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.

Lawn restoration is assessed back to the residents over 15 years. Knowing sod is twice the cost and could be as much as $1,000 per single-family home, does that change your preference? Why or why not?

14 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

The annual difference is under $35 dollars. Also, the city has less upfront cash outlay with the lower cost method. Is someone second guessing the change? If so, I hope they provide some reasoning for their argument.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Doug Johnson 17 days ago

No. Do what works. In my opinion from personal experience, sod works better. If I was given an allowance to do it, I would put in sod. It is less work in the long run!

1 Support
 
Default_avatar
David Frenkel 17 days ago

On a $12K to $15K street assessment we are talking about $500?

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
dennis berkowitz 17 days ago

At least the seed could have been covered. Again, prefer sod, or an option to choose.

1 Support
 
Default_avatar
Lynn Peterson 17 days ago

Personally, I would rather be given the option for them to make the lawn prepared for either seeding or sod and give me the option to do the seeding or sodding myself. It would cost a fraction of what they would charge to do it that way, and that way I know it would grow back as grass and not 90% weeds or having the sod die because it wasn't planted properly. I ended up reseeding it myself anyway and pulling out the bad stuff. If the property owner isn't able to do it themselves, it still would cost less for a lawn service or other service to do it than the city, which overcharges for everything.

1 Support
 
Bootstrap_10209128229475389
Amy Olson 17 days ago

No.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Richard Letsche 17 days ago

Sod is the only way to get good, consistent, satisfactory results. The cost for sod at $1,000 per household is overstated for the small amount needed

2 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Jeffrey Kuhs 17 days ago

I prefer sod despite the higher cost. That said, having seeded a full yard and sodded a full yard over the years the extra weeding, runoff and bald spot repair I had to do for seed probably made the costs similar (probably even higher) if my time is worth anything.

1 Support
 
Default_avatar
Jim DeSimone 16 days ago

The results were so miserable it was tax dollars flushed. I'd have preferred sod.

1 Support
 
Default_avatar
Ed Cracraft 16 days ago

Absolutely sod. It is far thicker than seed, weed free, and provides more time to "take" before winter than seed. The seeding done on my yard was done twice by two different contractors using different blends. One of the blends was very weedy, and a different color than the other.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
kathleen dahlheimer at October 08, 2018 at 4:20pm CDT

Prefer sod and I think if the city put the job out for bid it would NOT be double the price when you consider the calls that staff is fielding, the number of redos for bad results and so many homeowners ending up doing it themselves.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Dana OConnor at October 12, 2018 at 1:23pm CDT

No. Prefer sod.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
Bruce Dahlke at October 15, 2018 at 10:07am CDT

Sod would be best considering the terrible seed mixture used.

0 Supports
 
Default_avatar
RuthAnn Metzger at October 19, 2018 at 2:47pm CDT

Grass quality without weeds is what I am expecting!

0 Supports