Largo staff recommend registration, annual fees and stepped enforcement for short-term rentals

City staff recommended updating Largo’s short-term vacation rental (STVR) ordinance at a May 13 work session, proposing mandatory local registration, an annual certificate and regular inspections to address life-safety and code compliance gaps.

The presentation, led by community-standards staff with the fire department’s input, described the current reactive enforcement approach, the scope of activity revealed by third-party market data, and a draft fee structure staff said could fund dedicated inspection capacity. The library of data shown to commissioners indicated County and municipal approaches vary; Pinellas County’s recent rule uses a $450 annual certificate of use, while some municipalities prohibit vacation rentals if preexisting code allowed that restriction before 2011.

Why it matters: Staff told commissioners that many short-term rentals operating in Largo are not registered with local authorities. That gap limits the city’s ability to verify life-safety measures — including hardwired smoke alarms, exit capacity and emergency lighting — and to ensure building work has required permits. The proposal aims to bring more operators into the regulatory system and to provide a revenue-neutral enforcement program.

Key facts and numbers: Staff said the city currently has 233 active, locally registered short-term rentals on its books. By contrast, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) shows 844 Largo-address registrations statewide, and third-party listing services estimate between 1,500 and 2,000 listings in the city’s jurisdiction. Community Standards reported handling 414 code-enforcement cases relating to STVRs since the 2019 ordinance, of which 261 violations were found; 108 cases involved building work done without permit and 124 of the 414 cases were recorded as LLC ownership (about 30% of those cases). The fire division reported 440 initial high-hazard inspections and 144 reinspections since 2020, for a total of 584 inspections and 261 violations discovered.

Staff recommendations and proposed fee model: Staff outlined an ordinance update that would require DBPR registration, compliance with the Florida Building Code and Florida Fire Prevention Code and a local registration fee plus renewal. One staff example suggested a $300 annual registration fee plus a $100 fire inspection fee — a $400 total annual cost — and discussed alternative phasing and incentives (for example, a lower renewal fee for those already participating). Staff estimated that if the program produced 1,000 registrations at $300 each, the city would generate about $300,000 annually, which could cover one or more dedicated inspectors.

Enforcement approach and legal context: Staff described the current practice as reactive (responding to complaints), per an earlier commission direction. They said Pinellas County’s new certificate-of-use approach includes an annual charge ($450) and dedicated staff; the county also added a weekend rapid-response team for short-term rental complaints. Staff noted that state statute limits municipal authority to completely ban STVRs unless a local ordinance predating 2011 already prohibited them. Some municipalities (St. Petersburg, Clearwater and Belleair/Bel Air referenced at the meeting) have pre-2011 ordinances that allow broader limits.

Commissioner reaction and next steps: Commissioners generally supported stronger oversight but asked staff to show a phased approach and more outreach. Suggestions included grandfathering currently registered properties, a lower renewal fee, a public information meeting with owners and a staff-developed business model that projects revenues, inspector staffing needs and enforcement capacity. Commissioners also asked staff to analyze differential fee structures to treat corporate managers and single-family homeowners differently and to show potential impacts on solid-waste or other city services. Staff said they would research third-party listing services, craft a business plan and return with a draft ordinance and implementation scenarios.

Ending: The commission requested further analysis and community outreach before a formal ordinance is drafted. Staff said they would evaluate options for phased implementation, fee structure and enforcement resources and return with a recommendation and a proposed public outreach plan.