HomeMy WebLinkAbout9 - Dredged Material ProgramCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 9
September 22, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager, (949) 644 -3043
cmiller(a)newportbeachca.gov
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement
with NewFields to Finalize the Dredged Material Program for Newport
Harbor; Budget Amendment
ISSUE:
Harbor Resources is submitting an update on the Lower Bay dredging project and a
request for additional testing funds based on a New Fields proposal to finalize the
dredged material disposal feasibility program currently underway in Newport Harbor.
The scope of work has changed as a result of the agency review process. Should the
City approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with NewFields?
RECOMMENDATION-
1 . Approve Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with
NewFields to finalize the dredged material program that is currently being
conducted in Lower Newport Harbor.
2. Adopt Budget Amendment #BA- taking $75,000 in unappropriated Tidelands
Fund balance and assigning these funds to Capital Improvement Project #7231 -
C4402001 (Newport Harbor Dredging Project).
DISCUSSION:
In September 2008, Council approved a PSA with NewFields to complete sediment
testing in preparation for a Lower Newport Bay dredging project. The City decided to
press forward with this testing program in coordination with the Corps of Engineers'
commitment to fulfill their responsibility to dredge the harbor assuming the local partner
(City) could assist with a solution for the contaminated material. At this point, staff
estimates there is approximately 1.4 million cubic yards to dredge to original authorized
depths, but the volume of contaminated material is still unknown. It should be noted that
the term "contaminated" is used in this discussion to refer to material that is not suitable
for disposal at an offshore site which only accepts dredged material meeting very strict
criteria established by concerned regulatory agencies.
NewFields Budget Amendment No. i
September 22, 2009
Page 2
One of the more complex issues with Newport's dredging project is to determine the
amount of material that is suitable for ocean disposal at LA -3 versus the amount of
material that must be disposed of at an alternate location. Using the federally approved
LA -3 disposal site (4.5 miles from the Entrance Channel) is certainly the most desirable
option because of its designation as an environmentally safe dredged material disposal
area and its proximity to our harbor, translating into significant cost savings. However,
sediment destined for LA -3 must undergo rigorous testing to ensure it will not degrade
the ocean sediments or biological communities along our coastline. NewFields is
currently working through this process with the various regulatory agencies to ensure
the City is maximizing the quantities for LA -3; or conversely, minimizing the quantities
that must be disposed of at an alternate site for contaminated material.
Since the original PSA was approved in 2008, the testing program that NewFields
proposed has changed in scope in several important ways. While some change in
scope was anticipated, the level of effort associated with the required changes has
exceeded the capacity of the current budget ($298,274.00). The following discussion
will describe the approach originally proposed, where NewFields is in that program, and
the changes in the program.
A key component of the original program was to utilize previous data sets collected by
the City in support of the RGP -54 and "Federal Channels" programs to reduce the
scope of the current effort. To support this effort, NewFields and the City met with EPA
at the outset to discuss the above stated approach. At that time, EPA indicated they
would agree to the use of previous data, provided there had not been substantial
changes in the harbor's bathymetry (sediment topography underwater). EPA also
indicated that they would agree to use an amphipod test species more suited to
Newport's fine sediments, provided there be a study to support the City's recommended
species. Finally, EPA agreed to a reference area approach, using historic reference
data rather than collecting and testing reference sediment from the LA -3 open ocean
reference site.
The original program scope included ten tasks that fall into four general categories
which are:
• Develop a work plan that summarizes existing data by area and identifies
separate pathways forward for each area (Task 2);
• Address the study elements EPA requested as described above, conducting a
bathymetry comparison, amphipod study, and a compilation of reference area
data (Tasks 1, 3, and 8);
• Conduct the necessary sediment collection and testing necessary to fill the gaps
in the existing data (Tasks 4 and 5); and,
• Complete work started to address mercury and possible pyrethroid issues in the
Lower Bay (Tasks 6 and 7).
