KENT, Conn.—The Board of Finance Friday night voted to send a $16,933,279 budget for fiscal year 2026-27 to a town meeting on Friday, May 29, at 7 p.m. The mill rate would be 17.34, an increase of 0.47.
The amount to be presented at the town meeting is $42,296 lower than what was listed before the hearing. During a post-hearing board meeting, First Selectman Eric Epstein asked Finance for two adjustments and Town Treasurer Barbara Herbst suggested allocating $100,000 of interest accrued on money in the capital plan to reduce the amount to be raised through taxation.
Epstein asked that the grant to the Lake Waramaug Interlock Authority be returned to the prior appropriation of $2,598 and that the line item for participation in the comprehensive Watercraft Inspection and Decontamination (WID) program to prevent Hydrilla’s introduction into Lake Waramaug be increased by $13,400.
But the board did not address issues that had provoked discussion prior to and during the hearing. They did not restore the $10,000 cut from the cemetery sexton’s salary nor allocate funds to help underwrite getting Swift House listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
It was noted that there is already money for the Swift House in the operating budget, including $5,000 for maintenance—the inference being that it could be used for matching grants for the National Register application if not needed for repairs.
Member Casey Cogut also remarked that there is money for Swift House in the capital plan in 2027 and 2028 that is currently being taxed for. Board members believe should satisfy any grant-making agency that wants proof of the town’s commitment to the house.
There was much testimony during the public hearing about Swift House, which is reputed to be the oldest remaining structure in the village center. The house, the oldest portion of which was built around 1743 by Jabez Swift, was later added on to, with 18th- and early 19th-century structures being attached to it. The State Historic Preservation Office assessed the building in 2025 and determined that there are three structures represented and that they cumulatively chronicle early architecture in the town.
The building had been studied exhaustively for years as the town tries to decide what to do with it. Last year, an architectural report suggested it would cost more than $2 million to bring the structure into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Opponents of continued town ownership of the property contend that there is no compelling plan for how the building can benefit the town, while proponents argue that it is part of the visual charm of Kent’s center and would benefit the town as a welcome center and meeting area for small gatherings.
A Swift House Investigative Committee recently reported to the Selectmen saying that attempts should be made to establish a Friends of Swift House fundraising group. It was suggested that a 501(c)3 might lease the building for a nominal amount, leaving it as a town asset but relieving the municipality of its cost.
Failing that, the report recommended selling the building but with an all-important preservation easement attached to the deed that would protect the historic façade and prevent demolition.
Impassioned testimony was offered on both sides of the issue during the hearing with members of the Kent Historical Society offering arguments for its continued use by the town. Town Historian Marge Smith spoke of the monetary benefit to the community from “heritage tourism.”
“We all know how important tourism is to Kent,” she said, “so the idea of a welcome center makes sense. … If done right, the house can become an asset, not a liability.”
She noted the importance of the Swift family in Kent’s civic and Revolutionary War history.
Former First Selectman Marty Lindenmayer took a different tack, vehemently arguing against town ownership. He termed the building “more old than historic,” and said, “If the town is involved with the building in any way [it would have to be brought into] compliance.”
He said that if it were converted to a welcome center there would be costs for staffing. “I think the money can be put to better use,” he concluded. “It’s financially not in the best interest of the town.”
In all, five or six people spoke supporting the Swift House and two against.
Following the hearing, finance member Jason Wright, who also served on the Investigative Committee said, “Our preferred goal would be for the Selectmen to take a year to see if something like the 501(c)3 can be put in place. And then, if it doesn’t work, we have the other recommendation.”
Another area of discussion prior to the public hearing had been the deep cut to the cemetery sexton’s salary. Originally allocated more than two years ago when the town took over maintenance of the cemeteries, the salary was arbitrarily set at $28,000 a year while supporting documentation was obtained to learn how many hours and what duties were involved.
This year, the Selectmen shifted the position from a salaried to an hourly position and based on self-reporting by the sexton, determined he works about 29 hours a week. Settling on a rate of $45 an hour, they determined that equaled $18,000.
The Cemetery Committee requested that the original sum be reinstated until further data could be collected. Cogut said Friday that he agreed with the Selectmen’s decision to reduce the sum and finance member Tegan Gawel said guidelines should be developed for the sexton’s duties to “justify the hours spent.”
“There almost ought to be per funeral cost that defines it,” agreed Wright.
All agreed, that if the sexton’s hours exceed the budgeted amount, additional monies can be found.
During the board meeting following the hearing, finance members reflected briefly on resident Matt Starr’s annual complaint that a lot of money is funded but not used in the five-year capital plan.
“There is a lot of money sitting there for years and years,” agreed Gawel. “What can we do about that?”
“Just say ‘no, we’re not going to [fund it] for a year,’” said Chairman Nancy Odea Wyrick. “I agree—it’s not good.”
Starr also urged that the budget be taken to a referendum so that more voters could participate. He said that some residents are reluctant to take part in a public vote, but finance members shied away from the cost of a referendum and steered more toward having paper ballots at the May 29 meeting.
