STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALLAPATTAH HOUSING PARTNERS, ) LLC; TOWER ROAD GARDENS LTD.; ) AND CITY RIVER APARTMENTS, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 11-3971RP

)

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE )

CORPORATION, )

)

Respondent. )

)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was scheduled in this case on September 8, 2011, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Errol H. Powell, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings. Subsequent to the scheduling of the hearing, the parties indicated that no final hearing was

necessary in that no genuine issue of material fact existed, and the hearing was canceled.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Douglas Paul Manson, Esquire

Manson Law Group, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637

For Respondent: Wellington H. Meffert, II, Esquire

Matthew M. Sirmans, Esquire

Florida Housing Finance Corporation

227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is whether Respondent's proposed amendment to the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), specifically paragraph 16 of the proposed 2012 QAP allowing Respondent to allocate certain tax credits by means of Request for Proposals (RFPs), adopted by and incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(94), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Amended Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity of Proposed Rule, Petitioners challenged the proposed amendment to the QAP, i.e., the proposed 2012 QAP, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(94), which adopts and incorporates by reference the 2012 QAP. Petitioners focus specifically on paragraph 16 of the proposed 2012 QAP, which allows for the allocation of certain tax credits by means of RFPs, adopted by and incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(94). The Amended Petition alleges that Respondent failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements, under section 120.52(8)(a); that Respondent exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, under section 120.52(8)(b); that the proposed rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific law implemented,

under section 120.52(8)(c); that the proposed rules are vague, fail to establish adequate standards for Respondent's decisions, or vest unbridled discretion in Respondent, under section 120.52(8)(d); and that the proposed rules are arbitrary or capricious, under section 120.52(8)(e).

Respondent filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss based on Petitioners' lack of standing, to which Petitioners filed a Memorandum in Opposition. A telephone hearing was held on the motion. The Amended Motion to Dismiss was denied.

Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Final Order asserting that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Subsequently, a pre-hearing conference was held during which, among other things, Petitioners indicated that they too would be filing a motion for summary final order and that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Among other things, the undersigned requested, during the pre-hearing conference, that the parties file agreed upon facts since no genuine issue of material fact existed. The parties indicated that a joint pre-hearing stipulation would be filed which would contain, among other things, agreed upon facts.

The parties filed a Joint Prehearing Stipulation. Among other things, the Joint Prehearing Stipulation stated that no genuine issue of material fact existed; that no final hearing was necessary; that Petitioners would file their motion for

summary final order no later than September 8, 2011; that the parties' respective proposed final order would be filed no later than September 19, 2011; and that each parties' proposed final order would be the response to each party's motion for summary final order. Additionally, the Joint Prehearing Stipulation included agreed upon facts.

On September 8, 2011, Petitioners filed their Motion for Summary Final Order. The final hearing was canceled.

On September 19, 2011, Respondent's Proposed Final Order was filed. Petitioners' Proposed Final Order was received electronically at approximately 5:04 p.m., after the close of business, on September 19, 2011. As a result, Petitioners' Proposed Final Order was filed on September 20, 2011.

Respondent did not object to Petitioners' Proposed Final Order; consequently, Petitioners' Proposed Final Order is accepted as filed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner Allapattah Housing Partners, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose address is 1172 South Dixie Highway, Suite 500 Coral Gables, Florida 33146.

   Petitioner Tower Road Gardens, Ltd., is a limited partnership whose address is 5709 NW 158 Street, Miami Lakes, Florida 33014. Petitioner City River Apartments, Ltd., is a limited partnership

   
   

   whose address is 1666 Kennedy Causeway, Ste. 505, North Bay Village, Florida 33141.

2. Respondent is a public corporation created by section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Respondent's statutory authority and mandates appear in Part V of chapter 420, Florida Statutes. See §§ 420.501 through 420.55, Fla. Stat. Respondent is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of nine individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Respondent's address is 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

3. In the July 1, 2011, Florida Administrative Weekly (FAW), Volume 37, No. 26, pages 1831 through 1872, Respondent gave notice of the proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-48 and to forms and instructions that make up the Universal Cycle Application Package, incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004(1)(a).

4. The July 1, 2011, Notice of Proposed Rule indicated that a public hearing would be held at Respondent's office in Tallahassee, Florida, on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. The Amended Petition was filed within ten days of the final public hearing and, thus, is timely pursuant to section 120.56(2), Florida Statutes.