NewFields Budget Amendment No. 1
September 22, 2009
Page 3
The tasks requested by EPA were completed and culminated in the preparation of a
work plan for addressing the data gaps. However, at this point, EPA indicated that the
use of existing data would not be appropriate because the intent of the RGP -54
program is not consistent with the current program (location and total depth of previous
samples were not indicative of the quality of all of the sediments proposed for dredging)
and changes in sediment grain size. The regulatory agencies indicated that full testing
would be required for each of the study areas. Additionally, the agencies required
dividing up the harbor into more sampling areas, thereby increasing the number of
analytical samples that would require all testing. The reason for increasing the number
of sampling areas was to reduce the total volume of material that each test sample
represented. This is a relatively new protocol established by the regulatory agencies
that resulted from concerned citizen group challenges of the previous representative
sampling protocol. After careful review, we determined that this change was actually
beneficial to our program because it allows us to further segregate into smaller volumes
those materials that are not suitable for LA -3 disposal.
There were also additional increases in scope resulting from the newly formed Dredged
Material Management Team (DMMT) which consists of all the regulatory agencies who
meet monthly to make decisions on regional dredging projects. In the past, EPA and the
Corps of Engineers made most of the testing requirement decisions without the
assistance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Coastal Commission,
and this lack of agency coordination resulted in problems during the permit issuance
process. The DMMT decided that Newport should use ERL (Effects Range Low)
exceedances as a basis to require mercury analysis on individual testing stations, and
tissue residue analysis on several compounds for all treatments (completion of tissue
burden analysis and data review of a particular representative organism in a given
dredged material test area). These are not requests that have been encountered on
previous testing programs in California.
While structured differently, the original proposal included the full evaluation of the
equivalent of 6 to 8 treatments. The required number of samples that are now included
in the current program, per the DMMT, is 13 test treatments and the reference
treatment, totaling 14 treatments. This is an increase of 6 to 8 treatments.
To adapt to the required changes in scope, the City and NewFields have adopted a
revised project strategy to attempt to minimize costs. The intent is to use critical
decision points to eliminate certain treatments from further analysis; in other words,
knowing when to stop expending funds on an area that has no hope of passing for
ocean disposal. NewFields has moved through several of these decision points,
including sediment chemistry, amphipod testing, and other acute toxicity tests. While
there have been some potential sediment chemistry issues observed in different parts of
the harbor, NewFields did not find contaminant concentrations that would be
considered, under historical testing review, a cause to reject areas as unsuitable for
ocean disposal (with the exception of mercury by some previous comparison methods).
In other words, no toxicity tests failed the ocean disposal criteria. The last remaining
piece of information is the bioaccumulation testing tissue analysis which looks at the
NewFietds Budget Amendment No. 1
September 22, 2009
Page 4
biological accumulation of contaminants in the tissues of the critters that are exposed to
the sediment. These tests have been run, but the tissues have yet to be analyzed. At
this point, there are no compelling reasons to eliminate any of the test composites from
this bioaccumulation study in order to save costs, meaning that all the sites have
passed the tests up to this point. Even areas that may not pass evaluation based on
chemical concentration values alone may pass overall acceptance for disposal at LA -3 if
no bioaccumulation of mercury is found in the tissues of indicator test organisms.
The City sent.the regulatory agencies a proposed list of chemicals for tissue analysis
based on the sediment chemistry and the likelihood for those chemicals to
bioaccumulate (appear in the critter's tissues). The agencies responded with a revised
list that included a much more costly set of analysis to be applied to all of the composite
samples.
NewFietds and the City are challenging this requirement for a full set of analysis by
suggesting that we test just one composite with the full suite of analysis in order to
prove that further testing of the other composites is unnecessary. However, we cannot
plan that this logic will prevail at this point.
The positive outcome of these efforts so far is that none of the areas have been
absolutely eliminated from the possibility of ocean disposal. As stated above, this has
been our primary goal from the beginning because of the cost savings involved with LA-
3 disposal versus an alternate site for contaminated sediments.
Proposal for Remaining Work
NewFietds has divided up the remaining tasks into four distinct tasks which are briefly
summarized below. The full proposal is included as an appendix.
TASK 1 — Finalize the Chemistry Analysis
The following chemical analysis will be required through lab work.
Arsenic: No further analysis
Cadmium: Four treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams
Copper: Five treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams
Mercury: Two treatments for worms, six treatments for clams
PCBs: No further analyses
DDT: Thirteen treatments for both worms and clams.
