The Issue Whether Respondent, Seven Lakes Association, Inc. (the Association), violated section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018),1 by discriminating against 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory and administrative rule references are to the 2018 codifications of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner, Donald Chew, based on his race (African American) when it terminated his employment; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Donald Chew, is an African American male who was employed by the Association from January 23, 2017, to September 19, 2018. During the time he was there, Mr. Chew was one of the Association's few non-white employees. Respondent, the Association, is a condominium association governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes. According to Mr. Chew, a majority, if not all, of the condominium owners are white. The Association has approximately 50 employees. The Association is governed by a Board of Directors (Board), made up of five to seven members. All the Board members who testified at the hearing were white. The Board hires a General Manager, who oversees the day-to-day operations of the Association. This includes oversight over the condominium grounds, recreation, and financial aspects of the Association. The General Manager had check-writing authority for the Association. For the times relevant to Petitioner's claims, Timothy Day served as the General Manager.2 Prior to being hired Mr. Day was involved in an investigation related to his employment with a local government entity. 2 Mr. Chew was hired by the Association's General Manager Judy Grosvenor, but Mr. Day became General Manager in August 2017. Neither the reason for the investigation nor the outcome of that investigation was clear from the evidence. Regardless, Mr. Day was given the opportunity to explain the circumstances related to the investigation to the Board prior to being hired. Relevant to this case, the General Manager oversaw the Accounting Manager, who managed a staff of accountants. June Gibbs served as the Accounting Manager who oversaw Mr. Chew from the date of his hire to May 2018, while he was in the staff accountant role. MR. CHEW'S JOB HISTORY AND DUTIES The Association originally hired Mr. Chew for the position of staff accountant. The hiring process consisted of review of Mr. Chew's resume, an interview, and then a criminal background and reference check. The Association did not check Mr. Chew's litigation history at the time it hired him. In September 2017, Ms. Gibbs gave Mr. Chew a mixed written performance review. Although he was "Above Average" in initiative and working relationships, Ms. Gibbs indicated he was "Below Average" in his basic accounting skills and his tardiness. In her comments, she noted: Don, I really dislike writing a negative evaluation. But, your accounting skills really concern me. This is why I hired you and the core of your position. It's been great that you have done well with the insurance and working with Brown & Brown. Even though we have struggled with the accounting parts of the insurance UMS you have done well assisting everyone setting [ ] this software up. And I believe you are above average in computer technology. But, once again accounting is the core. At this point because I really need someone strong in accounting behind me. I am going to have you stay with what you are good at – working on the insurance and UMS. And I will appoint you some basic accounting jobs. Also work on any tardiness issues. In March 2018, the Association requested that Mr. Chew obtain a Community Association Manager License (CAM License) from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Mr. Chew submitted an online application in which he was required to answer a number of questions, including the following: 2. Are you or have you ever been a defendant in civil litigation in this or any other state … in which the basis of the complaint against you was alleged negligence, fraudulent or dishonest dealing, foreclosure, bankruptcy, or breach of fiduciary duty related to the practice or profession for which you are applying, or is there any such case or investigation pending. Mr. Chew answered "No" to this question. On May 2, 2018, the Association promoted Mr. Chew to the Administrative Services Manager (ASM) position, which reported directly to the General Manager, Timothy Day. Along with this promotion, Mr. Chew received a salary increase. In the ASM position, Mr. Chew handled a variety of issues and considered himself the General Manager's "right hand man." Mr. Chew did very well in this position and was well liked by the Board, Mr. Day, and the Association staff. In August 2018, Mr. Day announced that he would be resigning from the Association and recommended Mr. Chew for General Manager position. On August 30, 2018, the Board voted unanimously to appoint Mr. Chew as the Interim General Manager. The credible testimony at the hearing established that at this point the Board believed a final decision would be made for the permanent General Manager position after more extensive background checks were conducted on Mr. Chew. Meanwhile, Mr. Chew would serve in an interim capacity. Later on August 30, Mr. Day informed Mr. Chew that he had received information that there was judgment for embezzlement against Mr. Chew in an action brought by the Attorney General for the State of Illinois. Mr. Chew explained that the suit was not against him personally, but against a corporation. On September 4, 2018, Mr. Day informed Mr. Chew that he was being placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation into the Illinois litigation. On September 19, 2018, the Association's attorney sent Mr. Chew a letter of termination. DISCRIMINATORY ACTS Mr. Chew testified that his accounting co-workers made racial comments that made him feel uncomfortable while he was working as a staff accountant. As described by Mr. Chew, these remarks were made while he was working under Ms. Gibbs, prior to May 2018. Mr. Chew's co-worker, Joan Farus, confirmed that Ms. Gibbs (Ms. Farus's and Mr. Chew's supervisor) and other employees talked about "black people" in a derogatory way around Mr. Chew.3 The undersigned finds that Petitioner established that he was subject to discriminatory comments by staff prior to Mr. Chew becoming an ASM. Mr. Chew also asserts that he was treated less favorably by the Board than the white employees. Mr. Chew presented little, if any, evidence of how he was treated less favorably by the Board. To the contrary, based on the testimony at the hearing by the Board members and staff, it was clear that Mr. Chew was well liked; the Board promoted him and provided him with bonuses and pay raises. The fact that the Board unanimously approved him for the Interim General Manager position on August 30, 2018, leads to the conclusion that the Board did not have any racial animus toward Mr. Chew. Although the Association has an Equal Opportunity Employer and Non-Harassment Policy, there is nothing in its Employee Handbook 3 Ms. Farus was terminated by the Association in August 2018. specifically prohibiting discriminatory conduct based on race. The Handbook indicates employees "deserve to be treated with respect and courtesy." It also states it is company policy that the "workplace be free of tensions involving matters which do not relate to our business" such as "ethnic, religious, or sexual remarks," but stops short of explicitly prohibiting