   
   

5. Under federal law memorialized in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC or the Code), each state is given an amount of federal Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Credits (Housing Credits) based upon its population. In 2011, each state is entitled to $2.15 per capita of Housing Credits. Florida is entitled to receive approximately $40,422,817.00 in 2011 Housing Credits. These Housing Credits are then allocated to specific qualifying housing projects and can be utilized by project investors each year for a ten-year period. Accordingly, the 2011 Florida Housing Credits entitlement will represent a total value of $404,228,170.00 ($40,422,817.00 each year for ten years) in Housing Credits. Developers typically sell the tax credits to investors to generate equity investments in such projects. For example, an equity "price" of 90 cents for each dollar of the 2011 allocation of Housing Credits would generate approximately $360 million in investor equity for the statewide allocation.

6. More than seven million seven hundred thousand dollars ($7,700,000.00) of 2011 Housing Credits remain unallocated by Respondent.

7. The amount of Housing Credits available for 2012 will not be known until the Internal Revenue Service publishes its state population estimates in early 2012. As in 2011, the

   
   

   amount will be the product of Florida's population multiplied by

   
   

   $2.15.

   
   

8. Section 42 of the Code requires that each state designate a "housing credit agency" which is responsible for the proper allocation and distribution of Housing Credits in compliance with the criteria and guidelines of section 42. Respondent's rules incorporate section 42 of the Code at Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(71). Respondent is designated as Florida's housing credit agency by section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, and, as such, is responsible for the allocation and distribution of Housing Credits.

9. Respondent administers various federal and state affordable housing programs, including the Housing Credit Program, pursuant to section 420.5099 and chapter 67-48. Respondent's rulemaking authority to implement this process is set forth in section 420.507(12), Florida Statutes.

10. Under federal law, Respondent must distribute Low- Income Rental Housing Tax Credits to applicants pursuant to a specific QAP. IRC § 42(m)(l)(A)v. The QAP must contain certain criteria mandated by federal law, referred to as "Selection Criteria." IRC § 42(m)(l)(B). The Code further provides that a state's federal Housing Credit award will be deemed to be zero if its QAP fails to include a complete plan setting forth (a) selection criteria, (b) preferences for lowest income, longest

    
    

    terms and development in qualified census tracts, and (c) procedures for monitoring and reporting a project's non- compliance. IRC § 42(m)(l)(A).

11. Respondent's QAP must be approved by its Board of Directors and by the Governor and must be adopted as a rule. IRC § 42(m)(A)(i); § 120.56. Typically, each year, Respondent embarks on a public rule-making process to adopt the applicable rule and QAP which control the complex and critical processes for evaluation, review, notice, opportunity to be heard, and, ultimately, ranking and approval of developments to receive allocations of Housing Credits for that year.

12. Because the demand for allocation of Housing Credits exceeds that which is available under the Housing Credit Program, applicants of qualified affordable housing developments must compete for this funding. Applicants apply for funding, under various affordable housing programs, through Respondent's Universal Cycle application process, which is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.002 through -21.00351 and 67-48.001 through -48.005. Applicants for tax credits provide information as required by the forms and instructions of the Universal Cycle Application Package, which is adopted by and incorporated into rule 67-48.004(1)(a). To assess the relative merits of proposed developments, Respondent has established a

    
    

    competitive application process known as the Universal Cycle. Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 67-48.

13. Respondent scores and competitively ranks the applications to determine which applications will be allocated Housing Credits. Respondent's scoring and evaluation process for Housing Credit applications is set forth in rule 67-48.004. Under these rules, the applications are evaluated and scored based upon factors contained in the Universal Cycle Application Package and Respondent's adopted rules. Respondent then issues preliminary scores to all applicants. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 48.004(3).

14. Following release of the preliminary scores, competitors can alert Respondent of alleged scoring errors in other applications by filing a written Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE) within a specified time frame. Respondent reviews the NOPSE and notifies the affected applicant of its decision by issuing a NOPSE scoring summary. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.004(4).

15. Applicants then have an opportunity to submit "additional documentation, revised pages and such other information as the Applicant deems appropriate ('cures') to address the issues" raised by preliminary or NOPSE scoring. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-21.003 and 67-48.004(6). In other words, within parameters established by the rules, applicants may cure

    
    

    certain errors and omissions in their applications pointed out during preliminary scoring or raised by a competitor during the NOPSE process.

