Galveston committee weighs registration rules, data access and enforcement for short-term rentals

Members of a Galveston short-term rental working group spent a meeting reviewing the city's proposed registration form and enforcement framework for short-term rentals, debating how much owner and manager information should be public, how the registration number (GVR) is verified on listing platforms, whether inspections should be required, and the staffing and fee implications of moving registration and hotel-tax collection from the Park Board to the city.

Committee members said Deckard data shows about 4,129 paid registrations and roughly $1,032,250 collected through the current system, and they repeatedly returned to questions of enforcement capacity: who will answer complaint calls, how quickly the 24/7 local contact must respond, and whether the city has resources to inspect or audit properties.

Why it matters: Committee members and city staff said the registration and enforcement rules will affect thousands of properties and millions in tax and registration revenue. The group discussed software issues, public-facing data, legal due process for license revocation and the size of any administrative effort required to operate the program.

Key points from the discussion

Registration form, privacy and public data: Members reviewed the registration receipt pages and a series of required certifications on the application (truthfulness, ownership or owner permission, smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, and agreement to a good-neighbor brochure). Several members said the online form should link to terms and a privacy policy that a registrant must open before proceeding. The group discussed building a public-facing interactive map (similar to examples from Corpus Christi and San Antonio) that would show STR locations and certain data about each listing. Committee members debated what to include on a public map: addresses and the designated 24/7 local contact were discussed as important; personal emails and other private data were described as more sensitive and likely to be withheld from public-facing displays.

Local contact versus owner: The committee repeatedly emphasized the purpose of a 24/7 local contact: rapid response to complaints. Multiple speakers argued the local contact should be the managing operator rather than the owner, so problems can be resolved quickly. Others said owners must ultimately be responsible and should be notified when local contacts fail. The software was discussed as a way to show both owner and manager records and to link them by address.

Verification of platform GVR numbers and data quality: Members raised concerns that GVR (registration) numbers shown on platforms are not verified by the platforms and that Deckard's database contains inaccuracies. Committee discussion included the suggestion of encoding the registration number with a two-digit year prefix so expired numbers are obvious to platforms and users.

Enforcement, inspections and staffing capacity: Members debated whether the city should perform routine inspections for all registrations. Several speakers said full upfront inspection of thousands of properties would be impractical given current staffing; alternatives discussed included audit or complaint-driven inspections and authority to inspect flagged properties. Suggestions included a risk-based or random inspection program and language in the ordinance making properties subject to inspection rather than requiring inspection at initial registration.

Legal process for license revocation: Don (City Attorney) walked the group through procedural and substantive due-process considerations for a licensing-based enforcement regime. He described a hearing panel process to review evidence when a property accrues repeated violations, explaining that licensing revocation must include notice and an opportunity to be heard. He said the licensing review would rely on civil standards (preponderance of the evidence) rather than the higher criminal standard, and that citations and documented enforcement actions will form the evidentiary record the review panel examines. As Don put it during the meeting, "procedural due process means that you have written out a procedure that will be followed and given to the property owner," and the panel would assess whether documented violations justify suspension or revocation of the right to operate as an STR.

Three-strike concept and operational questions: The draft ordinance discussed by the group uses a multi-violation approach where a property owner or operator who accumulates several unremedied violations within a rolling 12-month period may face license suspension or revocation. Committee discussion focused on clarifying what counts as a violation (for example, an unremedied noise complaint or failure of the local contact to respond in the required time), how complaints are recorded in the system, and how operators are notified when an enforcement action or citation is issued.

Fees and administration: Members discussed the fee level needed to fund administration and enforcement. Participants noted that other jurisdictions charge a range of registration fees (examples cited during the meeting included $150 to $450 in other cities). Committee members asked city staff to estimate the cost of adding dedicated administration (clerical and enforcement personnel) and suggested registration fees should cover administration costs rather than rely on general tax revenue. A few members urged a tiered fee or higher fees for larger houses, while others cautioned that too-complex or high fees could push operators to avoid registration.

Software and operational transition: The committee discussed the technical transfer of registration and hotel-tax collection from the Park Board's single-operator system to city systems. Members and staff said several software improvements would help: encoding registration year in the GVR number, allowing uploads or attachments (photos, proof of owner permission), and automating notices when complaints become violations. Several participants noted current data inconsistencies in the Deckard database and said the city should require software processes that produce reliable audit trails for complaints, contact attempts and remediation steps.

Voices from the meeting

"Frankly, I'm city attorney," Don said during a discussion about penalties and criminal prosecution, and he cautioned that a criminal perjury prosecution is legally distinct from administrative licensing remedies. He added the hearing and revocation process must be written and provide the property owner a chance to respond.

Sheila stressed the economic stakes and tone of the program: "This is a serious business. It's a lot, a lot of money," and urged registration language and enforcement that make the city's expectations clear to operators.

What the group directed next

- Staff and legal: refine ordinance language to clearly enumerate what constitutes a violation, how complaints are logged and what remediation is required to avoid a violation being recorded; draft the hearing/panel procedures in ordinance text. - IT and finance: provide estimates of staffing needs and costs for administration and enforcement, and explore software changes (year-coded GVRs, attachments, automated notices) to support a transfer of operations to the city. - Parking and zoning: hold parking-specific items pending Tim's forthcoming proposal; parking standards were set aside for follow up. - Public materials: finalize the good-neighbor brochure, require posting inside each STR, and clarify whether specific language or listings on booking platforms will be required.

Ending

Committee members scheduled further ordinance markup and follow-up meetings to resolve the technical and operational issues. Staff were asked to return with clearer cost estimates, recommended software requirements for Deckard or replacement systems, and a tightened draft ordinance addressing the violations and hearing process discussed at the meeting.