A challenge to the West Manatee Fire Rescue District’s ability to assess vacation rentals as commercial properties has failed.
12th Circuit Judge Edward Nicholas filed a final summary judgment May 29 in favor of WMFR on both counts and against the plaintiff, Holmes Beach-based C&D Properties of AMI LLC, which is owned by islander Lawrence Chatt, broker for Island Real Estate of Holmes Beach.
In fiscal 2023-24, WMFR launched a rental inspection program that involves inspecting all transient public lodging establishments in the district for compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code.
The district includes all of Anna Maria Island and much of west Bradenton.
Alongside WMFR’s implementation of the rental inspection program was a change in fire assessment rates for certain residentially zoned properties, like TPLEs, daycare centers and assisted living facilities.
Vacation rental owners previously paid residential fire assessment rates but are now assessed as commercial properties, which have higher tax rates.
C&D sued in February 2024 to seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief from enforcement of WMFR’s vacation rental assessments for two condominiums operated as TPLEs in Holmes Beach.
C&D argued that the assessment rate change was an unlawful regulation since Florida Statute 509.032(7) states that “The regulation of public lodging establishments … is preempted to the state.”
WMFR argued that the assessment rate change did not qualify as a regulation since it does not control the existence, duration or frequency of renting TPLEs.
In a May 22 order granting WMFR’s motion for final summary judgment, Nicholas wrote that C&D failed to argue the assessment rate change was a regulation since it did not identify “any control mechanism imposed on its vacation rentals as a result of the increased rate.”
“For the fire district’s assessment rate to act as a regulation, … it would have to do something to control property owner’s vacation rentals,” he wrote. “Permitting an increased rate to fund increased services benefitting an owner’s property, in proportion to that benefit, simply does not meet the definition of a ‘regulation.’”
Nicholas also wrote that he “would not find that the increased assessment was an action preempted to the state,” even if it could be viewed as a regulation.
“The court finds that the fire district’s rate increase of its assessment imposed on residential properties used as transient public lodging establishments, which includes vacation rentals, is not a regulation that is preempted to the state,” he wrote. “As there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, the fire district is entitled to final summary judgment in its favor.”
The May 29 final judgment states, “Plaintiff shall recover nothing from defendant in this action.”
C&D has until June 28 to appeal the final judgment.