Garland officials propose stricter short‑term rental rules, higher fees and compliance agreements for repeat violators

Garland City Attorney and staff presented revised short‑term rental (STR) ordinance amendments during Tuesday’s work session that would impose new permit requirements, higher fees and targeted compliance agreements for properties with repeated violations.

The attorney described a package of changes the council requested after an earlier meeting: permit applicants would be required to submit an approved floor plan and pass an interior inspection before receiving a permit, and an annual inspection would be required thereafter. The attorney said unapproved deviations from the submitted floor plan "could result in a revocation of your permit." He also noted the violation‑measurement period was changed to one year from six months.

To better cover administrative costs, staff raised the minimum permit fee from $50 to $500. The attorney said the ordinance would also increase minimum insurance requirements, with an example limit "up to $1,000,000 per event" and $250,000 per person in the draft language. The attorney said these fees and insurance minimums aim to match administrative cost and risk, not to profit the city.

For properties found to be bad actors — defined in the draft as those with three violations in a 12‑month period — staff proposed compliance agreements that would impose conditions including occupancy limits (10 people or two persons per bedroom, whichever is less), a prohibition on outdoor activities between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m., installation of outdoor noise sensors, limits on trash and debris and a possible 24‑month revocation for repeated breaches of the compliance agreement.

Councilmember Moore raised concerns about litigation risk, noting state court decisions have varied on allowable local regulation. The City Attorney acknowledged increased litigation risk for stricter provisions but framed the choice as a policy decision about the council’s "appetite for risk." He said, “My goal as y'all's representative is to reflect what y'all's appetite for risk is.”

Council members who reported neighborhood problems said the more stringent compliance agreements target a small number of properties that produce most complaints. Councilmember Bass said she has three properties in her district that were converted from three‑bedroom to ten‑bedroom units and argued the compliance agreement targets repeat bad actors rather than ordinary homeowners.

Councilmember Dutton sought clarity on enforcement and whether compliance measures apply to per‑address permits rather than per guest; staff confirmed the compliance agreement applies to the permit holder and thus to the address. Staff also clarified the draft’s 48‑hour minimum stay could create administrative complexity depending on check‑in/check‑out times; the draft as written specifies a 48‑hour minimum even if guests check out early.

The work session was a review of draft changes; council was told the ordinance amendments would return on the regular agenda for formal action later in the evening.