Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Council directs staff to finish design and testing after PCB/DDT findings in marina sediment
Summary
Staff recommended a $139,500 contract amendment for design and permitting and described earlier lab work showing elevated PCBs and DDT in marina sediments; council supported finishing design and permitting and asked staff to return with a comprehensive funding strategy rather than approving construction funding tonight.
The Brisbane City Council on Jan. 15 heard a staff report on the proposed Brisbane Marina maintenance dredging and directed staff to finish design and permitting after consultants found higher‑than‑expected levels of PCBs and DDT in initial sediment samples.
Public Works Director Maz Bazregina told the council that consultants’ early lab results identified PCBs and DDT where none were detected in the 2015 dredging. Because of the test results, staff administratively authorized about $58,000 in additional laboratory work; the council was asked to approve Contract Amendment No. 2 with Anchor QEA LLC for $139,500 to complete permitting, additional sediment characterization and project management support. Bazregina said Anchor’s contract would not exceed $363,500 and the total effort including the approved lab work would not exceed $421,500.
Bazregina described construction-level rough‑order‑of‑magnitude estimates ranging from about $6.1 million to $6.3 million, with higher‑end scenarios approaching $9 million if dredged material must be shipped to a Class I landfill. He told the council that lab results are valid for about three years and that a dredging permit would be valid for 10 years; if the council waits beyond three years, some additional sampling and testing likely would be required.
During questions, council members asked whether testing methodology changed (staff said methods and detection limits matched 2015 work), whether the dredging area was inside the marina (staff clarified it is the access ways and docks inside the marina), and whether “beneficial reuse” of dredge material might reduce disposal costs (staff said reuse depends on contaminant levels and capping options). Bazregina also described funding constraints: the marina enterprise fund held approximately $1.7 million under the last budget, so construction would require additional revenue through rate increases, bonds, loans or phased work.
Multiple residents urged a broader, long‑term approach that includes docks, seawalls and the Bay Trail, and requested testing of likely contaminant sources (Guadalupe Creek, lagoon inflows, Baylands fill). Several council members said getting the design and permits in hand now — rather than pausing — was prudent so the city preserves flexibility: they supported the staff recommendation to complete the testing, design and permitting work but did not authorize construction funding at the meeting.
City staff and the city attorney confirmed the discussion provided direction to staff rather than constituting a binding vote on construction. Staff will return with a refined construction cost estimate and a comprehensive funding strategy addressing potential funding options and tradeoffs.
Next steps: staff will complete additional sediment characterization, finalize the 90–100% designs, pursue permits with BCDC and the water board, and return to the council with cost and funding recommendations.