racism or racist comments. The Handbook does urge an employee who feels harassed to notify a supervisor or the Human Resources department. It also provides that any grievances regarding the job, working conditions, or problems with another employee be submitted to the employee's immediate supervisor in writing. There is no credible evidence Mr. Chew ever submitted a written complaint to his supervisor, Human Resources, or anyone else at the Association regarding the racist comments. MR. CHEW'S BACKGROUND HISTORY After the Board appointed Mr. Chew as the Interim General Manager, Kathy Miske, a white female who lived in an Association condominium, researched Mr. Chew's background.4 Ms. Miske previously performed background checks for a law firm in Chicago before she moved to a condominium in the Association. She researched Mr. Chew because she had a "habit of checking on people," and she had been approached by a condominium resident, Debbie Combs, also a white female, who was suspicious of Mr. Chew. The reason for Ms. Combs's suspicion was not disclosed at the hearing. Ms. Miske discovered that the Attorney General of Illinois had filed a "Verified Complaint for an Injunction, an Accounting, Surcharge, and Other Equitable Relief" (Complaint) against Mr. Chew personally in May 2013. The Complaint essentially described an embezzlement scheme, and specifically accused Mr. Chew of abusing a position of trust while employed at Marcy- 4 Although she later became a Board member, at the time she researched Mr. Chew she was not. Newbury Association, Inc. (MNA). It alleged Mr. Chew had misappropriated funds, in violation of the Illinois Charitable Trust Act. Although not a criminal prosecution, the Illinois Attorney General sought injunctive relief, civil damages, punitive damages, and civil penalties against Mr. Chew. Ms. Miske also discovered an Order of Final Judgment (Final Judgment) had been entered against Mr. Chew in the Illinois case on September 9, 2013. The Final Judgement seems to be a default judgment. As a result, Mr. Chew was enjoined from serving as a charitable trustee, was ordered to pay $205,372 in damages, and was also required to pay interest and investigative costs. Although Mr. Chew had a plausible explanation as to the circumstances surrounding the Illinois case, there was no evidence that the Final Judgment had been appealed, withdrawn, reversed, or nullified in any way. Mr. Chew admitted he did not notify the Association of the Final Judgment and that he did not list MNA on the resume he provided to the Association. Ms. Miske made copies of the Complaint and Final Judgment against Mr. Chew. She distributed the copies to three of the Board members that she knew personally. Eventually, copies were provided to the President of the Board, Mr. Day, and the Board's attorney. The Association was required by law to maintain a bond to cover its employees, including the General Manager.5 The Board members testified they were concerned that the Final Judgment would affect the Association's ability to obtain the proper bond if Mr. Chew became General Manager. The Board members relied on the Association's attorney's advice regarding the Association's ability to obtain a bond and the attorney's recommendation to terminate Petitioner based on the Complaint and Final Judgment. Mr. Chew claims that he was discriminated against because he was not given an opportunity to explain the Final Judgement or underlying facts to the Board. In comparison, he claims Mr. Day was given an opportunity to explain a criminal investigation against him and was hired despite the investigation. Mr. Day had previously been involved in the local government, but the nature of the investigation or the outcome of that investigation was not established at the hearing. Mr. Chew had a Final Judgment against him by the Illinois Attorney General for what essentially amounted to embezzlement. In contrast, Mr. Day was only under investigation; there was no evidence he was found guilty of anything. Moreover, Mr. Chew failed to disclose a former employer, MNA. There is no proof that Mr. Day tried to hide that he had been under investigation or that he hid his employment by a previous employer. 5 Section 718.111(11)(h), Florida Statues, states: (11) INSURANCE. * * * (h) The association shall maintain insurance or fidelity bonding of all persons who control or disburse funds of the association. The insurance policy or fidelity bond must cover the maximum funds that will be in the custody of the association or its management agent at any one time. As used in this paragraph, the term "persons who control or disburse funds of the association" includes, but is not limited to, those individuals authorized to sign checks on behalf of the association, and the president, secretary, and treasurer of the association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Donald Chew's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2020. Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Donald Chew 1262 Northeast 41st Terrace Avenue Cape Coral, Florida 33909 (eServed) Christina Harris Schwinn, Esquire Pavese Law Firm 1833 Hendry Street Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Vanessa Fernandez, Esquire Pavese Law Firm 1833 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, the relief that should be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times, Petitioners resided in an apartment in Eastwind Apartments, a HUD multifamily development in Marathon, Florida. MHA manages Eastwind Apartments. Monroe County Housing Corporation has an ownership interest in Eastwind Apartments. Ms. Vogt is the housing manager of Eastwind Apartments. Mr. Castillo is the executive director of MHA. The lease between Petitioners and MHA contains the following provision: "The Tenant agrees to permit the Landlord, his/her agents or other persons, when authorized by the Landlord, to enter the unit for the purposes of making reasonable repairs and authorized inspections." On September 18 and October 14, 2009, Ms. Vogt provided notices to all residents of Eastwind Apartments of upcoming inspections. The notices contained the following: ". . . there is still not a pet policy. If you have a pet, make sure it is confined and not loose anywhere in the apartment. The inspector can walk into any room and look around and your pet cannot be loose or locked in a room." On December 2, 2009, a maintenance man reported to Ms. Vogt that he was hesitant to enter the Petitioners' apartment because of the presence of a pit bull dog in the apartment. On December 2, 2009, Ms. Vogt hand-delivered an NOLV to Petitioner Alberto Pis based on the presence of the dog in the apartment. The NOLV instructed Petitioners to remove the dog from the apartment by December 5, 2009. The NOLV was written in English. There was not a Spanish translation of the NOLV. Ms. Vogt is fluent in English, but she is not fluent in Spanish. Mr. Pis could not read the NOLV in English. Mr. Pis became upset when Ms. Vogt asked him to sign that he had received the NOLV. Petitioners allege that Ms. Vogt's demand that Mr. Pis sign for the receipt of the NOLV constituted an act of discrimination. Petitioners have an adult son and an adult daughter who are fluent in Spanish and English. The adult daughter translated the NOLV to her parents on December 2, 2009, after Ms. Vogt had returned to her office. On December 14, 2009, Ms. Vogt hand-delivered a second NOLV to Petitioner Alberto Pis. This NOLV advised that keeping the dog in