The total analytical costs to complete the tissues analysis as indicated will be $22,000.
Tissue analysis would require 3 weeks from the notice to proceed. An additional one to
two weeks would be required in order to review all data to ensure data quality and
rectify any issues with the analytical laboratory.
NewFields Budget Amendment No. 1
September22, 2009
Page 5
TASK 2 — Program Reoort
Due to the change in scope, the final report for this program will resemble a
comprehensive Ocean Testing Manual report. Portions of this task have been
completed in the negotiations with the DMMT regarding the scope of the program and
the tissue residue analysis. $15,000 will be required for the completion and submission
to the DMMT. NewFields has begun to prepare the final report and would require an
additional two weeks from receipt of the tissue chemistry data to finalize the program
report. However, recommendations to the City regarding areas likely to pass for ocean
disposal will be provided as soon as the qualified tissue chemistry data is available.
TASK 3 — Finalizinq the Mercury Evaluation of West Lido Channel
As part of the DMMP program, the mercury in West Lido Channel was going to be
further characterized for both the lateral and horizontal extent. Samples that
characterize the horizontal extent of mercury contamination have been analyzed and
reported to the City. Samples that characterize the vertical extent of mercury
contamination are archived and still require analysis. The costs associated with
completing the remaining analysis and compiling a formal report of all mercury data
would require $8,000.
TASK 4 — Ongoing Negotiations with DMMT
Finalizing the DMMT program will require several meetings with the DMMT. This
includes a general presentation of all the test results and determination of which test
treatments will pass for ocean disposal. Based on previous negotiations with the
agencies, there will likely be two issues requiring some negotiation: DDT in tissues and
mercury in sediments. With DDT, NewFields will need to work with the DMMT to
determine the exact threshold value that has been applied to past programs would be
sufficient for this current program.
The level of mercury has exceeded Effects Range Low (ERL) standard, however, the
values in Newport above the ERL standard have not exhibited toxicity or
bioaccumulation issues. In the City's current testing efforts with Marina Park, a value of
1.0 mg /kg was used because of the small volume of sediment requiring upland disposal.
However, EPA did indicate that they might allow for more of an options /risk analysis if
there were larger volumes of sediment with mercury concentrations >1.0 mgfkg. The
estimated volume of material that would exceed this threshold is approximately 250,000
cubic yards, so it is worth our while to try and negotiate this point further. The issue of
acceptable mercury concentrations is the area of most uncertainty and affects not only
the current harbor dredging program, but also the City's RGP -54 program which allows
dredging under individual property owner's docks. If we can resolve the mercury issue
in the federal channel areas, then it is likely that we will be able to resolve the mercury
issue in those areas under property owner's docks where dredging is currently not
allowed under the RGP.
NewFietds Budget Amendment No. 1
September 22, 2009
Page 6
NewFietds best estimate for negotiating with the agencies regarding the current
program and the mercury related issues would be a not -to- exceed amount of $15,000 to
$30,000. This includes staff time and travel costs over the next few months.
Negotiations regarding mercury in other regions have required extensive negotiation
and this is not an issue that has been resolved at a national level.
Another Local Dredotnq Proiect as a Comparison
While one may question the costs of this overall testing strategy, it might be useful to
compare our current efforts with a much smaller project at the Newport Dunes where a
dredging project occurred in the spring of 2009. This project dredged approximately
125,000 cubic yards of material and the County spent $182,000 for their testing
program.
The City's current project is approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of material to dredge
in a significantly larger area (entire Lower Newport Bay), and our testing program will
cost approximately $375,000.
Environmental Review: The approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services
Agreement is not a project subject to CEQA and does not require environmental review.
The dredging project, when implemented, may be determined to be Categorically
Exempt 15304 — Class 4: Minor Alterations to Land: Section g exempts maintenance
dredging where disposal is in an area authorized by state and federal regulatory
agencies. If contaminated sediments are found requiring the analysis of different
disposal options, then additional environmental documentation may be required.
Public Notice: This agenda item may be noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in
advance of the public meetings at which the City Council considers the item).
