[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6620833,"mediaKeyId","2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99","parentId",2803997,"title","Votes at a glance: council approves landmark fees, landmark designation, code amendments, land sales and bridge funding resolution","audioSeconds",4398,"startMs",2480000,"endMs",6878000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99&start=2480&end=6878","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99/thumbnail_2480000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6620833/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Votes-at-a-glance-council-approves-landmark-fees-landmark-designation-code-amendments-land-sales-and-bridge-funding-resolution","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620833-ebab41d34714c13c5d81ba04138efe97/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161815&Signature=kOgrRLUDeymxHyBqWHghSNadyHwotWE1I13y1NAi4k0Ui9z54Wb1LL9Wrsn~tzyFM6w8L0pC0uOEbaxlA4J~HTErhQ4PkiYmsG8jgL1NdrpDCFNd695uDllNnsPVzuzMdnSsJ8ZppUZheyrKfGdeHNitmFfgcTzwEY2gemmuSgzohmWsrnkYlX7tiW~vZ-Ril0frM0tebhOQyc9ziq~Eyc1sBtWzFUBQe2Ij3JRjyImSgN-LKkuFJtzMLGYmEXR39Ge7nUlvpNDcxmBfkloC41ONU26F3Z79L1oDGPJoVf5HZOWAngxaN324E0-NIr6OctW4nnXKg1Bj8Ea4MvFReg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Galveston","date","2025-03-27T00:00:00Z","article","The Galveston City Council on March 27 approved a slate of routine but consequential items. Most passed with unanimous support from members present.

Key decisions approved
- Landmark plaque/application fee ordinance: Council approved an amendment to the Galveston Land Development Regulations to establish a $100 application fee that includes a replacement metal plaque for Galveston landmark designation. Staff said the new plaques will be metal upgrades from older resin plaques and that the fee would also allow property owners to purchase upgraded replacement plaques. (Passed unanimously.)

- Landmark designation, 2114 Avenue O: The council designated the Leopold and Ernestine Yankee House (built 1884; remodeled 1926) at 2114 Avenue O as a Galveston landmark and authorized staff to record the designation with county records and tax and zoning maps. (Passed unanimously.)

- Building/flood and permit code amendments: The council approved amendments clarifying elevation requirements for manufactured homes and changes to permit time frames for construction permits (longer standard periods and extension allowances). Staff said the changes align permit terms for large-scale projects. (Both ordinances approved by council members present; one council member was absent for one vote.)

- Sale of vacant city land near airport: The council authorized the sale process for three tracts of vacant city land located near the airport (tracts described in ordinance language) and granted the city manager authority to execute necessary documents. Staff said the action allows staff to proceed with awarding the properties based on auction results. (Passed unanimously.)

- Pelican Island Bridge advance funding resolution: Council approved a resolution authorizing an advance funding agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation and making the city the local sponsor for the Pelican Island Bridge project; staff will send a certified copy to TxDOT. The mayor and council members praised long-standing intergovernmental work that advanced the project. (Passed unanimously.)

How the votes were taken
Each item was presented by staff briefly and then placed before the council for a motion and vote; several items had no public comment and little council debate. The mayor noted appreciation for staff and council members on specific items.

What wasn’t included
This roundup does not include the separate, more substantive debate and amended approval on the proposed conveyance of the Rosenberg School (that item was debated at length and is covered in a separate report) nor does it summarize ceremonial proclamations and certificates presented at the start of the meeting.

Vote summary (high level)
- Landmark plaque fee ordinance: unanimously approved (motion and roll call recorded during item 7a).
- Landmark designation 2114 Avenue O: unanimously approved.
- Building/flood code amendments (manufactured home elevation): approved by council members present; one member absent for that vote.
- Permit timeframe amendments (chapter 10): unanimously approved.
- Airport-area land sales (tracts A/B/C): unanimously approved.
- Pelican Island Bridge advance funding resolution: unanimously approved.

