Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
The Carrollton City Council held a Regular Worksession and Meeting on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, beginning with a pre-meeting and executive session at 5:45 PM, followed by the worksession, and the regular meeting at 7:00 PM. The Council received a comprehensive legislative update from the 89th Texas State Legislative Session, adopted the 2025 Downtown Master Plan, approved several consent agenda items, and held public hearings on one zoning change and four short-term rental (STR) Special Use Permits (SUPs). All four STR proposals were ultimately denied by the Council.
The City’s legislative consultant, Larry Gonzalez, provided a detailed update on the 89th Texas Legislative Session. The Senate is moving quickly while the House is moving slowly, with Speaker Burroughs, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick, and Governor Abbott coordinating efforts. Key legislative topics included:
Items 8 through 13 were approved unanimously.
Item 14 – Manna Plaza (Zoning Change): No public comments were received. Staff and P&Z Commission recommended approval.
Item 15 – 2242 Old Mill Road (Short-Term Rental SUP): Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition, citing noise complaints, neighborhood instability, safety concerns, and property values. The property cleaner spoke in support of the well-maintained rental. The applicant stated he was unaware of the ordinance until recently and expressed willingness to address neighbor concerns.
Item 16 – 2120 Kings Road (Short-Term Rental SUP): No members of the public stepped forward to speak during the hearing. Written comments were submitted (two opposed, one in favor). The applicants stated they had operated the rental for over a year, were previously told by the city to register as a long-term rental, and felt the new ordinance was being applied retroactively.
Item 17 – 2017 Sam Houston Boulevard (Short-Term Rental SUP): Several long-time residents spoke in strong opposition, detailing safety fears, increased traffic, a prior police disturbance call (June 2024), and a desire to preserve neighborhood character and stability. The applicants disputed the non-conforming rights cut-off date and argued their use was protected under the Texas Constitution.
Item 18 – 2925 Rolling Hills Drive (Short-Term Rental SUP): No members of the public stepped forward to speak during the hearing, though staff noted 12.42% opposition from land in the notification buffer and nine written opposition cards were submitted. The applicant explained the property is for his mother, who spends part of the year in Vietnam.
Public Forum: Following the regular agenda, several displeased STR applicants addressed the Council, stating they felt the process was a “sham” and that they were being “vilified” despite meeting all requirements and having minimal opposition. Two candidates for the CFBISD school board also spoke briefly.
The Council adjourned at 8:44 PM.
Okay, council. We will uh start a work session for April first. Uh item number eight is authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement with USHA through by board for the purchase of purchase and installation of shade structures and amount not to exceed 115,000 one ninety-nine and forty-three cents. Any questions on this? This this will be submitted for insurance purposes associated with the storm damage. We're self-insured though, anyway, right? So yeah. Yeah. Any other questions? Number nine, consider authorizing city manager to execute change order number two with access contracting for additional work as part of the Plano Parkway Park. Um Tor Hill Park. Um phase one and amount not to exceed 87,214 and 88 cents, increasing the total project to an amount not to exceed 2 million 310, 899 and 71 cents. Um just a uh spreadsheet bust, I think. The uh the original estimate. So questions. It was just a I thought it was so it's just a rounding error, or what? It's I wouldn't say surrounding error, it's a uh it was just an error in their computations it was um uh again. There's a there's a lead or general contractor, subcontractor, but this is um we won't get into kind of where it fell, but okay. Well, uh I I thought it when I read it, I thought it was just an it was incremental cost based on material or subcontractor didn't calculate the didn't put it distance correctly. Yeah, ah gotcha. We caught it that's the cost of the additional got it. Thank you. Number 10, consider an ordinance designating the number of positions in each classification of firefighters in the Carrollton fire department. This is um in conjunction with the uh recent or in conjunction with the budget, um, allows for aligns the number of positions per the ordinance with the number of people we have doing the role. Well, what's the go ahead? So this is not adding or taking away any positions, it's just reclassifying correctly. There's a no uh there's a community education position, and so it will be an apparatus operator that'll fill that, and so it changes the number. Is that right? She go ahead, she we we we had a promotion within the organization, and we had a vacancy and admin, and the person filling that vacant position is an apparatus operator, so we need to refill the apparatus operator position in operations to ensure that we have enough assigned to each piece of equipment. We're required state the chapter 143 requires that we list by position by ordinance every time there's a change. So it's an incremental FTE not to budget.