16. After affected applicants submit their "cure" documentation, competitors can file a Notice of Alleged Deficiency (NOAD) challenging the sufficiency of an applicant's cure. Respondent considers the challenged cure materials and reviews the NOADs, then issues final scores for all the applications. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.004(9).

17. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.005 establishes a procedure through which an applicant can challenge the final scoring of its application. The Notice of Rights that accompanies an applicant's final score advises an adversely affected applicant of its right to appeal Respondent's scoring decision in a proceeding conducted under chapter 120. Ultimately, Respondent ranks each application and allocates available Housing Credits based on such rankings.

18. The last time the QAP in the State of Florida was promulgated and adopted as a rule was in 2009, which allocated 2009 Housing Credits.

19. During 2010, there were no new amendments to Respondent's rules or the QAP. At the end of 2010, Respondent drafted a 2011 QAP, which was signed by the Governor, but never adopted as a rule. The draft 2011 QAP allocated Housing Credits

    
    

    in accordance with a Universal Application Cycle, but Respondent did not adopt the QAP as a rule pursuant to chapter 120.56. The 2011 Cycle did not take place.

20. On June 26, 2011, Respondent's Board authorized publication of proposed rule amendments to chapter 67-48. The proposed rule amendments adopt and incorporate the 2012 QAP by reference at proposed rule 67-48.002(94).

21. Proposed rule 67-48.002(94) provides:

    
    

    "QAP" or "Qualified Allocation Plan" means, with respect to the HC Program, the 2012 Qualified Allocation Plan which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference, effective upon approval by the Governor of the state of Florida, pursuant to Section 42(m)(1)(B) of the IRC and sets forth the selection criteria and the preferences of the Corporation for Developments which will receive Housing Credits. The QAP is available on the Corporation's Website under the 2011 Universal Application link labeled Related References and Links or by contacting the Housing Credit Program at 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329.

    
    

22. The 2012 QAP proposed rule purports to govern the process and allocation for both 2011 and 2012 Housing Credits.

23. The only mention in the 2012 QAP proposed rule of the allocation of 2011 Housing Credits is contained in Paragraph 16 of the 2012 QAP proposed rule, which states in its entirety: "Any available 2011 Housing Credit Allocation Authority may be awarded by the FHFC [Respondent's] Board by means of Request for

    
    

    Proposals based on criteria approved by the FHFC [Respondent's] Board."

24. Petitioners challenge proposed rule 67-48.002(94) (which incorporates by reference the 2012 QAP proposed rule) and those portions of the 2012 QAP proposed rule which purport to govern the allocation of 2011 Housing Credits.

25. It is undisputed that Petitioners have standing to initiate and participate in this rule challenge proceeding.

    § 120.56(1)(a).

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

26. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of these proceedings and the parties thereto pursuant to sections 120.56(l) and (2), 120.569, and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

27. Section 120.56 provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. General procedures for challenging the validity of a rule or a proposed rule.

       
       

       1. Any person substantially affected by a

          . . . proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

          
          

       2. The petition seeking an administrative determination must state with particularity the provisions alleged to be invalid with sufficient explanation of the facts or grounds for the alleged invalidity and facts sufficient to show . . . that the person

          
          

          challenging a proposed rule would be substantially affected by it.

          
          

       3. . . . The failure of an agency to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in this chapter shall be presumed to be material; however, the agency may rebut this presumption by showing that the substantial interests of the petitioner and the fairness of the proceedings have not been impaired.

       
       

       * * *

       
       

       (e) Hearings held under this section shall be de novo in nature. The standard of proof shall be the preponderance of the evidence. Hearings shall be conducted in the same manner as provided by ss. 120.569 and 120.57, except that the administrative law judge's order shall be final agency

       action. . . .

       
       

    2. Challenging proposed rules; special provisions.

       
       

       1. A substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of a proposed rule by filing a petition seeking such a determination with the division . . . The petition must state with particularity the objections to the proposed rule and the reasons that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The petitioner has the burden of going forward. The agency then has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as to the objections raised. . . .

          
          

       2. The administrative law judge may declare the proposed rule wholly or partly invalid. . . In the event part of a proposed rule is declared invalid, the adopting

          
          

          agency may, in its sole discretion, withdraw the proposed rule in its entirety. . . .