Each ordinance and resolution is recorded in council minutes and the city’s official ordinance and resolution records.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Galveston - Regular Council - Mar 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The City Council approved a package of ordinances and a bridge funding resolution on March 27, including a new fee for Galveston landmark plaques, designation of 2114 Avenue O as a landmark, amendments to building and permit timelines, two airport-area land sales and an advance funding agreement for the Pelican Island Bridge.","taxTitle","Galveston , Galveston County, Texas","taxId",5145,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6620838,"City reports $22 million projected fund balance; auditor issues clean opinion on annual report",632,1828000,2460000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99&start=1828&end=2460","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99/thumbnail_1828000.jpg","/articles/6620838/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/City-reports-22-million-projected-fund-balance-auditor-issues-clean-opinion-on-annual-report","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620838-0f6bdfbc3257917448d1f87f861271fc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161815&Signature=C~MgOmPihOGrGitEg9xXBwEc7kW0wm59DmEMOX5Y2BqU62ZfKxp4Pg8CNZ~sHO69dTWlbGA8C7xK9bKY7Kge2PPKZ26bEp8MK0qtfQ8mE0al2qDnVPrSfVVWFiWKv5Xc0WUDPcPY49wCLVKuL4M3nIBRzImHGVIuBKBuCnlwG6Up0k3WnJ0hzJIIcU~VJ-oLx9N~oazfF9oJnERYK69HxhzukmuShBXmozPXTxgb-xB8K2B76SW8t6EZNYGmSIZBNIENYilh--AFfktptMuylfB22MFZzTp7mqR0uRDdnnZwqHyf3ZHEGmSvZVFCoVEaWfuLbHpDl6R~PQHCdc9uiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff told the Galveston City Council on March 27 that preliminary first-quarter financial projections for the fiscal year that includes October–December 2024 show an expected $22 million ending fund balance and conservative sales- and property-tax forecasts.

“We're continuing to project a $22,000,000 ending fund balance in the general fund which represents about 99 days of reserves,” the city manager said during the presentation. City staff reported that revenue projections were about $2 million below the original systemwide budget but that expenditures were also projected to come in under budget, helping maintain planned fund balances.

The council also received the FY2024 annual comprehensive financial report. The city’s new auditor, Weaver, issued an unmodified opinion on the financial statements and unmodified compliance opinions for the audited major federal and state programs, the auditor told the council.

Auditor John DeBurrow said, “we issued an unmodified opinion,” and reported “no findings, no significant deficiencies, no material weaknesses, and no instances of any material noncompliance.” He listed the airport improvement program and ARPA (Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds) as federal major programs audited this year and said the city complied in all material respects.

Why it matters: A clean audit and a multi-week reserve provide the council and public a snapshot of the city’s near-term fiscal health. The city manager cautioned that first-quarter projections are based on limited trends and said the second-quarter report will provide more detail on sales-tax trends and adjustments.

Details from presentations
- General fund: Staff reported the $22 million projected ending fund balance represents about 99 days of reserves. The council’s amended October budget and lower-than-budgeted spending both contributed to the projection.
- Special revenue funds: Staff reported a larger gap between budgeted and projected expenditures because not all special revenues have been allocated to projects; those funds are expected to carry forward into the next fiscal year.
- Enterprise funds: Projected ending balances in enterprise funds were generally in line with budgeted amounts, with drainage funds noted as an area to watch.
- Audit results: Weaver issued a clean (unmodified) opinion on the city’s financial statements, and the single-audit compliance work for two federal major programs and one state major program also resulted in unmodified opinions. The auditor reported no significant audit adjustments or evidence of fraud or illegal acts.

Next steps and oversight
City staff said the second-quarter report will present additional sales-tax information and trend data. Council members thanked the finance team, and the auditor said he would be available to answer questions as the council reviews the final report.