the apartment was a lease violation. The second NOLV was written in English. There was not a Spanish translation of the second NOLV. At all times relevant, MHA had an employee in the office at Eastwind Apartments who was fluent in Spanish and English. Elio Pis is a student at a school in Miami, but lives in the apartment leased by his parents from time to time. The dog in the apartment belongs to Elio Pis. Elio Pis, acting on behalf of himself and his parents, complained to Mr. Castillo about the NOLVs. At first, Mr. Castillo refused to discuss the matter with Elio Pis because Mr. Castillo thought that Elio Pis resided in Miami, not in the subject apartment. Mr. Castillo discussed the matter with Elio Pis after he learned that Elio Pis resided in the apartment from time to time. Petitioners allege that Mr. Castillo's refusal to promptly investigate their complaints constituted an act of discrimination. On February 8, 2010, Mr. Castillo wrote the following letter to Petitioner Alberto Pis: Following a phone conversation with your son regarding a Lease Violation issued on December 2, 2009, I conducted a review of the incident and actions taken by the Eastwind staff. The review indicates that on December 2nd, maintenance staff attempted to respond to a request for maintenance in your unit (work order) and was scared off by the presence of a dog in the unit. Based on this information, the Housing Manager issued you a lease violation. Additionally, on December 14, 2009, numerous tenants received what was intended to be a courtesy notice but was titled "Lease Violation", one of which you received. This second notice was rescinded on December 17, 2009. With regard to the initial lease violation issued, the Housing Manager perhaps over- reacted out of concern for the safety and well-being of the employee and others. The employee, while relaying the incident to a fellow employee, was noticeably shaken. I have asked the Housing Manager to also rescind the December 2nd Lease Violation. Staff is currently finalizing a revised Pet Policy that will allow for pets at Eastwind Apartments with restrictions and limitations. Residents will be notified of this change as the process is completed. On behalf of the Housing Authority, I apologize for any inconvenience to you and your family. The two NOLVs were rescinded before Petitioners filed their initial Complaint of Discrimination with HUD on March 19, 2010. Petitioners have been allowed to keep the dog in their apartment. Petitioners complained that certain repairs have not been made to their apartment. There was no evidence that similar repairs had been made to apartments rented by non- Hispanic tenants. There was no evidence that the terms and conditions of Petitioners' tenancy at Eastwind Apartments were different from the terms and conditions of any other tenant.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioners' Amended Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of Februray, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Franklin D. Greenman, Esquire Greenman and Manz 5800 Overseas Highway, Gulfside Village, Suite 40 Marathon, Florida 33050 Alberto Pis and Maria Soto 240 Sombrero Beach Road, Apartment A-4 Marathon, Florida 33050
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioners by evicting them from their apartment as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Elizabeth Anne Skelton was the owner of a group of apartments in West Palm Beach, Florida, known as Bermuda Village In March and April 1994, Geoffrey K. Adams was a tenant of Bermuda Village on a month-to-month basis. The rent for one person living alone in one of the Bermuda Village apartments was $475.00 per month, while the rent for two people was $500.00 per month. These rents were consistently applied. Mr. Adams testified at the formal hearing that he was aware of the different rates, depending on whether there was one or two people living in the apartment.1 In March 1994, Mr. Adams planted a banana tree in the vicinity of the front door of his apartment. Because there was insufficient space for the banana tree, Ms. Skelton told Mr. Adams to remove it, which she had the right to do. Instead of removing the banana tree, Mr. Adams camouflaged the growing tree to make it appear to be a potted plant. When Ms. Skelton instructed her handyman to move what was thought to be a potted plant, it was discovered that the tree was still growing in the ground. Ms. Skelton then had the banana tree uprooted. Mr. Adams got into a verbal confrontation with Ms. Skelton over this matter and loudly cursed her in profane terms. He later made threatening statements and gestures to her. Ms. Skelton consulted her lawyers, who began the process to evict Mr. Adams. During this same period of time, Lillamae Adams (known then as Lillamae Jordan) moved in with Mr. Adams. Mrs. Adams is black. Mr. Adams and Ms. Skelton are white. When Mr. Adams informed the management of Bermuda Village that Mrs. Adams would be moving in to his apartment, he was informed that his rent would be increased by $25.00 per month. This increase was unrelated to the race of Mrs. Adams. In early April, 1994, approximately two weeks after Mrs. Adams moved in with Mr. Adams, Mr. Adams was served with eviction papers. Petitioners were subsequently evicted from their apartment. The eviction of Petitioners was based on the behavior of Mr. Adams. The eviction was not based on the race of Mrs. Adams.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition For Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1997
The Issue The issue to be resolved concerns whether the Petitioner was the victim of a discriminatory housing practice, by allegedly being denied the opportunity to rent an apartment from the Respondents, and by being falsely informed of its non- availability, based upon her race.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an African-American female. In early January 2007, she learned of an apartment for rent, owned or managed by the Respondents. She called to inquire about the apartment and was told by the Respondent, Ms. Lindsay, that the rent would be $625.00 per month, with a one-month rent amount and security deposit due in advance. She was told that the Lessee of a neighboring apartment, Clint Cook, would have a key and would show her the apartment. She went to view the apartment, and decided that she wished to rent it. She then telephoned Ms. Lindsay, and Ms. Lindsey faxed an application to her to complete. In the conversation, she told Ms. Lindsay she would not have the required deposit money until Friday. This was on a Monday or Tuesday. Ms. Lindsay then told her securing the apartment was on a “first come-first-served” basis. The Petitioner never completed the application and never tendered the security deposit. Shortly after that telephone conversation, Ms. Lindsay was contacted by Stacey Edwards, while the apartment was still available for rent, concerning rental. Ms. Edwards, on behalf of herself and her boyfriend/husband, submitted an application to rent the apartment, together with the appropriate required deposit and rental amount on January 15, 2007. Ms. Lindsay leased the apartment to the couple. They had a planned move-in date of February 1, 2007. They are a mixed-race couple, and Ms. Lindsay was aware of that fact when renting to them. Sometime after January 15, 2007, the Petitioner called Ms. Lindsay a second time, and was told that the apartment had been rented (to the Edwards couple) and was no longer