[{"_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",6620825,"mediaKeyId","2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190","parentId",2803998,"title","Architectural assessment finds major structural and envelope needs at historic Garden ‘‘Bridal’’ facility; city to phase repairs","audioSeconds",462,"startMs",1066000,"endMs",1528000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190&start=1066&end=1528","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190/thumbnail_1066000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6620825/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Architectural-assessment-finds-major-structural-and-envelope-needs-at-historic-Garden-Bridal-facility-city-to-phase-repairs","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620825-cf964190aec23b2ab134d2a83183992a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175418&Signature=jbktCNVFb03dXsf1tcaY6cwNPKwZuVkr7pH3Lt5SjlfiK0KM881k5Lr2UYqsHsP~fYQv~~XYXmI7NWp5FuZ~Guu1KZBoRPvO~trxek9rDlvhVR6PqiKMmSjMTpqoBnot058WojxeULa-6wYOEa1P7zKffMU61Azj2QpyzDwXe~s8fkzo7R2B8TD9nmqPPVfCd5M3feE8d7TRmE84sX~ikyVvldVH~39OYfMD4BmXu3mxoLNTDf~BdMqA1eRjByVMJNzi3MXGak50NoNreJhYRi8-gH0KWOy11LhhyuG2GY9LNdHPRyKVt1KJxXvSRRz3LpagD8lsQjD2FXhqHOtatw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Galveston","date","2025-03-27T00:00:00Z","article","The city's contract architect presented a facility assessment of the historic Garden Bridal building and told council the structure is fundamentally sound but requires phased repairs to its structural posts, roofing, mechanical systems and finishes.

Don LaBiche of LaBiche Architectural Group reviewed the building's condition and told council \"the good news is that it's relatively level. We don't see any big foundation problems with the building.\" But he detailed areas that need work: rotted wood columns that support the inner cupola, localized masonry/stone repairs, sections of rotten exterior siding, failing HVAC ductwork under the building, and aging roof membranes. He also recommended upgrades to the building's sub‑floor ventilation and to close openings that allow animals and debris under the floor.

Parks staff told council that maintenance crews and city crews have completed a set of immediate \"low hanging fruit\" repairs since receiving the architect's report and that staff intends to sequence larger repairs in phases to limit budget impacts. City staff estimated a full renovation to modern, near‑new condition at about $3.8 million, but proposed to pursue the work in priority phases beginning with structural repairs and weatherproofing; staff also said some preservation fund balances and HOT/HOT‑related funds targeted for historic preservation could be considered to fund work.

Council members stressed the importance of retaining the building as a revenue‑generating rental venue while preserving its historic fabric. LaBiche recommended repairs be phased: stabilizing decayed columns and supporting rings first, roof replacement and mechanical upgrades next, then accessibility and envelope improvements, and finally finishes and acoustical measures. \"It's a real gem,\" he said. \"We need to do it right, and it's well worth it for the city as well as for tourism industry because it's highly utilized.\"

Next steps: staff will return with a phasing plan and cost breakdown and will explore use of the city's historic preservation fund for initial priority repairs. LaBiche's firm will assist on scope and bid documents as needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Galveston - Council Workshop - Mar 27, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","An architectural assessment presented March 27 found the city'owned historic Garden Bridal building is structurally sound but in need of phased structural, roof and mechanical repairs estimated at several million dollars for full restoration.","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},6620830,"Council presses park board, staff on park operations, hot tax oversight and conflict‑of‑interest audit",569,2506000,3075000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190&start=2506&end=3075","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190/thumbnail_2506000.jpg","/articles/6620830/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Council-presses-park-board-staff-on-park-operations-hot-tax-oversight-and-conflictofinterest-audit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620830-9ff01e596f68bbd70044907faffba105/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175418&Signature=MEB0nuxsynOk7wMI~mkhhGIsCDAy7h7IF~yrUNan8S8OZ~DnFISjcALglJfr62mLG-LZJH~VnSPSYmNb8DC-7zqg4a9rMcL-DOQM1LDAKhTNfhYQRERd4ZNeMn-I8yGa7huiUCaAYbi87-DGFghwkmKsR35LeloImVblC6BnvscgqNSZ3-xNKXcC6V8LXXHnKm5Dq~sD06kPiwQ3MtaM3HroJdqMFzhyStTFK9AhEHRUTcOdgRJPs2gPnS4DOlCb2gUNBjY7fyQN0EC2qFxoSCWC3bkfXLBz9UP4ALu8HUpUJCiYLeQuVk3YY~v8XWJ~yKsaOHqA3h7BJUnqRkBLlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Galveston City Council spent a large portion of its March 27 workshop on park governance, park board oversight and the administration of hotel occupancy tax (HOT) and concession permits.

