Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Radcliff council weighs costly restoration, removal and pest treatment options for Saunders Springs cabins
Summary
Council members debated whether to treat powderpost beetles, dismantle and store cabins or restore them in place. An estimate of $13,752 for pest treatment was discussed and council agreed to seek additional bids and to evaluate restoration costs before approving larger expenditures.
During the work session, the Radcliff City Council held an extended discussion about the Saunders Springs cabins, focusing on pest treatment, restoration feasibility and funding.
Staff reported a $13,752 estimate to treat powderpost beetle infestation for affected cabin wood; staff said treated wood would likely not require re-treatment. "So I would like to see if we can do that," a staff speaker said when recommending treatment in the spring. Council members said the price to dismantle, store and rebuild cabins was substantially higher: the mayor and staff described a restoration estimate that produced "sticker shock." One council member urged the council to seek additional bids and to get a separate estimate for teardown-and-store versus full restoration.
Council discussed practical limits on funding: staff said several of the cabins were rebuilt on property different from their original sites and therefore "are not considered historic cabins," which reduces eligibility for historic-preservation grants. That constraint, council members said, increases the likelihood the city would need to use local funds for any restoration or storage project.
Members raised safety concerns about deteriorated structures and discussed a short-term plan to isolate the most unsafe cabin and to vote on a pest-treatment post at the next meeting. “I think we should get out of this and figure out can we rebuild it at the same time and can we save money?” one councilwoman said. Council agreed to obtain at least one additional reputable bid, to consult tourism for possible assistance, and to return to council with more information before making major restoration expenditures.
No final restoration contract or demolition decision was made at the meeting; council directed staff to collect additional bids and information and to bring a recommendation back to the council.
