KENT, Conn.—There was an aura of sadness during Tuesday’s Board of Selectmen’s meeting as some of the most ardent advocates for renovating and retaining town ownership of the Swift House revealed that they had changed their minds.
Reluctantly, the selectmen—two of whom have strongly advocated for town preservation of the building—agreed that the question of whether it should be sold should be taken to a referendum in the first quarter of next year.
The selectmen had accepted a final report from the Swift House Investigative Committee, which offered four different paths for the future of the venerable building, which some believe to be the oldest structure still extant in the village. The town has owned the property since the 1970s.
The building has been much studied in the past three years. A Silver-Petrucelli study completed three years ago estimated more than $2 million to make it ADA code compliant and the investigative committee concluded the financial picture has not brightened.
Selectman Lynn Harrington, who served on the investigative committee, said, “As much as I want to keep this building—and always have—I have changed my mind. The house was ignored by multiple administrations. It’s a building that we love, but we may not be able to own it anymore.”
Harrington reported that contractors were consulted to see if anything in the Silver-Petrucelli plan could be cut. “Maybe not everything needs to be done, but it’s still a huge cost and [three years later] will be more than the earlier report,” she said. “It would be hard to phase in the work because if we are doing HVAC the walls would have to opened, so we should do the wiring at the same time. If we work on the plumbing, we would need to fix the stairs [before it is done]. As we learned about this, it’s like everything had to be fixed and I changed my mind. I like idea of selling with restrictions, even for a lower price.”
Selectmen Lynn Mellis Worthington had a similar transformation after she read an analysis of the situation by local realtor John Casey. She said she “really treasures” the building but changed her mind about town ownership after reading Casey’s assessment.
Casey did an analysis of the realities of restoring or selling the building and came to the startling conclusion that the best outcome for the building would be to donate it to some historical preservation entity that would be equipped to conserve it.
He said he agreed with the “fix it or sell it” dictum of the investigative report but offered a sobering view of the possibilities of making a sale. Investigative Committee members all agreed that deed restrictions should be placed on the building to ensure it cannot be torn down and its historic character will be preserved.
But Casey said restrictive covenants and preservation easements on the property would so restrict what can be done with it that they would drive the value of the property down. “[T]here is no alternative or a “Plan B” if the project costs more than the investor anticipated,” he explained. “[There is] no viable exit strategy; the risk-reward equation is out of balance. Ownership of a development project with these requisite restrictions is fraught with risk.”
He continued, “The estimated renovation costs are astronomical and at $2,000,000, it’s not a reasonable business proposition for any investor because it’s going to be a long time before appreciation or inflation lifts the value of the Swift House to $2,000,000—a long, long time. …Even if the renovations could be accomplished for half that, say $1,000,000, it is still a meager proposition for an investor because the building won’t be worth $400 per square foot in renovation costs plus the acquisition cost … .”
He said the Town’s valuation of the building is $700,000, “which I think is way high … for its current functionally obsolete condition. Let’s be realistic and say with the limited bundle of rights, someone is willing to pay $250,000 ($100 per square foot). That is, $100 per square foot for acquisition plus $400 for renovation costs, which yields a completed base building cost of $500 per square foot or $1,250,000. … I don’t think there are many people who would pay that much money in today’s market for a 2,500-square-foot building. As a commercial real investment, these numbers don’t work for most investors.”
Those numbers do not even include tenant improvement costs, which Casey estimated at $40 per square foot, boosting the square foot cost to $540 and the cost of the building to $1,350,000. When all commercial building cash flow factors are included, he predicted an investor would lose $22,257 each year. “Highly undesirable,” he concluded.
He recommended that a certified appraiser be hired to establish the value of the property and that a real estate marketing agent be engaged who specializes in historic properties. “They know where the grant money is, who’s lending and they know who has the appetite for these types of preservation deals that conventional investors won’t touch,” he said.
If the town decides to sell the building, he recommended that a Kent-based brokerage firm then be selected to market the property.
“If we had the right investor, I would recommend donating the building or selling it for one dollar,” he said. “… I think this approach would serve the building and the townspeople in the best way. The building isn’t providing any economic benefit to the town, quite the contrary. It’s just an old friend who needs help that we can’t provide.”
Town Historian Marge Smith has also changed her mind about town ownership. “No one loves that house more than me,” she said, “and when we first started thinking about selling, I thought, ‘Lord, no.’ But what is best for the house?”
She said she worries about further deterioration if the town retains ownership in hopes of finding funding to restore it. She discussed the possibility of forming a 501(c)3 to do fundraising for restoration with some townspeople, most of whom said they would serve but were not interested in doing fundraising. She had, however, heard interest in acquiring it from a number of history-minded residents.
Not all were agreed the building should be sold. Jason Wright, both a member of the investigative committee and the Board of Fnance, strongly advocated for budgeting a small amount for maintenance of the building to give the town time for the economy to settle down and to see if grants and other funding can be found.
“For me, if we can keep the building and budget to maintain it, it does not stress the town,” he said. “Selling it would not relieve us of much. My whole point is to move along until there are more options. That seems like a more logical path than doing something dramatic like selling.”
He noted that town voters “have an attachment to the house,” and simply putting $20,000 a year into the budget “wouldn’t hurt the town, so why do something more drastic.”
Investigative Committee member Bill Reihl agreed it would be a good idea to “mothball” the building while the town figures out if it can find a patron. “An asset is an asset,” he said. “With a real estate sale, you can never go back. But if we are going to kick the can down the road, it shouldn’t be for 10 years. That’s the antithesis of conservation and preservation—and our number one objective is to preserve and conserve that piece of history.”
Committee member Christine Adam, an experienced preservationist, reported that some cities have formed revolving funds to buy older buildings, protect them with covenants, secure historical designations and then sell them to preservation-minded buyers. “Mothballing is not unknown in preservation circles,” she said, adding that if the town does decide to sell the building, she would like to see some kind of trust fund created to benefit people and organizations working preserve local history.
Resident Catherine Bachrach, who is active in several organizations working to benefit needy families, said, “We have so many things in Kent to spend money on and so many needs.” She said the money could be spent more wisely on other community needs such as social services and affordable housing.
“The time has come to ask the public what iy wants,” said First Selectman Eric Epstein, making a motion to take the issue to a referendum. The precise wording of the question will be worked out in coming months.
