Georgetown council weighs options to save deteriorating 'Cabin Two' as utility project presses forward

Public pleas to preserve a deteriorating 19th‑century slave cabin in the Boston neighborhood prompted a lengthy council debate on June 22 over how to reconcile historic preservation with an urgent municipal sewer project.

During public comment, Terry Thomas described the cabin as a vital piece of local history and urged the council to incorporate the structure into a neighborhood legacy feature. “We just believe if we had something like this over in the Boston area, you just couldn't imagine the good that it would do,” Thomas said, describing plans for a local hall of fame and educational tours.

Mayor (unnamed) and staff told the council the sewer contractor needs access in mid‑July and that options for 'Cabin Two' were limited by timing and the cabin’s condition. The mayor outlined three paths: surplus the structure (effectively removing city ownership), keep it in place and pay an estimated $87,730.15 to work around it as a change order, or pick it up and move it temporarily so the GMWSS project can proceed. The mayor said he would “recommend that we do is that we pick it up and just put it and then from there,” characterizing that as a way to buy time for community input.

City staff told the council the original contract scope called for disposal of Cabin Two at a $10,000 bid price and that the subcontractor that moved a different cabin previously estimated a move at about $35,000 under different circumstances. Engineers and contractors cautioned the council that Cabin Two is weathered, with water and insect damage that might make it structurally fragile and that some subcontractors were unsure whether the building could be lifted whole without falling apart.

Council members pressed for an immediate technical assessment. Several members said they would prefer an approach that preserves the structure if feasible: Ms. Leslie‑Mitchell urged securing the cabin for relocation and careful disassembly if necessary; others suggested the Kentucky Heritage Council could provide referrals for historic‑structure specialists.

Council directed staff to obtain an expert evaluation of whether the cabin can be safely relocated intact, an estimate to disassemble and reassemble it elsewhere, and a cost estimate to move and set it aside temporarily. Staff said procurement rules could require a minimum advertisement or competitive solicitation depending on the dollar thresholds, but noted that the heritage council might provide an expedited assessment or low‑cost expertise. The council also discussed the legal step of marking property ‘surplus’ if the city later determines it no longer wants ownership.

Next steps: staff will seek an assessment of the cabin’s structural ability to be moved, estimates to disassemble and reassemble if necessary, and a recommended procurement path; the mayor said a special council meeting could be convened if the GMWSS schedule requires a faster decision.

Why it matters: the council is balancing stewardship of a local historic resource with contractual obligations and schedule pressure on a major sewer project. The assessment and cost estimates requested by council will determine whether the cabin can be preserved or must be removed to avoid project delay.