Fiscal Impact: The extent of the technical problems with potential sediment
contamination with respect to the regulatory agencies and the newly formed DMMT
were not anticipated at the time the Council approved the original contract in September
2008. An additional $75,000 is requested from the unappropriated Tidelands
Fund balance to account #7231- C4402001.
Submitted by:
by:
Chris Miller, Harbor Resources Manager
Attachments: Exhibit 1: Amendment No. 1 for PSA
Exhibit 2: Budget Amendment
NewFields Budget Amendment No. 1
September 22, 2009
Page 7
Amendment No. 1 for PSA
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH NEWFIELDS COMPANIES, LLC
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
LOWER NEWPORT BAY
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, is
entered into as of this day of , 2009, by and between the CITY
OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal Corporation ( "CITY "), and NEWFIELDS
COMPANIES, LLC a Georgia Limited Liability Company whose address is 1349 West
Peachtree Street, STE 2000, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 ( "CONSULTANT'), and is made
with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. On September 9, 2008 CITY and CONSULTANT entered into a Professional
Services Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT," to perform
sediment testing in Lower Newport Bay as a precursor to a comprehensive
dredging project, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT ".
B. CITY desires to enter into this AMENDMENT NO. 1 to reflect additional tests and
chemical analysis required which were not anticipated in the original
AGREEMENT and to extend the term of the AGREEMENT to March 1, 2010.
C. CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for additional professional services
needed for PROJECT.
D. CITY and CONSULTANT mutually desire to amend AGREEMENT, hereinafter
referred to as "AMENDMENT NO. 1," as provided here below.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM
The term of the AGREEMENT shall be extended to March 1, 2010.
2. ADDITIONAL SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
In addition to the services to be provided pursuant to the AGREEMENT,
CONSULTANT shall diligently perform all the services described in
AMENDMENT NO. 1 including, but not limited to, all work set forth in the Scope
of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole
discretion.
3. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION
City shall pay Consultant for the services on a flat rate basis in accordance with
the provisions of this Section and the Schedule of Billing Rates attached to the
AGREEMENT. Consultant's compensation for all work performed in accordance
with this AMENDMENT NO. 1, including all reimbursable items and
subconsultant fees, shall not exceed Seventy Five Thousand Dollars and no /100
($75,000.00) without prior written authorization from City.
4. INTEGRATED CONTRACT
Except as expressly modified herein, all other provisions, terms, and covenants
set forth in AGREEMENT shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT NO. 1
on the date first above written.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
By' --
David R. Hunt
City Attorney
/_i0i :&l
M
Leilani Brown,
City Clerk
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,
A Municipal Corporation
Edward Selich, Mayor
for the City of Newport Beach
CONSULTANT:
By:
(Corporate Officer)
Title:
Print Name:
By:
(Financial Officer)
Title:
Print N
Attachments: Exhibit A — Scope of Services and Billing Rates
NILDS
Chris Miller
Harbor Resources
City of Newport Beach
Newport Beach, California 92663
Re: Proposal for Additional Funds
Dear Chris
September 11, 2009
NewFields is submitting a proposal to finalize the dredged material program that is currently being conducted in
Lower Newport Harbor. As noted in our memo on August 23, 2009 changes as a result of the agency review process
have increased the scope of this program. The following outlines the tasks remaining, the estimated costs associated
with those tasks, and a timeline for completion.
At this point we have completed nearly all tasks related to this program. Based on the data currently available and
past decisions by the EPA and USACE, 9 of the 13 test treatments appear that they will pass for ocean disposal. All
or portions of the remaining composites may also be available for disposal in the ocean but that will depend upon
tissue analyses and negotiations with EPA, the USACE, and the other DMMT agencies. The following proposal
outlines the remaining tasks that we foresee for the project and an estimated timeline.
Task 1: Finalize Tissue Chemistry Analysis
Following a DMMT meeting on August 26, 2009, the City was provided with a list of analytes for tissues and a
decision process to determine how many treatments would require analysis. Based on a comparison of tissues
concentrations in one replicate (a significant savings to the evaluations) of each treatment compared to the reference
site, the following chemical analyses will be required:
Arsenic:
No further analysis
Cadmium:
Four treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams
Copper: Five
treatments for worms, no further analysis for clams
Mercury:
Two treatments for worms, six treatments for clams
PCBs:
No further analyses
DDT:
Thirteen treatments for both worms and clams.