All remarks and figures above are drawn from council presentations and auditor comments at the March 27, 2025 council meeting.","City staff told the council the first-quarter (Oct–Dec 2024) projections show a roughly $22 million ending fund balance and lower-than-budgeted expenditures; external auditors issued an unmodified (clean) opinion on the FY2024 financial statements and single audit.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6620843,"Galveston council accepts conditions for Rosenberg School conveyance, requires post-demolition environmental review",2142,3896000,6038000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99&start=3896&end=6038","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99/thumbnail_3896000.jpg","/articles/6620843/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Galveston-council-accepts-conditions-for-Rosenberg-School-conveyance-requires-post-demolition-environmental-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620843-e5fc49f5457447e7b3fc0985b15972e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161815&Signature=Pov8iD9XsB3iakCKiiTdP2TQy3~xHw2QFsKhDWQXlePxbzB2N-ysK2yWS7G5DVFBMGyqdpDLk2n3HoVN6-y5MN1dfs1SjNyVF4lqfHwlWUW~d~P0-Uv3xv9Mc9l3ilbZ4zTYJ72h2o5puqGh8mhv-67MFpF296oJ5qMfokMRGpFiJZDiUKTxYP87zzOFjxNDmfP-pxIgTPdpxFXpNdVeC9N8sngB6a8baF54TSyCzFm6M4kr61OUpVYfS3o-ZKxKS45VSiBUUUesJRTxG4ZYtCyhESWX0AjMAgiTiQg7WS-zO8ItXqniDugb9PHWECSMY1yaxlwQgL3Su2ZGTc-ryA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Galveston City Council on March 27 unanimously approved a set of conditions for accepting the donation of the former Rosenberg School property and directed staff to begin negotiations with Galveston Independent School District (GISD), with a progress report due at the council’s May meeting.

Project Rosenberg supporters told the council the fund-raising campaign has raised substantial private pledges toward acquisition and demolition. “Right now, we have 1,520,000.00, in pledges, of which 1,300,000.0 are in the bank,” said a supporter during public comment. The group said that represented “87% of our pledges in hand” toward a $2.2 million goal.

The council’s action approved 12 substantive conditions and amended the wording for the environmental reviews: GISD (through Project Rosenberg) must provide a Phase 1 environmental assessment of the building and the site after demolition; if the Phase 1 identifies items of concern, GISD must provide a Phase 2 assessment. The council also removed an item that would have required the City Parks and Recreation Board to perform a study prior to conveyance and struck language that would have explicitly allowed the council to reject the donation at any time up to conveyance.

Why it matters: The Rosenberg property sits in the East End and has been the focus of a community-led effort to convert the site to parkland. The council sought to balance progressing a community donation with protecting the city from unknown environmental liabilities and financial obligations.

Key points and council instructions
- Demolition: The school building must be demolished prior to conveyance to the city.
- Environmental reviews: The council amended the environmental condition so the Phase 1 assessment of the site will be performed after demolition; a Phase 2 is required only for items identified in Phase 1. Council members repeatedly emphasized the city will review any environmental reports and may request additional sampling or remediation prior to acceptance.
- Funding and timing: The motion requires funds needed for purchase and to prepare the site to be identified by city and GISD staff and communicated to Project Rosenberg; project backers said some demolition and survey work would be provided in kind by donors.
- Naming and funding restrictions: The conditions say no naming rights will be attached to the conveyance and that city funds will not be expended for the conveyance other than staff time; closing costs are to be paid by a non-city entity.

Public and staff roles described in the meeting
- Project Rosenberg representatives told council they have both pledges and cash on deposit, and that environmental and demolition work is underway or planned. The GISD superintendent said Project Rosenberg is contracting and paying for environmental work and that GISD approved the consultant to ensure they have relevant local experience.
- Councilmembers asked for clarity about the scope of environmental testing and the timing of post-demolition site testing; several asked that the city retain the right to request additional work after reviewing the Phase 1 findings.

Formal action
The council approved the motion with amendments by voice vote; the mayor announced the item was “unanimously approved.”

What’s next
City staff were directed to begin negotiations with GISD on the conveyance terms and to report progress to the council at its May meeting. The council and staff will review the Phase 1 environmental assessment after demolition and can require a Phase 2 or additional sampling if the Phase 1 indicates it.

