00 TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS: $0.00 ITEM 4 SUBCONTRACTORS SUBCONTRACTOR COST 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL SUBCONTRACTOR COSTS: $0.00 ITEM 5 UNIT PRICE ITEMS UNIT PRICE ITEM COST QUANTITY COST 1 $0.00 2 $0.00 3 $0.00 4 $0.00 5 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL UNIT COSTS: $0.00 Page 2 of 252 SDWACandShell džƉansion Action͗ &orAƉƉroǀal WAzAWW>ICAdIOEEO.ϳ WaLJAƉƉlicationĨorworŬcomƉletedthrouŐh DaLJ31,2026 53 329,917.50 5/28/202654 55 56 57 58 SDWACandShell džƉansion Action͗ &orAƉƉroǀal CO>>I ZS E'IE ZIE'AEDD SI'E IEsOIC S Inǀ.ηϴϴ1ϴ(05ͬ31ͬ2026)-Ψ4,000.00 59 INVOICE #: 8818 In accordance with our business terms and conditions, acceptance of this invoice is implied unless Colliers Engineering & Design, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Surveying, CT P.C. is notified by 14 days from the date of this invoice. If timely payment cannot be made due to any discrepancy, please E-mail a brief explanation to darlene.hawley@collierseng.com and we will reply as soon as possible. Payments are required in 30 days. REMIT TO: Colliers Engineering & Design c/o Phase Zero Design, Inc., 8 Wilcox Street, Simsbury, CT 06070 Email To: DATE: 31 May 2026 akessler@simsbury-ct.gov CLIENT: Town of Simsbury Bill To: Town of Simsbury Adam Kessler 933 Hopmeadow St Simsbury, CT, 06070 PROJECT NAME: SMPAC-CA (Town Led) PROJECT JOB NUMBER: 23193 PURCHASE ORDER #: (If applicable) 26001196 INVOICE SUMMARY Stage Fee $ Invoiced to Date % Amount Invoiced $ Previously Invoiced $ Invoiced this Invoice $ Construction Administration (In House) 31,300.00 93.61 29,300.00 25,300.00 4,000.00 Construction Administration (On Site) - - 325.00 325.00 - ASD (2hr wall) - 11,200.00 100.00 11,200.00 11,200.00 - Total 42,500.00 40,825.00 36,825.00 4,000.00 *For HOURLY Charges of phases invoiced hourly and REIMBURSABLE expense breakdowns, see following page. TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $4,000.00 Effective April 1, 2025, we will impose a surcharge of 5% on any transaction paid by credit card. We do accept Visa, Mastercard, Discover and American Express card brands. We accept checks and ACH payments without any surcharges. pt annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy60 INVOICE #: 8818 In accordance with our business terms and conditions, acceptance of this invoice is implied unless Colliers Engineering & Design, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Surveying, CT P.C. is notified by 14 days from the date of this invoice. If timely payment cannot be made due to any discrepancy, please E-mail a brief explanation to darlene.hawley@collierseng.com and we will reply as soon as possible. Payments are required in 30 days. REMIT TO: Colliers Engineering & Design c/o Phase Zero Design, Inc., 8 Wilcox Street, Simsbury, CT 06070 HOURLY CHARGES (Breakdown of HOURLY Charges this billing period, if any, shown below) EXTERNAL & REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES (Breakdown of EXTERNAL and REIMBURSABLE expenses this billing period, if any, shown below) *All Reimbursable/Mileage charges above include 15% mark up on Reimbursables and 15% mark up on Mileage.61 SDWACandShell džƉansion Action͗ &orAƉƉroǀal D.t.urr>andscaƉeΘDesiŐnInc. Inǀoice Inǀ.31640(05ͬ13ͬ2026) Ψ2,9ϴ0.00 62 D.W. Burr Landscape & Design, Inc. Town of Simsbury Orlando Casiano 933 Hopmeadow St. Facilities Supervisor Simsbury, CT 06070 Contract #PO #Jobsite InfoBilling Info May 13, 2026 31640 Inv. Date Inv. Number Invoice P.O. Box 761 Simsbury, Connecticut 06070 clockhart@dwburr.com 860-408-9798 Performing Arts Center 22 Ironhorse Boulevard Simsbury, CT 06070 Description Qty Rate Amount Tax PAC Hydroseed- completed 5/13/2026 (Tax Exempt) 1.00 $2,980.00 $2,980.00 N Subtotal $2,980.00 $0.00 $2,980.00 EXMT (0%) Total Page 1 of 1D.W. Burr Landscape & Design, Inc. clockhart@dwburr.com 860-408-9798 P.O. Box 761 Simsbury, Connecticut 0607063 Master Plan Update Future Capital Projects Discussion Board of Education Simsbury, CT June 9, 2026 164 Next Best Step? Why Squadron Line? Current Conditions Over 56 Years Old! No significant renovations since it was built Largest Elementary Contains Pre-K program Poor educational space Why Squadron Line? 265 EXISTING