The total analytical costs to complete the tissues analysis as indicated will be $22,000. Tissue analysis would require
3 weeks from the notice to proceed. An additional one to two weeks would be required in order to review all data to
ensure data quality and rectify any issues with the analytical laboratory.
Task 2: Program Report
Due to the change in scope, the final report for this program will resemble a comprehensive Ocean Testing Manual
report. Portions of this task have been completed in the negotiations with the DMMT regarding the scope of the
program and the tissue residue analysis. The original proposed cost for reporting was $25,000; the remaining
reporting tasks would require $15,000 for completion and submission to the DMMT. NewFields has begun to
prepare the final report and would require an additional two weeks from receipt of the tissue chemistry data to
finalize the program report. However, recommendations to the City regarding areas likely to pass for ocean disposal
will be provided as soon as the qualified tissue chemistry data is available.
Task 3: Finalizing the Mercury Evaluation of West Lido Channel
As part of the DMMP program, the mercury in West Lido Channel was going to be further characterized for both the
lateral and horizontal extent. Samples that characterize the horizontal extent of mercury contamination have been
analyzed and reported to the City. Samples (fiat characterize the vertical extent of mercury contamination are
archived and still require analysis. The costs associated with completing the remaining analysis and compiling a
formal report of all mercury data would require $8,000.
Task 4: Ongoing Negotiations with DMMT
Finalizing the DMMT program will require several meetings with the DMMT. This includes a general presentation
of all the test results and determination of which test treatments will pass for ocean disposal. Based on previous
negotiations with the agencies, there will likely be two issues requiring some negotiation: DDT in tissues and
mercury in sediments.
EPA has used a total projected DDT (sum of all DDT constituents) value of 300 ppb as a threshold for disposal at
the LA -3 reference site. This value includes the use of site - specific multipliers to project the total tissue burden that
animals would be predicted to have at equilibrium with the sediments. This is a correction factor applied to 28 -day
bioaccumuhttion tests. The City and NewFields would need to work with the DMMT to determine whether the 300
ppb threshold that has been applied in past programs would be used for this program.
Mercury has been observed in Lower Newport Bay sediments above the ERM level of 0.71 mg/kg. However, this
has typically been associated with sediments that have not exhibited toxicity or significant bioaccumulation, which is
the case for the current testing program. However, during the previous negotiations with EPA and the USACE on
the Marina Park project, a sediment value of 1.0 mg/kg has been used as a threshold for ocean disposal. Such a
sediment - chemistry threshold is not necessarily following the Ocean Testing Manual guidance and was applied in
part due to the small volume of sediment requiring upland disposal from Marina Park. EPA did provide some
indication that they would allow for more of an options /risk analysis if future programs included larger volumes of
sediment with mercury concentrations >1.0 mg/kg. The estimated volume of material that would exceed this
threshold is approximately 250,000 cubic yards, depending upon whether study areas can be divided into smaller
areas based on individual station results.
The issue of acceptable mercury concentrations is the area of most uncertainty and affects not only the current harbor
dredging program, but also the RGP -54 program. The agencies may decide to qualify sediment containing Hg
concentrations in the following three ways:
1. Sediment Hg concentrations in the composites that are :51 mg/kg (ppm) are considered to be acceptable for
placement in the ocean are those with composite concentrations that are less than 1.0 mg/kg (ppm).
2. Sediment Hg concentrations in individual sediment samples that are >1 mg /kg would not be allowed to be
placed in the ocean. Generally, decisions that are based on sediment chemistry at a single station or group
of stations are applied to the general area surrounding those stations. This method will likely result in some
locations within a composite being acceptable for disposal in the ocean. It is likely that if an entire
composite has a concentration <I mg/kg, but includes stations that are > LO mg /kg, that the agencies would
exclude those areas/stations exceeding 1.0 mg/kg.
3. Tissue Hg concentrations and toxicity test results are used to determine whether sediment is acceptable or
unacceptable for placement of dredged materials in the ocean. At the most recent DMMT meetings, the
agencies indicated that they would interpret tissue chemistry using both statistical comparison with the
reference and an elevation to an effects based level. That level has not yet been defined. If the decision is
only based on statistical significance then this can and should be argued since it is against federal
guidelines.
