A Florida property owner has filed suit against the Pinellas Suncoast Fire & Rescue District challenging a new assessment methodology that nearly tripled the fire district assessment on his residence.

Vadim S. Carter filed the verified complaint yesterday in Pinellas County Circuit Court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the district. Carter represents himself in the suit.

According to the complaint, the district reclassified approximately 1,857 residentially zoned dwellings as “Commercial Units” for purposes of its Fiscal Year 2026-2027 non-ad valorem fire assessment. Carter claims the district made the change without voter approval, without a supporting study or cost analysis, and without adequately disclosing how the new assessments were calculated.

Carter owns a residence in Belleair Beach that was assessed $360 for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. Under the new classification, the assessment increased to $1,066, a 196% increase.

The district’s assessment schedule establishes a $360 rate for single-family homes, apartments and condominiums, as well as timeshares. Motel rental units and mobile home or recreational vehicle rental spaces are assessed at $265. Commercial units are assessed $386 for the first 500 square feet, plus $0.20 per square foot above 500 square feet, with an additional $385 assessment for commercial units with kitchens.

On January 20, 2026, the Board of Fire Commissioners adopted Resolution 2026-01 directing that residential properties operated as transient public lodging establishments be assessed using the Commercial Units methodology. The resolution stated that such properties receive a special benefit from district services similar to commercially zoned properties and that applying the commercial rate “fairly apportions the District’s assessments amongst all benefiting properties.”

Carter alleges there was no analysis supporting that determination when the resolution was adopted. According to the complaint, the meeting agenda packet contained the resolution but no study, cost analysis, parcel count, revenue estimate, fiscal impact statement, staffing analysis or legal authority analysis. The district reportedly did not retain a consultant or commission a study.

The complaint alleges that in response to Carter’s subsequent public records requests, the district acknowledged that no written analysis of its statutory or charter authority existed, nor did it have a study concerning the impact of short-term rentals on service demand or costs or records explaining the relative assessment rates.

The district subsequently produced two memoranda authored by Fire Chief Kenneth Grimes, dated August 11 and August 13, 2026. Carter alleges both were created approximately seven months after Resolution 2026-01 was adopted. The August 11 memorandum referenced a staffing model intended to quantify annual inspector-hour demand, but according to the complaint, the spreadsheet produced by the district was an unpopulated template containing zeros and a “#DIV/0!” error. The district reportedly confirmed that it did not possess a populated version.

Carter also challenges the notice he received concerning his assessment. The notice classified his property as a Commercial Unit containing 1,975 square feet and listed an assessment of $1,066. Carter contends that amount cannot be calculated from the square footage alone. The assessment consisted of a $386 commercial base rate, $295 for the additional 1,475 square feet, and a $385 “With Kitchen” charge. According to the complaint, the notice did not disclose the kitchen component, which accounted for 36.1 percent of the total assessment.

A central issue in Carter’s suit is a provision in the district’s charter requiring voter approval when the Board changes assessment rates. The charter states:

• At any time the board of commissioners changes the rate of assessments in any way from the rate of assessments which had been collected prior to the date of such resolution, such resolution together with a list of the assessments shall be submitted to the electors in the district for approval by referendum…

Carter contends that because the assessment on his property increased from $360 to $1,066, the change required approval by referendum. Neither Resolution 2026-01 nor Resolution 2026-04 was submitted to the voters. The district’s position, as described in the complaint, is that it did not change the assessment rate because the Commercial Units rate schedule itself remained unchanged.

Carter also challenges the manner in which properties were identified for reclassification. Florida law defines a transient public lodging establishment in part by the frequency and duration of rentals. Carter alleges the district relied substantially on compliance-monitoring software that detected listings on short-term rental platforms but did not determine the duration for which the properties were offered or actually rented. He contends the methodology therefore could not reliably distinguish transient lodging establishments from properties that did not meet the statutory definition.

The complaint contains seven counts seeking declaratory relief. Carter claims the assessment is void because the district failed to obtain referendum approval; constitutes an unauthorized tax because it is not fairly apportioned; was imposed following legally deficient notice; exceeds the proportional benefits attributable to his property compared with other properties; was arbitrary and unsupported by competent substantial evidence; resulted from a classification methodology incapable of applying the statutory definition of transient lodging; and violated procedural due process.

An eighth count seeks injunctive relief. Carter asks the court to prevent the district from assessing his property above the $360 Single Family Residential rate, require correction of the assessment roll, and order a refund with interest of any amount collected above the lawful assessment.