          
          

       3. When any substantially affected person seeks determination of the invalidity of a proposed rule pursuant to this section, the proposed rule is not presumed to be valid or invalid.

          
          

28. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence. § 120.56(1)(e) and (2)(a).

29. Section 120.52 provides in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" means action that goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed . . . rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one of the following applies:

       
       

       1. The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in this chapter;

          
          

       2. The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

          
          

       3. The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

          
          

       4. The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency;

          
          

       5. The rule is arbitrary or capricious. A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is capricious if it is adopted without thought or reason or is irrational; or

          
          

       6. The rule imposes regulatory costs on the regulated person, county, or city which could be reduced by the adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially accomplish the statutory objectives.

    
    

    A grant of rulemaking authority is necessary but not sufficient to allow an agency to adopt a rule; a specific law to be implemented is also required. An agency may adopt only rules that implement or interpret the specific powers and duties granted by the enabling statute. No agency shall have authority to adopt a rule only because it is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and capricious or is within the agency's class of powers and duties, nor shall an agency have the authority to implement statutory provisions setting forth general legislative intent or policy. Statutory language granting rulemaking authority or generally describing the powers and functions of an agency shall be construed to extend no further than implementing or interpreting the specific powers and duties conferred by the enabling statute.

    (emphasis added)

    
    

30. Section 420.507, titled "Powers of the corporation", provides in pertinent part:

    The corporation [Respondent] shall have all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this part, including the following powers which are in addition to all other powers granted by other provisions of this part:

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (12) To make rules necessary to carry out the purposes of this part and to exercise any power granted in this part pursuant to the provisions of chapter 120.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (24) To do any and all things necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of, and exercise the powers given and granted in, this part.

    
    

    * * *

    
    

    (33) To receive federal funding in connection with the corporation's programs directly from the Federal Government and to receive federal funds for which no corresponding program has been created in statute and establish selection criteria for such funds by request for proposals or other competitive solicitation.

    
    

31. Respondent does not assert that it is exempt from the rulemaking requirements of chapter 120; but, agrees that it is subject to the rulemaking requirements.

32. Proposed chapter 67-48 cites section 420.507 as Respondent's rulemaking authority, which conveys upon Respondent "all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions" of chapter 420. No dispute exists that Respondent derives its rulemaking authority from section 420.507(12), which grants Respondent the power to "make rules necessary to carry out the purposes" of chapter 420 and to "exercise any power granted" in chapter 420 "pursuant to the provisions of chapter 120.

33. Proposed chapter 67-48 cites three statutory provisions as the law being implemented: sections 420.5087,

    
    

    420.5089, and 420.5099. Proposed rule 67-48.002 cites two statutory provisions as the law being implemented: sections 420.5087 and 420.5089(2). Material hereto is section 420.5099, which provides in pertinent part:

    1. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation [Respondent] is designated the housing credit agency for the state within the meaning of s. 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and shall have the responsibility and authority to establish procedures necessary for proper allocation and distribution of low-income housing tax credits and shall exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of such credits.

       
       

    2. The corporation [Respondent] shall adopt allocation procedures that will ensure the maximum use of available tax credits in order to encourage development of low-income housing in the state, taking into consideration the timeliness of the application, the location of the proposed housing project, the relative need in the area for low-income housing and the availability of such housing, the economic feasibility of the project, and the ability of the applicant to proceed to completion of the project in the calendar year for which the credit is sought.

       
       

    3. The corporation [Respondent] may request such information from applicants as will enable it to make the allocations according to the guidelines set forth in subsection (2), including, but not limited to, the information required to be provided the corporation [Respondent] by chapter 67, Florida Administrative Code.

       
       

34. No dispute exists that a specific QAP is required to govern the process and allocation of Housing Credits and that

    
    

    the QAP is required to contain the selection criteria mandated by federal law. IRC § 42(m)(1).

35. No 2011 QAP was adopted as a rule even though a 2011 QAP was drafted and signed by the Governor of Florida.

36. The 2012 QAP proposed rule sets forth the specific criteria of the QAP "as mandated by Congress and addressed at Section 42(m)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), as amended," to be applied for the allocation of 2012 Housing Credits. Further, the 2012 QAP proposed rule, in paragraph 16, purports to govern the allocation of any available 2011 Housing Credits by permitting Respondent to allocate 2011 Housing Credits by RFPs based on criteria approved by the Respondent, without specifying the criteria.

