Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee weighs sidewalk replacement contract and a tree-replacement program; concerns about using parks capital
Summary
Transportation committee reviewed awarding the 2025 sidewalk-replacement contract to TNT Landscaping (base bid $81,678.53; total request $89,846.38) and discussed tree-preservation and a proposed permit-based bulk tree-purchase program; some council members asked for cost and participation data before voting.
The Transportation, Connectivity and Stormwater Committee on Sept. 9 reviewed details of the city's sidewalk-replacement program and a parallel plan to better manage tree replacement in neighborhoods undergoing sidewalk work.
Chair Mager introduced Resolution 2025-R38, saying the program is a continuation of a pilot; the lowest responsive bid was TNT Landscaping Construction at a base bid of $81,678.53 and a total request, including contingencies, of $89,846.38. "We put out for bid. We received 3 bids, the lowest and best bid being TNT Landscaping contractors with a base bid of $81,678.53," Mager said.
Administration said 55 properties across six neighborhoods—Kings Ridge, Charleston Place, Spring Hill, Chenoweth Estates, Stony Creek and Paddington Woods—are targeted. Officials described last year's triage (repairing sidewalk slabs of 2 inches or greater differential) and said this year the program will cover additional slabs.
The administration also described a proposal to help homeowners replace trees removed for sidewalk repairs. The proposed approach would let residents pay the city through the permit process while the city would procure trees in bulk at wholesale prices and arrange turnkey installation; the urban forester would choose appropriate species. "We can get those at a lower price, buying them in bulk," the administration said, noting the program would be incorporated into an upcoming update to the city's tree ordinance.
Council members asked for several clarifications before a vote: unit-cost comparisons with last year; how many residents acted on last year's notices; whether sidewalk work tied to sewer projects (e.g., Greensburg Road) will be included next year; the assessment schedule; and whether tree-removal costs are included in the bid (administration said tree removal was not part of the sidewalk contract). Several members also questioned shifting some programming costs from operating funds to Parks Capital and asked the administration for supporting documentation.
Chair Mager said he'd ask for time on R38 at the regular meeting but suggested committee members wanted additional data before a final vote on second reading. The committee did not take a final vote during the committee session.