USEPA personnel will be available within the next two weeks to explore the interpretation of mercury data.
Following these meetings we can meet with the City to develop a schedule of potential outcomes, including the
volumes affected. We anticipate about 2 weeks of interaction and development of information required to come to
some solution about the decision points for Hg. This two weeks of work will be spread over a time frame of 4 -6
weeks with the final decisions of whether it is work continuing the process near the end of October. We may also
determine after initial discussions with EPA to agree with EPA's earlier regulatory decision and find alternative
disposal options for sediment exceeding I mg /kg total Hg.
Our best estimate for negotiating with the agencies regarding the current dredging program and mercury- related
issues would be $15,000 - $30,000. This would include costs associated with staff time and travel costs over the
next two to three months to complete negotiations for all issues related to the current dredging program and the
mercury- related issues. NewFields will make efforts to expedite this process; however, this will require an invested
effort on the part of EPA and the USACE during that time period. These costs would be considered a not -to- exceed
amount. Negotiations regarding mercury in other regions have required extensive negotiation and this is not an issue
that has been resolved at a national level.
Please let me know if you have further questions regarding these estimates. As mentioned above, Task 4 is an
estimate based on what has been required during previous programs to negotiate threshold values for disposal. If the
agencies provide a clear indication that they are unwilling to alter their previous mercury threshold, it is likely that
the actual costs will be substantially lower.
Sincerely,
William Gardiner
NewFields, LLC
Summary of Proposed Costs
Task
Associated Cost
Task 1:
Finalize Tissue Chemistry Analysis
$22,000
Task 2:
Program Report
$15,000
Task 3:
Finalize Mercury Evaluation of West Lido Channel
$8,000
Task 4: Negotiations with DMMT
$15,000 - 30,000
Total
$60,000 to $75,000
NewFields
Pdrt Gamble, WA
Billing Rates
Labor Categary
Personnel
fiourlk Rate-
Principal Investrqabjr
Or.. Jack Word
160
Project Managers
Senior Scientists
Susie,waft
ISQ
William Gardiner
130
Meg:Pinza:
130
Project Scientists
-Scjentjsts
Brian Hester
95.
Lucinda Word
85
Bridget, Gregg
Jack D Word
85
Staff
Tracy.Schuh
75
Collin Ray
65
Mary Bacon
65
NwFi.lds
P.O. Box 21 6r� -V29 IIEVie Dgi4E
360297.6040 hm— , 360.297.7266�
WWW.NEVVPMLMCIDU!
City of Newport Beach
BUDGET AMENDMENT
2009 -10
EFFECT ON
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE:
Description
Increase Revenue Estimates
X
Increase Expenditure Appropriations AND
Account
Transfer Budget Appropriations
SOURCE:
Division
Number
from existing budget appropriations
PX
from additional estimated revenues
from unappropriated fund balance
EXPLANATION:
This budget amendment is requested to provide for the following:
NO. BA- 10BA -014
AMOUNT: $75,000.00
Increase in Budgetary Fund Balance
X Decrease in Budgetary Fund Balance
No effect on Budgetary Fund Balance
To increase expenditure appropriations from Tidelands unappropriated fund balance for the Newport Harbor Dredging Project.
ACCOUNTING ENTRY:
BUDGETARY FUND BALANCE Amount
Fund Account Description Debit Credit
7231 3605 Tidelands Fund - Fund Balance $75,000.00 "
REVENUE ESTIMATES (3601)
Fund /Division Account
EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS (3603)
Description
Signed:
Ficial Approval: Administrative Services Director Date
Signed:
Adminiskatie Approval: City Manager Date
Signed:
City Council Approval: City Clerk Date
Description
Division
Number
7231 Tidelands Capital Projects
Account
Number
C4402001 Newport Harbor Dredging Project $75,000.00
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Division
Number
Account
Number
Signed:
Ficial Approval: Administrative Services Director Date
Signed:
Adminiskatie Approval: City Manager Date
Signed:
City Council Approval: City Clerk Date