Galveston committee reviews STARL board process to revoke short‑term rental licenses

The Galveston Short‑Term Rental Ad Hoc Committee heard a detailed explanation of the proposed Short‑Term Rental Licensing board — referred to in the draft ordinance as STARL — and how it would allow city officials to respond to repeated, documented violations by short‑term rental (STR) operators.

Committee members were told the STARL process would begin only after an operator has three documented incidents investigated and recorded by city marshals or police. At that point the STARL board — composed of the city manager or a designee, the director of development services and the director of finance — would convene, review reports and hear testimony, and could recommend license revocation to city council, staff said.

"It's a mechanism by which the city can potentially revoke licenses of operators that get repeated, documented violations," said Sachi (staff member), explaining the board's role in the draft ordinance. She said the STARL process aims to provide due process and an evidentiary record that would help the city defend against lawsuits challenging a revocation.

Committee members pressed for details about alternatives to permanent revocation, with one asking whether STARL could suspend a license or issue temporary sanctions. Sachi said the draft does not spell out a single mandatory outcome at the third documented event; the board could recommend progressive sanctions, warnings or revocation depending on the facts presented. "They can, but they're not limited to that," she said, describing the panel's discretion.

Members also asked how the ordinance would treat single, quickly‑resolved incidents. Sachi said calls to the hotline that are addressed immediately and do not result in enforcement action generally would not count toward the three‑strike threshold. She described the intent as distinguishing between isolated, corrected complaints and recurring, enforceable violations: "If it's a one‑time thing... the owner‑operator is not going to [face revocation]."

The committee debated whether citizens should serve on the STARL board. Sachi and other staff members said the current draft envisions city professionals because the board would need to meet and act quickly; citizen members could make prompt convening difficult. She added that city council would receive STARL recommendations and that the council meeting would allow public comment.

Committee members suggested clarifying how appeals would work. Staff said appeals would first go to the city manager's designee and then, if upheld, to city council. Members recommended the ordinance incorporate explicit language about suspensions, fines, the manager‑level appeal and the council appeal path.

No formal action was taken on STARL at the meeting; the presentation was informational and aimed at ensuring committee members understood how the draft ordinance defines the board, triggers and the evidentiary standard that would lead to review.