available. Testimony to this effect is corroborated by the Edwards rental application and deposit receipt, which are in evidence. The Edwards rental was documented on January 15, 2007. Later that month, the Petitioner noticed the “for rent" sign displayed, or displayed again, and she and/or her witness, Lynn Kliesch, called about the apartment’s availability. Ms. Lindsay again stated that it was rented. Indeed, it was, to the Edwards. The rental sign had been left up because the Edwards couple were not scheduled to move in until February 1, 2007. This communication between the parties occurred before Ms. Edwards informed Ms. Lindsay that they would not be moving in. Shortly before February 1,2007. Ms Edwards and her husband/boyfriend learned that his employment had ended (or he was transferred to another job location). They therefore informed Ms. Lindsay that they had to re-locate to South Florida and could not take the apartment. She charged them for the two weeks of rental, and refunded their deposit. She then placed the apartment back on the rental market. On January 31, 2007, Ms. Mari Ferguson inquired of Ms. Lindsay about the apartment’s availability. This was after Ms. Edwards had informed Ms. Lindsay that she would not be renting the apartment. Ms. Lindsay told Ms. Ferguson that the property was available and she rented it to Ms. Ferguson that same day. Ms. Ferguson and her boyfriend, who occupied the apartment with her, were also a mixed-race couple, with children. In fact, the boyfriend is the nephew of the Petitioner herein. Ms. Ferguson and family moved into the apartment. Some months later a hostile situation arose between the Respondents and Ms. Ferguson. Ms. Lindsay apparently received reports that “drug dealing” was occurring in the apartment. Ms. Ferguson and/or the other occupants were responsible for some damage, and Ms. Ferguson became several months behind on rental payments. The Respondents therefore, through legal process, had her evicted. The Respondent, Ms. Lindsay, through her firm, Elite Properties of Northwest Florida, Inc., manages some 37 rental properties in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. She is the president and broker for the firm and has no employees or agents. Among the rental property owners she and her firm represent is her Co-Respondent, Michael Houser. Both Ms. Lindsay and Elite Properties, as well as Mr. Houser, have a significant number of minority tenants, both Hispanic and African-American. A substantial number of those, both historically, and at the time of the hearing are single, African-American females, as heads of households. There is no evidence, aside from the Petitioner’s unsubstantiated opinion, that either the Respondent has ever refused to rent to the Petitioner or anyone else, based upon race, nor that they have falsely denied availability of a dwelling for rent or sale for that reason. There is no evidence that they have refused or attempted to avoid holding out a property for rent or sale for reasons based on racial animus.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, determining that the Respondents did not commit a discriminatory housing practice based upon the Petitioner's race and that the Petition be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 16th day of April, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Sylvia Mims 3382 Greenbriar Circle, Apt. B Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Beverly Lindsay 5252 Springdale Drive Milton, Florida 32570 Michael Houser 3533 Edinburgh Drive Pace, Florida 32571 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the actions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2016-110, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the “RFA”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the issue is whether Florida Housing acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications in finding that the applications of Petitioners JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership (“JPM Outlook”) and Grande Park Limited Partnership (“Grande Park”) were ineligible for funding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: JPM Outlook is a Florida limited partnership based in Jacksonville, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Grande Park is a Florida limited partnership based in Jacksonville, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Hammock Ridge is a Florida limited liability company based in Coconut Grove, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. For the purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects that qualify. The credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect of this sale is to reduce the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Housing tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150, while a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate housing tax credits and other funding by means of a request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its housing tax credits, which are made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants will normally sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount which can be received depends upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated area of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications. A Request for Applications is equivalent to a “request for proposal,” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). The RFA in this case was issued on October 7, 2016. A modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 2, 2016. A challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA by parties not associated with the instant case, but that challenge was dismissed prior to hearing. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $12,312,632 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments in Medium Counties, as well as up to an estimated $477,091 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments in Small Counties other than Monroe County. By the terms of the RFA, a review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviewed and scored each application. These scores were presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately made a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation was presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (“the Board”) for final agency action. On March 24, 2017, all applicants received notice that the Board had approved the recommendation of the review committee concerning which applications were eligible or ineligible for funding and which applications were selected for awards of housing tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. The notice was provided by the posting on Florida Housing’s website (www.floridahousing.org) of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” and “ineligible” applications and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 10 developments, including Intervenor Hammock Ridge. Petitioners JPM Outlook and Grande Park were deemed ineligible. If JPM Outlook and Grande Park had been deemed eligible, each would have been in the funding range based on its assigned lottery number and the RFA selection criteria. If Grande Park had been deemed eligible, Hammock Ridge would not have been recommended for funding. Petitioners JPM Outlook and Grande Park timely filed notices of protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The scoring decision at issue in this proceeding is based on Florida Housing’s decision that