CONDITIONS…DASHBOARD OF OBSERVATIONS Traffic, Bus/Parent, Conditions SITE ANALYSIS (Parking, Sidewalks, Play Areas) ACCESSIBILITY (Ramps, floor clearances, millwork) EXTERIOR CONDITIONS (Roof, Windows, Doors, Sealants) Inconsistent conditions, lack appropriate amount SUPPORT SPACES (Toilet spaces, storage, utilities) Good visibility, perimeter protection needs SAFETY, SECURITY (Vestibule, Admin., Parking, Site) Sharing & Maxed Out PROGRAM SPACE Flexibility of space, adjacency BUILDING SYSTEMS (Ventilation, temperature & humidity control) QUALITY OF SPACE (Poor access to daylight, acoustics, size, and proportion) 366 EXISTING CONDITIONS…TYPICAL FINDINGS, NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED Single Pane Windows1 Deteriorating Brick Facade2 Persistent moisture challenges3 Deteriorating Site Components4 Accessibility Challenges5 Millwork ~ End of Useful Life (EOUL)6 467 EXISTING CONDITIONS…TYPICAL FINDINGS, NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED Active roof leaks, deterioration7 Accessibility Concerns Throughout (Clear Floor Space) 8 Specialized Ed. space needs9 Programs ~ inefficient use of space10 Some Major Equipment at “EOUL” (End of Useful Life) 11 Antiquated Classroom Ventilation11 568 Options for Consideration Status Quo / Fix what you have Renovate as New (Additions and Renovation) New Construction 6 1 2 369 1 Status Quo / Fix what you have Cost Summary: Probable Budget Est. Town Share Est. State Share Roof & Envelope (Year 3) Code Upgrades, ADA/L.S.(Year 3) HVAC/Ventilation & A.C.(Year 5) Electrical / Lighting (Year 5) Plumbing / Sprinklers (Year 7) Haz. Mat. Remediation (Year 10) Site Improvements (Year 10) Estimated Cost to Simsbury $67M Benefits • Lowest initial / immediate cost • Fastest path to addressing immediate facility needs • Allows for phased improvements over time • Ability to prioritize • Preserves the existing school • Improves critical systems such as HVAC, roofing, accessibility, and safety Challenges • Does not fully modernize the educational environment • Aging infrastructure remains, risk of failure of systems, past useful life • Occupied during / disruption • Code/ADA deficiencies persist, may require upgrades for code • Outdoor educational & recreational limitations remain • Significantly less in reimbursement, higher cost long term. May require additional future investments and repairs Phased Approach over 10+ Years 7 $6M $19M $11M $10M $8M $7M $22M $4M $13M $8M $8M $5M $7M $22M $2M $6M $3M $2M $3M $0M $0M Eff. State Reimb. Rate 20% TPC Total Cost $83M70 2 Renovate as New (Additions and Renovations) Cost Summary: Probable Budget Est. Town Share Est. State Share Demolition Site Development Building Const. (New/RNV) Sustainability (Geo/PV/Env.) Project Soft Costs Temporary Mods / Phasing Escalation (Midpoint of Const.) Estimated Cost to Simsbury $68.5M Benefits • Creates a substantially modernized school environment. Improves educational space • Extends the life of the existing facility for decades. • Improves educational spaces, safety, accessibility, and building systems. Upgrades infrastructure • Balances reuse of existing assets with new construction improvements. • Leverages existing building Challenges • Existing limitations become embedded for the long term. Less efficient, compromised design solution • Phasing complexity / Occupied during renovation = disruption. Longer construction duration, cost for logistics • Site capacity / wetland setbacks • Construction in an occupied school can be disruptive and complex • Potential for hidden conditions & risks, unforeseen costs and schedule impacts. • Risk to achieving RNV status, if more costly than New Construction $5M $10M $51M $7M $15M $7M $37M $2.5M $5M $26M $4M $8M $4M $19M $2.5M $5M $25M $3M $7M $3M $18MApproximate 40 Mos. of Construction 8 Eff. State Reimb. Rate 48% TPC Total Cost $132M71 9 3 New Construction (Existing or other town owned property) Cost Summary: Probable Budget Est. Town Share Est. State Share Demolition Site Development Building Const. (New/RNV) Sustainability (Geo/PV/Env.) Project Soft Costs Temporary Mods / Phasing Escalation (Midpoint of Const.) Estimated Cost to Simsbury $65.5M Benefits • Maximizes state reimbursement (RNV/New) • Provides a fully modern, future-ready