37. Petitioners contend that, for the allocation of any remaining 2011 Housing Credits, Respondent must, in the 2012 QAP proposed rule, set forth the specific criteria of the QAP as mandated by Congress and addressed at section 42(m)(1)(B) of the IRC, as amended. Respondent contends that it is not necessary to, again, set forth such specific criteria. In essence, Respondent contends that it is understood that such specific criteria are required to be met and it is, therefore, unnecessary to outline the specific terms.

38. However, without setting forth such specific criteria required by IRC section 42(m)(1), as amended, it is not clear

    
    

    that the specific criteria are required to be adhered to in Respondent's allocation of any available 2011 Housing Credits. As worded, the 2012 QAP proposed rule leaves the criteria for the allocation of any available 2011 Housing Credits to the discretion of Respondent, which may or may not include the federally mandated specific criteria.

39. Proposed rule 2012 QAP in paragraph 16 fails to indentify and include the selection criteria required in IRC section 42(m)(1) for the allocation of the remaining 2011 Housing Credits. See IRC § 42(m)(1)(B) and (C).

40. Furthermore, proposed rule 67-48.002(94) fails to include the selection criteria required in IRC section 42(m)(1) for the allocation of any remaining 2011 Housing Credits. Id.

41. An inconsistency exists between the language in section 420.5099 and proposed rule 2012 QAP, Paragraph 16, and proposed rule 67-48.002(94). Consequently, proposed rule 2012 QAP, paragraph 16, and proposed rule 67-48.002(94), adopting and incorporating by reference proposed rule 2012 QAP, enlarge, modify, and contravene section 420.5099. See Fla. Elec. Comm's v. Blair, 52 So. 3d 9, 14, 15 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

42. Furthermore, proposed rule 2012 QAP, paragraph 16, and proposed rule 67-48.002(94), adopting and incorporating by reference proposed rule 2012 QAP, exceed Respondent's rulemaking

    
    

    authority regarding the allocation of any remaining 2011 Housing Credits. See id. at 11-14.

43. Noteworthy is that the value of Housing Credits will be deemed zero unless they are allocated in accordance with a valid QAP which sets forth selection criteria to be used to determine housing priorities. IRC § 42(m)(1)(A).

44. Additionally, Petitioners contend that section 420.5099 does not authorize the allocation of Housing Credits through a RFP process. Respondent contends that a RFP process is an allocation procedure and is, therefore, authorized by section 420.5099.

45. Respondent's position might be persuasive as an additional allocation procedure but for two factors. One, the absence of the required specific criteria by IRC section 42(m)(1) discussed above. And, two, section 420.507(33) specifically provides for Respondent's establishment of selection criteria by RFPs or other competitive solicitation for specific federal funding, which does not include Housing Credits.

46. Consequently, proposed rule 2012 QAP, paragraph 16, and proposed rule 67-48.002(94), adopting and incorporating by reference proposed rule 2012 QAP, enlarge, modify, and contravene section 420.5099. See id. at 9, 14, 15.

    
    

47. And, further, proposed rule 2012 QAP, paragraph 16, and proposed rule 67-48.002(94), adopting and incorporating by reference proposed rule 2012 QAP, exceed Respondent's rulemaking authority regarding the allocation of any remaining 2011 Housing Credits. See id. at 11-14.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that proposed rule 2012 QAP, paragraph 16, and proposed rule 67-48.002(94), adopting and incorporating by reference proposed rule 2012 QAP, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the Florida Housing Finance Corporation has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority and because the proposed rules enlarge, modify, and contravene the law implemented.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

ERROL H. POWELL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 10th day of October, 2011.

ENDNOTE

1/ Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-21 governs the Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond (MMRB) program, which is not at issue in this proceeding.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Wellington Meffort, II, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation

227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329

Matthew M. Sirmans, Esquire

Florida Housing Finance Corporation

227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329

Della Harrell, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation

227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329

Douglas Paul Manson, Esquire Manson Law Group, P.A.

1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637

Liz Cloud, Program Administrator Administrative Code

Department of State

R. A. Gray Building, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Jesslyn Krouskroup, Acting Coordinator Joint Administrative Procedures Committee Room 680, Pepper Building

111 West Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Administrative Appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the party resides. The Notice of Administrative Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.

Docket for Case No: 11-003971RP

Orders for Case No: 11-003971RP