City staff presented legal and policy analysis after council asked whether delegating park management to the Galveston Park Board could allow the city to circumvent charter procurement rules. Assistant city attorneys told council that delegation is permitted, but they recommended any future interlocal agreement require the board to follow city procurement standards when the council wants those standards enforced.

A central policy question raised by council was whether the city should reclaim operation of city parks that generate revenue. Council members debated whether Seawolf Park and Delanera Park should move from park‑board management back to direct city operation. Staff said transfers would require a transition period and noted the parks' operating models differ. Mayor Brown asked staff to prepare a business‑case comparison of the current park‑board model versus city operation; several council members asked that the park board present its own operations and proposed remedies at a joint meeting. Council instructed staff to schedule a joint meeting with the park board (tentatively April 16) and to prepare comparative financial information.

Glenn, the city auditor, presented a focused audit of park‑board conflict‑of‑interest policies. He reported two discoveries of policy breaches: (1) a director who engaged a business owned by a spouse to provide services to events that the director's department booked; and (2) a director who operated a personal business on park‑board controlled premises while supervising the department involved. The audit found the park board's policy language was clear but not always followed; the auditor recommended that any employee business that engages in transactions with the park board or operates on park‑board premises must be approved by the board and publicly disclosed on the board's website. The park board has accepted the recommendations and told the auditor it will adopt new procedures.

City and park‑board officials also briefed council on HOT and short‑term rental (STR) audits. Staff reported an audit backlog led to a statutory deadline lapse on several older STR/HOT cases; staff estimated a potential revenue loss of roughly $21,600 for tax periods that could not be prosecuted because of that lapse. Staff said they have since billed for many of the missing audits and will pursue the remainder; council asked for a clearer timeline for completing outstanding audits and for staff to return with a plan for transferring STR and HOT registration and collection back to city administration on a calendar‑year schedule (staff noted October 1 or year‑end timing would be operationally practical).

Council also discussed beach vendor permits, where private property claims and park‑board concessions overlap. Council asked staff to bring the matter to a joint session with the park board so the two entities can explain recorded ownership, the board's permitting practices and any available surveys or state leases covering publicly owned shoreline.","Council discussed multiple park governance issues: whether the city should assume operation of revenue‑producing parks, returning short‑term‑rental and hotel occupancy tax (HOT) collection to the city, an internal audit finding of employee conflicts at the park board, and steps to improve HOT audit and collections.",{"_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},6620835,"Council signals intent to adopt Rogers master plan, seek developer with prospectus for Stewart Beach",2700,900000,3600000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190&start=900&end=3600","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190/thumbnail_900000.jpg","/articles/6620835/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Council-signals-intent-to-adopt-Rogers-master-plan-seek-developer-with-prospectus-for-Stewart-Beach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620835-7800b8e802c8c6cd3e635e37836a6f9b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175418&Signature=k9mSpN0fQrNTJBa9stAsYhC4GFtINmCJJQiIsJ3Cy2IIFd1tWILXJI7YDA~zoam14W0YQXluPZdnddiikb7qF1Nlkp2htswSQFGaoX4fQD5e3FHQICSaJUx6AmMXtCvqIZd98OnS8BFJpuVlfa2XaKFoeLQnNHzhIkfRCfEW2CV9JaI8gQdQg9D8~J0KBEClDvXPVuKtdDQwdeOkSrqnIJbS1RcQRSx0ylM3pC~dmX1ryp56BdQkmu1w43FzrX8Oj17GCL1tTrebmC8Hxlb8fXYqxkZoSPEgZKwyapWp~~Nl03hvRvQjgGHeXG7uZVtFu86uS6fYplT9VSt6P--zgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Galveston City Council members at their March 27 workshop told staff to proceed toward adopting a previously produced master plan for Stewart Beach and to prepare a development prospectus aimed at attracting a master developer for a public‑private partnership.

Dudley Anderson briefed the council on three options staff had developed after gathering council input: (A) hire a master developer to produce a plan and deliver the project, (B) adopt an existing master plan and commission a city‑sponsored development prospectus, or (C) fund a new master‑plan study. After presentations from consultant Joshua Owens and engineering/planning staff, council members favored option B: adopt the Rogers Partners plan (with amendments where needed) and hire consultants to produce a prospectus and procurement package for developers.

Joshua Owens, who advised council on market and procurement issues, told the council developers need clear objectives and scoring criteria in a request for proposals. \"We need clear objectives in the RFP and from the developers coming from city council as to what you want to see on that beach,\" Owens said. He urged council to decide whether the priority is public amenities, job and capital investment, sales‑tax generation, or a mix; that choice will shape the procurement documents.