Petitioners failed to submit as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A the correct and properly signed version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form. Petitioners’ admitted failure to submit the correct Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was the sole reason that Florida Housing found Petitioners’ applications to be ineligible for funding. Section Four of the RFA was titled, “INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN APPLICATION.” Listed there among the Exhibit A submission requirements was the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form, described as follows: The Applicant must include a signed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A to indicate the Applicant’s certification and acknowledgement of the provisions and requirements of the RFA. The form included in the copy of the Application labeled “Original Hard Copy” must reflect an original signature (blue ink is preferred). The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form is provided in Exhibit B of this RFA and on the Corporation’s Website http://www.floridahousing.org/Developers/ MultiFamilyPrograms/Competitive/2016- 110/RelatedForms/ (also accessible by clicking here). Note: If the Applicant provides any version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form other than the version included in this RFA, the form will not be considered. The final sentence of the quoted language is referred to by Florida Housing as the “effects clause.” The November 10, 2016, modifications to the RFA were communicated to applicants in three ways. First, Florida Housing provided a Web Board notice. The Florida Housing Web Board is a communication tool that allows interested parties and development partners to stay apprised of modifications to procurement documents. Second, each RFA issued by Florida Housing, including the one at issue in this proceeding, has its own specific page on Florida Housing's website with hyperlinks to all documents related to that RFA. Third, Florida Housing released an Official Modification Notice that delineated every modification, including a “blackline” version showing the changes with underscoring for emphasis. Brian Parent is a principal for both JPM Outlook and Grande Park. Mr. Parent received the Web Board notification of the RFA modifications via email. Upon receiving the email, Mr. Parent reviewed the modifications on the Florida Housing website. The modification to the RFA, posted on Florida Housing’s website on November 10, 2016, included the following modification of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form, with textual underscoring indicating new language: Pursuant to Rule 67-60.005, F.A.C., Modification of Terms of Competitive Solicitations, Florida Housing hereby modifies Item 2.b.(4) of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form to read as follows: (4) Confirmation that, if the proposed Development meets the definition of Scattered Sites, all Scattered Sites requirements that were not required to be met in the Application will be met, including that all features and amenities committed to and proposed by the Applicant that are not unit- specific shall be located on each of the Scattered Sites, or no more than 1/16 mile from the Scattered Site with the most units, or a combination of both. If the Surveyor Certification form in the Application indicates that the proposed Development does not consist of Scattered Sites, but it is determined during credit underwriting that the proposed Development does meet the definition of Scattered Sites, all of the Scattered Sites requirements must have been met as of Application Deadline and, if all Scattered Sites requirements were not in place as of the Application Deadline, the Applicant’s funding award will be rescinded; Note: For the Application to be eligible for funding, the version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form reflecting the Modification posted 11-10-16 must be submitted to the Corporation by the Application Deadline, as outlined in the RFA. Rule 67-48.002(105) defines “Scattered Sites” as follows: “Scattered Sites,” as applied to a single Development, means a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition “contiguous” means touching at a point or along a boundary. Real property is contiguous if the only intervening real property interest is an easement, provided the easement is not a roadway or street. All of the Scattered Sites must be located in the same county. The RFA modification included other changes concerning Scattered Sites. Those changes either modified the Surveyor Certification Form itself or required applicants to correctly provide information concerning Scattered Sites in the Surveyor Certification Form. Each Petitioner included in its application a Surveyor Certification Form indicating that its proposed development sites did not consist of Scattered Sites. The Surveyor Certification Forms submitted were the forms required by the modified RFA. There was no allegation that Petitioners incorrectly filled out the Surveyor Certification Forms. However, the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form submitted by each of the Petitioners was the original form, not the form as modified to include the underscored language set forth in Finding of Fact 20 regarding the effect of mislabeling Scattered Sites on the Surveyor Certification Form. The failure of JPM Outlook and Grande Park to submit the correct Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was the sole reason that Florida Housing found them ineligible for funding. In deposition testimony, Ken Reecy, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, explained the purpose of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form: There’s a number of things that we want to be sure that the applicants are absolutely aware of in regard to future actions or requirements by the Corporation. If they win the award, there are certain things that they need to know that they must do or that they are under certain obligations, that there’s certain obligations and commitments associated with the application to make it clear what the requirements--what certain requirements are, not only now in the application, but also perhaps in the future if they won awards. At the conclusion of a lengthy exposition on the significance of the modified language relating to Scattered Sites, Mr. Reecy concluded as follows: [W]e wanted to make sure that if somebody answered the question or did not indicate that they were a scattered site, but then we found out that they were, in fact, a scattered site, we wanted to make it absolutely clear to everyone involved that in the event that your scattered sites did not meet all of those requirements as of the application deadline, that the funding would be rescinded. Petitioners argue that the failure to submit the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form should be waived as a minor irregularity. Their simplest argument on that point is that their applications did not in fact include Scattered Sites and therefore the cautionary language added to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form by the November 10, 2016, modifications did not apply to them and could have no substantive effect on their applications. Petitioners note that their applications included the substantive changes required by the November 10, 2016, modifications, including those related to Scattered Sites. Petitioners submitted the unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form as Attachment 1 to their modified Exhibit A. Petitioners further note that the “Ability to Proceed Forms” they submitted with their applications on December 2, 2016, were the forms as modified on November 10, 2016. They assert that this submission indicates their clear intent to acknowledge and certify the modified RFA and forms, regardless of their error in submitting the unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. Petitioners assert that the Scattered Sites language added to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form by the November 10, 2016, modifications was essentially redundant. Mr. Reecy conceded that the warning regarding Scattered Sites was not tied to any specific substantive modification of the RFA. The language was added to make it “more clear” to the applicant that funding would be rescinded if the Scattered sites requirements were not met as of the application deadline. Petitioners point out that this warning is the same as that applying to underwriting failures generally. Petitioners assert that the new language had no substantive effect on either the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form or on the certifications and acknowledgements required of the applicants. Even in the absence of the modified language, Petitioners would be required to satisfy all applicable requirements for Scattered Sites if it were determined during underwriting that their applications included Scattered Sites. Petitioners conclude that, even though the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was not included with either of their applications, the deviation should be waived as a minor irregularity. Florida Housing could not have been confused as to what Petitioners were acknowledging and certifying. The unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was submitted with a modified Attachment 1 that included all substantive changes made by the November 10, 2016, modifications to the RFA. Petitioners gained no advantage by mistakenly submitting an unmodified version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. The submittal of the unmodified version of the form was an obvious mistake and waiving the mistake does not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. Mr. Reecy testified that he could recall no instance in which Florida Housing had waived the submittal of the wrong form as a minor irregularity. He also observed that the credibility of Florida Housing could be negatively affected if it waived the submission of the correct form in light of the “effects clause” contained in Section Four: Due to the fact that we did have an effects clause in this RFA and we felt that, in accordance with the rule requirements regarding minor irregularities, that it would be contrary to competition because we wanted everybody to sign and acknowledge the same criteria in the certification; so we felt that if some did--some certified some things and some certified to others, that that would be problematic. And the fact that we had very specifically instructed that if we did not get the modified version, that we would not consider it, and then if we backed up and considered it, that that would erode the credibility of the Corporation and the scoring process. Mr. Reecy testified that the modification to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was intended not merely to clarify the Scattered Sites requirement but to strengthen Florida Housing’s legal position in any litigation that might ensue from a decision to rescind the funding of an applicant that did not comply with the Scattered Sites requirements as of the application deadline. He believed that waiving the “effects clause” would tend to weaken Florida Housing’s legal position in such a case. Petitioners had clear notice that they were required to submit the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. They did not avail themselves of the opportunity to protest the RFA modifications. There is no allegation that they were misled by Florida Housing or that they had no way of knowing they were submitting the wrong form. The relative importance of the new acknowledgement in the modified form may be a matter of argument, but the consequences for failure to submit the proper form were plainly set forth in the effects clause. Florida Housing simply applied the terms of the modified RFA to Petitioners’ applications and correctly deemed them ineligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order confirming its initial decision finding JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership and Grande Park Limited Partnership ineligible for funding, and dismissing each Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing filed by JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership and Grande Park Limited Partnership. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the following findings are made: The position of Executive Director of the Sanford Housing Authority became available on July 31, 1981, upon the resignation of Lewis B. Cox, a white male who had held the position for approximately eighteen months. His letter of resignation was dated July 13, 1981. By her letter dated July 27, 1981, addressed to Joseph Caldwell, Chairman, Petitioner informed the Respondent of her application for the vacancy. At the time she had been employed by Respondent for approximately nine and a half years as Social Services Director and as Director of Management. Lewis Cox's letter of resignation included his recommendation that Petitioner be promoted as his successor. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) Petitioner is a black female. Respondent is a public agency responsible for various housing and community development programs, including rentals to low and moderate income individuals. It receives government subsidies, primarily from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and is also supported by rental income. Its governing body is a five-member board of commissioners which during the relevant period consisted of the following: Joseph Caldwell, Chairman (Black, Male) Eliza Pringle, Vice-Chairperson (Black, female) Mary Whitney, Commissioner (Black, female) J. Wain Cummings, Commissioner (White, male) Leroy Johnson, Commissioner (Black, male). On August 13, 1981, at the meeting following Lewis Cox's resignation as Acting Executive Director, the Board appointed Petitioner as Acting Director. No one was appointed to fill her position of Director of Management and she continued to serve in both capacities until the regular Executive Director was finally appointed. This process took approximately fourteen months, from July 31, 1981, until September 29, 1982. As Acting Director, the Petitioner advertised the vacancy by placing notices in the local paper and in professional newsletters. Over one hundred applications or resumes were received. At the suggestion of the Board attorney, the commissioners were each provided copies of all resumes and each selected his or her five top candidates. This was later narrowed to a list of six candidates to be interviewed. Petitioner was the only female candidate on the list. On January 7, 1982, the Board met to appoint an Executive Director. Two separate votes were taken at the meeting and both yielded the same result: Petitioner received two votes and three other candidates received one vote each; none received a majority. On January 16, 1982, the Board met and voted