V3_img_2834

As part of street reconstruction, lawns are damaged. For the past six years, the City has restored those areas using seed. Before that, the City restored with sod. Both require ongoing maintenance from residents after installation. Seed has a lower environmental and financial cost. Seed can cost $250-$500 per single-family home where as sod costs $500-$1,000 per single-family home.

Should residents have a choice on which method is used, knowing there could be a potentially large difference between the treatments on neighboring properties?

13 Responses

Before you respond to this topic please: Sign In or Sign Up
Bootstrap_joel_at_mary_office
Joel Stegner, Community volunteer 17 days ago

Choice in this case is extra work for the city - one project becomes two. The city could make the sod a special request item with the default being seeding.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Doug Johnson 17 days ago

Yes.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
David Frenkel 17 days ago

residents should be able to get a credit and do it themselves. I probably spent $300 in seed after my property was hydro-seeded and spent hours pulling out weeds. If the city can not do something right the first time let residents do it on their own.

4 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Lynn Peterson 17 days ago

Yes.

0 Supports
 
Bootstrap_10209128229475389
Amy Olson 17 days ago

Yes.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Richard Letsche 17 days ago

No, sod is the only way to get good, consistent, satisfactory results. The cost difference will be insignificant to the total cost, and a large sod contract by the City will be much less than $1.000 per property.

2 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Jeffrey Kuhs 16 days ago

Well my case is probably somewhat unique, but with a 100% Kentucky Bluegrass yard I would prefer a choice as I believe most sod is Kentucky Bluegrass and the fast germinating seed used would probably not be. I was expecting to be stuck with seeding and was going to ask if they could just skip my house and I would sod it myself. So having a choice would be great. I also like David's idea earlier about perhaps getting a credit to do it myself.

3 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Jim DeSimone 16 days ago

If I had known what I was going to end up with I'd have chosen to pay a private contractor to do it correctly. Spraying a poorly graded mix of dirt and concrete with weed spray was not something I am happy with.

3 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Chip Howard 15 days ago

Some people are more particular about their grass, and I the city is tearing up some of it, they should give the owners options--skip them, cheap seed, or sod. From what I have seen, the seed option looks pretty lousy.

1 Support
 
Default_avatar
kathleen dahlheimer at October 08, 2018 at 4:24pm CDT

i think doing all sod would mean very few people would want to opt for seed...probably is the watering...many people simply don't care about their lawns and will not continue the watering protocol when the city is done. One method SOD and one company hired under separate contract by the city.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
alice taylor at October 10, 2018 at 10:11pm CDT

từ khóa

[url=link]từ khóa[/url]

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
alice taylor at October 10, 2018 at 10:12pm CDT

Thank you for sharing valuable information. Nice post. I enjoyed reading this post.

the impossible quiz

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
RuthAnn Metzger at October 19, 2018 at 2:50pm CDT

After reading thru all of the comments on this topic, I would rather have Davey Tree Expert Co come to do the correct soil work & grass replacement with a credit from the City for them not having this portion of the reconstruction done in my yard.

0 Supports