Council discussion focused on speed and practicality. Several council members said adopting an existing plan would shorten the timeline compared with commissioning a new master plan; others said the city should insist the prospectus require market‑based solutions and include measurable performance metrics (jobs, capital investment, sales‑tax or bed‑tax targets). Dudley Anderson summarized a tentative schedule staff had prepared for the RFP/prospectus path and said he would return with a formal action item and recommended text.

Council consensus at the workshop: direct staff to bring back a formal agenda item next month to adopt the Rogers Partners master plan as the basis for a city‑led development prospectus and procurement package, then to seek proposals from qualified development teams.

Staff and consultants said next steps would include preparing procurement documents with explicit scoring criteria, a public‑engagement phase tied to the adopted plan, and a schedule for selecting and negotiating with a master developer.","After hearing consultants and community advisors, council directed staff to pursue option B: adopt an existing master plan (Rogers Partners) and ask city consultants to prepare a development prospectus for a public‑private partnership; staff will return with an action item at the next regular meeting.",{"_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},6620840,"Galveston council reviews $290,061 comprehensive‑plan contract tied to GLO grant",733,285000,1018000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190&start=285&end=1018","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803998-06258e5c2f80260eafbd8914ab48d190/thumbnail_285000.jpg","/articles/6620840/Galveston/Galveston-County/Texas/Galveston-council-reviews-290061-comprehensiveplan-contract-tied-to-GLO-grant","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6620840-598af900f66d8c05648a2e06ba329a4e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771175418&Signature=KQFkIZvEkwtpOoIYzoLn5N5WI7YOEO6s~ipGeMgz5J93cbYMVFW47K80dX4U8HfB2u-69KDimb22DKHZqyYLFRtoNycnV4APhijdvbpWMf8d~K0LXliycNack~S7wiALHq3XwTjpuoSlh4OWE6l~g5HCDgYEFRGAlKdNDA77joXtgaQBlFRfGU1v0FnbeOh8FRPnPiiaBoU6X8g0I6duU4z41eSIF6kxgmLs-DJzEN4pKGJA9MCBR49ivwDfloRN9PDTw~15bEtFsXLqNgeJiBbXoTLQr~tvBpa3pjtDJm-kUSv1hg-xEH1LSiW4UUllc9GJ4GB8VLFI~Q0WsM2gnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Galveston's development services director told council on March 27 that staff recommends a contract with Askur Robinson to update the city's comprehensive plan for $290,061, and said the work is scheduled to begin only after the city receives a General Land Office (GLO) grant.

Tim Teejens, director of development services, said, \"This is the contract for the comprehensive plan amendment that we prospectively will be receiving from the GLO,\" and that staff expects a notice to proceed around July if the grant arrives. He said the consultant's scope follows GLO resilience requirements and breaks payment into early/phase milestones.

Andrew Knuppel of Askur Robinson described a public engagement program built into the scope, including steering‑committee and community meetings. \"We did build that into the scope of item 3.1, and that's something we anticipate really working on the first month or so of working with the city,\" Knuppel said.

Council members pressed staff about timing and existing budgeted funds. Councilman said the city previously budgeted $250,000 for a comp plan update and asked whether awarding the contract now would delay work while the city waits for GLO funding. Teejens responded that the contract is structured as contingent: the city will not issue a notice to proceed until grant funding is received and agreed that some pre‑work could occur but would not be reimbursable by the grant.

Staff said the consultant's pay schedule is split (5% initial, 30%/30% middle phases, 5% wrap‑up) and that the firm will facilitate a series of steering‑committee and community meetings at 30/60/85% design milestones. Council directed staff to bring the consultant back for the next workshop to present the engagement plan and outline options for expanding public outreach. Mayor Brown and multiple council members emphasized they wanted enough public input that the plan 'fits the community' but also expressed interest in moving promptly once funding is confirmed.

Council members also discussed whether the city should use the $250,000 already in this year's fund balance if the GLO award is delayed. Teejens said the budgeted amount was intended as a placeholder and that staff would return to council with options if timing or grant award changes.

Next steps: staff will bring the Askur Robinson public engagement plan back at the next workshop and will structure the contract so work is contingent on GLO funding and a notice to proceed.","Council discussed awarding a consultant contract to Askur Robinson to update the city's comprehensive plan; staff said work and a notice to proceed will be contingent on receiving a General Land Office (GLO) grant and recommended allowing a 25% change order for expanded public engagement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Architectural assessment finds major structural and envelope needs at historic Garden ‘‘Bridal’’ facility; city to phase repairs

Council presses park board, staff on park operations, hot tax oversight and conflict‑of‑interest audit

Council signals intent to adopt Rogers master plan, seek developer with prospectus for Stewart Beach

Galveston council reviews $290,061 comprehensive‑plan contract tied to GLO grant