again. Again, the votes were taken twice, with the same result: Petitioner received two votes, Thomas Wilson III received two votes and Willie King, Sr. received one vote. Willie King was designated "second choice" by three commissioners. On January 29, 1982, the Board voted to appoint Willie King, Sr. as Executive Director. While he was not the first choice of any commissioner, he received four votes as second choice. None of the first choice candidates received a majority. (Petitioner's Exhibits #3 - 7, Minutes of Meetings of the Housing Authority of the City of Sanford) Willie King, Sr. declined the appointment. Thus, the process continued with interviews, discussions, and failure to reach a decision, until September 29, 1982, when the Board met, interviewed Elliott Smith, Coordinator of the C.E.T.A Youth Employment Program, and voted again. He was appointed Executive Director after receiving a three-vote majority. At the same meeting Petitioner was commended for her service and for having saved the Housing Authority money by filling two positions. She was then informed that she would resume her position as Director of Management. (Petitioner's Exhibit #10, Minutes of meeting) At the time of final hearing, she was still in that position. Petitioner's lengthy service with the Housing Authority gave her experience in virtually every aspect of the agency's housing programs. The grant programs were primarily handled by the Executive Director. Elliott L. Smith, at the time of his appointment as Executive Director, had no experience in housing programs. He did, however, have approximately seven years experience as coordinator of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Program (C.E.T.A.) for the Seminole County School Board in Sanford, Florida. This is a federal grant program. He also had administrative experience as a supervisor in a mill. (Respondent's Exhibit #1) The advertisements for the position did not require housing program experience, but rather emphasized the need for management experience and familiarity with federal, state, and local programs, and government regulations. (Petitioner's Exhibits #13 and #14). It must be noted that Petitioner's Exhibit #13, an invoice and the text of classified ad in the Evening Herald, was received into evidence without objection. However, the date on the invoice is January 9, 1980, and apparently relates to a prior recruiting effort rather than the 1981 vacancy. It is presumed that since it, like Petitioner's Exhibit #14, was submitted as an example of the recruitment ads, the requirements for the position did not substantially change. Both candidates, Petitioner and Mr. Smith, met the minimum requirements for the position. The Housing Authority has a personnel policy which is recommended by the Executive Director and adopted by the Board. The policy in effect during the relevant period provided very general guidance to the Board in making its appointment: one sentence on the merit system, a nondiscrimination clause and the statement that, "Vacated or newly established positions shall be filled to the fullest extent consistent with efficient operations, by the promotion of qualified, employees." (Petitioner's Exhibit #11). The commissioners, most of whom were newly appointed, had their individual notions of what qualifications the Executive Director should have. No specific objective criteria were developed to assist them in the selection process beyond the policy referred above and the minimum requirements in the vacancy notices. The common, overall goal of the Board, however, was to restore respectability to the Housing Authority. The Sanford black community was split into factions and this impacted the Board which consisted of a majority of black commissioners. The majority of tenants were also black. Relations between the tenants and staff were strained and a negative audit from the U.S. Department of HUD (U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) had just been received. Staff morale was low. A previous Executive Director, Thomas Wilson, III who served from 1972 until 1980, was fired by the Board amid rumors of financial mismanagement of the block grant program. This was the same Thomas Wilson who was considered a serious contender for the position when his successor, Lewis Cox, resigned. (See paragraph 4, above). During the recruitment and hiring process, the commissioners received intense pressure from the various factions in the community supporting various candidates or urging certain qualifications. Amid the procedural and political chaos surrounding the hiring, several notable rumors or controversies emerged. One such rumor was that Commissioner Cummings had made a statement to the effect that Petitioner had done a good job, but that it was a job for a man and he could not vote for her. He denies that statement and any prejudice against the Petitioner on account of her sex or race. He alleges that he voted against her because she was so closely connected to Thomas Wilson, having worked directly under him during his controversial tenure as Executive Director. Commissioner Whitney also denied in her testimony at the hearing that she heard the statement from Mr. Cummings. This testimony conflicts with her signed statement dated February 1, 1982, received into evidence, over objection, as Petitioner's Exhibit #16. On cross- examination, she denied having drafted the statement and could not remember who brought it to her to be signed. The statement is not a sworn statement. Commissioner Whitney consistently voted for hiring the Petitioner. Commissioner Eliza Pringle did not hear the alleged statement by Commissioner Cummings either, but she generated a controversy on her own. At some point during review of the applications, she commented that photographs would be nice since they would reveal whether the applicant was male or female. She explained that the comment was a flippant remark on some of the names of the applicants. She denied any sexist animus. She stated that the Petitioner is related to her through some distant cousins who, in turn, are related to the McCoys, a prominent black family connected to one of the black Sanford factions. One of the McCoys held two terms on the Housing Authority Board. Commissioner Pringle did not wish to fuel the factionalism by hiring a relative. She supported Elliot Smith because, as a former school teacher, she was familiar with his C.E.T.A work in the schools, and felt he could make a contribution to the community. Commissioner Leroy Johnson voted for Thomas Wilson to be hired back to his former position. He thought Wilson needed another chance and had the best experience. Later, when Elliot Smith was interviewed, he supported Smith because of his skills in working with people and in writing federal grants. Elliott Smith was a contender late in the hiring process because his C.E.T.A. position was eliminated. No woman has ever been Executive Director of the Sanford Housing Authority. Petitioner conceded, however, that even if Lewis Cox had been a woman he would have been hired because of his strong financial background. Willie King, the candidate who was offered the appointment, but declined, also had a background in financial affairs. As protracted as the process was, a common bond of frustration joined all the commissioners in their search for an Executive Director. Like a deus ex machina, Elliott Smith appeared on the scene at the eleventh hour, fourteen months after the vacancy was created, and obtained the three votes necessary for a majority. By those who voted for him, he was viewed as having the necessary skills without the close ties to the Housing Authority which appeared to taint the other leading candidates.