Sources and attributions in this report are drawn from council discussion and public comment at the March 27, 2025, City Council meeting. Quotations are taken from the meeting transcript.","The City Council unanimously approved a set of conditions for accepting a donation of the Rosenberg School property, directing staff to negotiate with Galveston ISD and requiring environmental assessment after demolition with a Phase 2 if the Phase 1 indicates the need.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6620828,"Public comments spotlight unleashed dogs, beach concession disputes ahead of summer season",658,2833000,3491000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99&start=2833&end=3491","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803997-965553bb49600459026e97ec75306b99/thumbnail_2833000.jpg","/articles/6620828/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Public-comments-spotlight-unleashed-dogs-beach-concession-disputes-ahead-of-summer-season","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620828-a27d4d9af963def0179bb104bd07a9f5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771161815&Signature=ZgXp2ZQ4iiTcSZZL8zLwuEMGvp0ZnYRpjnLhqNUPcf3t~MhuOyHVdzWhUGLaUMDPHqfn-IMebn2cLuASjjHPAyDyARCNlTWhE59ja1ULjxK0LQFteIHkPFbE1-YnG4HHj4B8CSiFdnpPdcoRDYghGNdDMBRMAor-T-iC6a2x31ZUD2klauiSSZmtn-pAn0WLsnVM7US-twGn9nMVJmHtDpxBi32YsPRrKV4L1MB2y6NvYMf2vuomDb0scL7q-jlj-OHv3O0f-2Y3M1shUB~v66P6XgMylPgwdrSblYIb2e3P~1dES6rUsYLXA46G-m4AtB88KM4y1PaEfDcBEhgV~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several speakers used the March 27 public comment period to call on the city and Park Board to take clearer enforcement and oversight steps on two recurring issues: unleashed dogs at city beaches and disputes among beach concession vendors over lease rights.

Unleashed dogs and beach enforcement
Van Phipps, who identified himself and his address during public comment, urged the city and police to enforce leash rules on the beaches and asked council to review citation records. “I would encourage one of the council members to pull records and see when was the last time a ticket was actually written for an unleashed dog,” Phipps said, describing multiple encounters with unleashed dogs while biking and walking the beach.

Phipps suggested the city consider designating a dog beach area or stepping up enforcement on weekends, saying fines of up to $500 per occurrence exist but are rarely used in his observation.

Beach concession leases and vendor disputes
Several concession operators and vendors raised competing claims about authority and leases on beach tracks. Adam Musick, who identified himself as the owner of Charlie’s Beach Service, told the council he has operated at the same location for 15 years, holds a lease and insurance, and said a competitor has taken over leases and customers. “This is my livelihood,” Musick said, asking the council and city to intervene.

Frank Macio, who identified himself as the concession operator some speakers referenced, told council he has provided the surface-lease documents and accused the Park Board of attempting to “steal” beach property and to mislead the council about the park board’s authority to lease certain tracks. Vendor Jody Wallace said private property owners who lease to vendors feel unprotected and criticized the Park Board’s actions and communications with lessors.

No council action during the meeting
Council members did not take formal action in response to these public comments during the March 27 meeting. Several council members and staff referenced the Park Board and state leases during later agenda items; council members and staff said they would continue to review the concerns raised and that enforcement authority and jurisdictional questions may require coordinated review with the Park Board and state agencies.

Why it matters: With beach season approaching, vendors, private property owners and residents told the council that clarity on who may rent and occupy beach tracks, how leases are honored and enforced, and whether leash laws will be enforced are immediate concerns for safety, business continuity and public access.

Speakers in this report spoke during the public comment period at the March 27 council meeting. Their statements are summarized above and attributed to the speakers who made them on the record.","Residents and vendors used the March 27 public comment period to raise concerns about unleashed dogs on beaches and disputes over concession leases and vendor access on Galveston beaches; speakers asked the city and Park Board to enforce rules and clarify authority for private vendors.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: council approves landmark fees, landmark designation, code amendments, land sales and bridge funding resolution

City reports $22 million projected fund balance; auditor issues clean opinion on annual report

Galveston council accepts conditions for Rosenberg School conveyance, requires post-demolition environmental review

Public comments spotlight unleashed dogs, beach concession disputes ahead of summer season