KENT, Conn.—The Swift House Investigate Committee charged with recommending to the selectmen whether the town should continue its ownership of the historic Swift House found a potential path forward during a recent meeting.
Members agreed at the Tuesday, March 24, meeting that nonprofit fundraising may be needed to meet the heavy cost of preserving the structure while not taxing the town.
Swift House, one of the most venerable buildings in the village, has been owned by the town since the 1970s but has been shuttered since before Covid. With large expenditures needed to make it handicap accessible before it can open to the public, many in town have wondered whether the town should sell it.
With a portion of the building dating to the town’s settlement in the 1740s and the remainder representing a conjoining of two slightly younger buildings, it offers many challenges for future use but is also an important architectural record of the town’s history.
Last year, the architectural firm Silver Petrucelli created a plan to make it code compliant that would have cost more than a million dollars. At the same time, a task force proposed different uses for the structure and the previous Board of Selectmen sought a STEAP grant to convert its ground floor for use by Social Services and the food bank.
Failing to secure the grant, the previous board forestalled deciding about the building, leaving it to the current board. The investigative committee was charged this year with looking at the problem again and bringing possible solutions and cost estimates to the new Board of Selectmen in April.
Objections to investing large sums into the building’s rehabilitation center on what use it can be to the town. Subcommittee Chairman James Anderson said he had spent time reviewing the Silver Petrucelli plan and ‘I can’t see anything gold-plated there. Stuff costs money.” Nevertheless he considers to be a “worst-case scenario … the most expensive way.”
“The more time I spent with it, the more I think of it as a framing document, what it would take to restore it as a town building,” he continued. “That is what is driving a lot of the cost because a lot of the work is ADA. If a homeowner bought it as a residence, there would be very, very different choices.”
He said he does not believe additional cost gathering is needed as the Silver Petrucelli estimate is current enough. “The $1.5 million hasn’t gone down. I can’t see any way that the town is in a position to do that. I don’t see a way of squaring that circle.”
Committee member Jason Wright said there is “immense support in town for the house” but that it is his feeling that “$1.5 million is not going to happen.”
But he urged a “multi-year timeline” for restoration. “We could say it is manageable to do some work on the exterior, so it presents a better image for the town,” he argued. “During that time, we might conclude it needs non-profit private support.”
He added that he wants “set expectations” for what money invested will bring to the town.
Member William Reihl said, “We either sell or we don’t, we own it or we don’t. We can do all those things, but at the root the question is, ‘Do we sell or own?’ That has to be in the recommendation, otherwise it’s hard to follow.”
Reihl is enthusiastic about Swift House and thinks the town should keep it. “I believe townspeople want to save it as an asset but don’t want it on the town’s books,” he said, “How do we create a scenario where we own it and set a course about how we use it, and how do raise the funds?”
“We need a very clear choice,” agreed Anderson. “A clear choice would be ‘Option A, the town spends X hundreds of thousands of dollars to do A, B and C through non-profit fundraising.’ That allows people to decide if it’s worth, say $200,000 in repairs while we see if we can raise money. If that doesn’t get traction, Path B would trigger a sale.”
He suggested that 18 months be allowed to solicit leadership for fundraising, during which the town could make “no regrets” improvements to the property. “We don’t want to put $140,000 into electrical work that a buyer might not want and would just pull out,” he explained.
Members agreed his suggestion would give townspeople a definite timeframe within which to see if funding can be found and a clear path forward if it cannot.
“I think that sounds fine,” said Lynn Harrington, the Board of Selectman liaison to the investigative committee. “Of course, everything is a recommendation, but it’s heading in the right direction.”
Wright said he believes a “lot of people would be enthusiastic to help” with grant writing and fundraising and advocated for including $10,000 in the 2026-2027 budget for grant writing. “We’re talking reasonable money and if we are serious about preserving the building, the town should be able to figure out how it can come up with $10,000 to $15,000 to start the ball rolling.”
Christine Adam, a grant writer and director of the Kent Historical Society, said that a preservation easement is being secured to make sure that the building cannot not razed by any future owner.