educational environment • Optimizes educational, recreational and fields. Possible adaptive reuse of existing • Eliminates most site phasing & logistics Shorter construction duration • Greatest flexibility for educational programming, design and future growth (if/when it occurs) • Maximum energy efficiency and reduced maintenance costs Challenges • Some possible site phasing / disruption • Perception of new compared to other elementary schools • Potential impacts to site use, traffic, and construction logistics. • New building location on existing or other town owned property. Land use approvals. • Potential costs related to demolition of the existing building and or adaptive reuse. Approximate 20 Mos. of Construction $5M $12M $60M $6M $17M $1M $30M $2.5M $6M $30M $3M $8.5M $0.5M $15M $2.5M $6M $30M $3M $8.5M $0.5M $15M Eff. State Reimb. Rate 50% TPC Total Cost $131M72 Squadron Line Planning Options 10 Scope: Est. Cost to Simsbury $67M Effective State Reimb. Rate 20% 1 Status Quo (Fix what you have, Cap. Improvements) Phased Approach over 10+ Years 2 Renovate as New (Additions and Renovations) Approximate 40 Mos. of Construction 3 New Construction (Existing or other town owned property) Approximate 20 Mos. of Construction This option focuses on targeted repairs, upgrades, and replacement of aging building systems to improve safety, functionality, and reliability. Typical improvements include HVAC systems, roofing, windows, accessibility, security, interior finishes, and other deferred maintenance items identified in the original Master Plan. While extending the useful life of the facility, this approach largely maintains the existing building layout and does not adequately address current or future educational program needs. Building/Site Area: 91,361 GSF, 20.2 Acres Grade Level/Population: PK-6, 701P Probable Budget (TPC) ~ $83M Scope: Est. Cost to Simsbury $68.5M Effective State Reimb. Rate 48% A Renovate-As-New project would modernize the existing elementary school through major renovations, selective replacement, and targeted additions to support current and future educational needs. The project would upgrade building systems, improve safety and accessibility, and create modern learning environments while reusing portions of the existing facility and site. Site constraints, including limited capacity and wetland setbacks, may restrict opportunities for significant building and site improvements. Probable Budget (TPC) ~ $132M Scope: Est. Cost to Simsbury $65.5M Effective State Reimb. Rate 50% New construction would provide a new PK–6 school designed to support modern educational programming, student wellness, safety, and operational efficiency. The facility would be organized into small learning communities for the Early Childhood Center (ECC), grades K– 2, and grades 3–5. Site options may include the existing campus, adjacent property, or nearby town-owned land. This approach offers the greatest flexibility to create an optimized educational environment through modern building and site design. Site to be determined. Probable Budget (TPC) ~ $131M Building/Site Area: 91,361 GSF, 20.2 Acres Grade Level/Population: PK-6, 701P Building/Site Area: 91,361 GSF, 20.2/118 Acres Grade Level/Population: PK-6, 701P73 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Preliminary Schedule 11 Two Years Proposed Project Completed 2034 RNV“Renovate as New” Demolition of Exiting, finalize parking, fields, landscaping Spring Referendum Develop Preferred Option Engage with Community Total Proposed Timeframe Move Into New Building Fall 2032 Early Release & Enabling Site, Steel, Long Lead Items Design Phase (16-18 Months) BID NewConstruction FF&E, Move in, Shake out Construction Phase (18-20 Months) Priority List Dec.15th CO Legislative Approval of Grant Special Legislation if desired/required Conceptual Planning June 30th Grant Submission Grant Application preparation Ed. Specs Concepts & Costs Procure Team74 Next Steps 1. Establish a preferred option Break/Fix, RNV, or New. If New – existing site or new site 2. Engage BOS and BOF in collaborative planning discussions related to the proposed project 1275 Master Plan Update Future Capital Projects Discussion Board of Education Simsbury, CT June 9, 2026 1376