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Human Relations Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner and denying Petitioner's claim for relief. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1986. APPENDIX TO FINAL ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-2640 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. The statement that all prior Executive Directors had been males is adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 1 and 4. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 6 and 7. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraphs 4 and 5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 9. The first sentence regarding the absence of any objective standards is too broad to be consistent with the evidence. Rejected as being unsupported by competent substantial evidence. See paragraph 8 and 9. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as being unnecessary. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 3. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 5, except that Smith was appointed on September 29, 1982, rather than September 19th. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9 and 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 11, except the final sentence, which is unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, although it is accepted that black politics is one factor in the decision-making function of the board. See paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. Adopted in part in paragraph 11. The last sentence is rejected as being inconsistent with the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. Adopted in substance in conclusions of law, paragraph 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Betsy Howard, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harry L. Lamb, Esquire 621 N. Fern Creek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Ned N. Julian, Esquire Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, Florida 32771
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has a disability (handicap), and, if so, was denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability by Respondents, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (FFHA), as amended.
Findings Of Fact The record in this discrimination case is extremely brief and consists only of a few comments by Mr. Homer, cross- examination by Respondents' counsel, and Respondents' exhibits. Petitioner resides at Golfside Villas, a condominium complex located in Winter Park, Florida. At hearing, Petitioner asserted that he suffers from a disability, narcolepsy, but he offered no competent evidence to support this claim. Thus, he does not fall within the class of persons protected against discrimination under the FFHA. Golfside is the condominium association comprised of unit owners that is responsible for the operation of the common elements of the property. Hara is the corporate entity that administers the association, while Mr. Michaud, a Hara employee, is the community manager. In September 2016, Mr. Homer became involved in a dispute with Golfside over late fees being charged to his association account and issues concerning ongoing repairs for water damage to his unit that were caused by flooding several years earlier. Because some of his telephone calls were not answered by "Lorie" (presumably a member of management staff), on September 23, 2016, Mr. Homer sent an email to Mr. Michaud, the community manager, expressing his displeasure with how his complaints were being handled. He also pointed out that "I have a disability." The email did not identify the nature of the disability, and it did not identify or request an accommodation for his alleged disability. There is no evidence that Respondents knew or should have known that Mr. Homer had a disability or the nature of the disability. Also, there is no evidence that narcolepsy is a physical impairment "which substantially limits one or more major life activities" so as to fall within the definition of a handicap under the FFHA. See § 760.22(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Here, Petitioner only contends that at times it causes him to speak loudly or yell at other persons. As a follow-up to his email, on September 26, 2016, Mr. Homer spoke by telephone with Mr. Michaud and reminded him to look into the complaints identified in his email. If a request for an accommodation ("work with me") was ever made, it must have occurred at that time, but no proof to support this allegation was presented. Mr. Homer acknowledged that he was told by Mr. Michaud that in the future, he must communicate by email with staff and board members rather than personally confronting them in a loud and argumentative manner. On September 26, 2016, Mr. Michaud sent a follow-up email to Mr. Homer informing him that he must "work with my staff, without getting loud or upset, no matter how frustrated you may be at the time." The email also directed staff to answer Mr. Homer's questions regarding repairs for water damage to his unit, to "look into some late charges on his account," and to "work with Mr. Homer to help him get both his unit and his account in order." On November 15, 2016, Mr. Homer filed his Complaint with the FCHR alleging that on September 26, 2016, Golfside, Hara, and Mr. Michaud had violated the FFHA by "collectively" denying his reasonable accommodation request. Later, a Petition for Relief was filed, which alleges that Gulfside and Hara (but not Mr. Michaud) committed the alleged housing violation. However, the findings and conclusions in this Recommended Order apply to all Respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) John Homer Unit 609 1000 South Semoran Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32792-5503 Candace W. Padgett, Esquire Vernis & Bowling of North Florida, P.A. 4309 Salisbury Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216-6123 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Suite 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioners were subject to discrimination in the rental of a dwelling, or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of rental of a dwelling, based on their race or familial status, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Part II, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Rolstan and Leticia Hodge, are African- American and currently reside in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Petitioners have six children. Respondent, Watson Realty Corp.,1/ is a real estate and property management company with offices throughout the state of Florida and an office in Georgia. Wendell Davis is the company’s Executive Vice President in charge of Watson Realty Management Division, including its Jacksonville office located at 4456 Sunbeam Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32257. On June 3, 2013, Petitioners completed applications to rent a property from Respondent located at 2314 Creekfront Drive in Green Cove Springs, Florida (the Property). Petitioners’ applications were taken by Gayle Aljets, Secretary at Respondent’s Westside office. Ms. Aljets sent, via facsimile transmission, Petitioners’ applications, along with copies of their photo identification, social security cards, and proof of income, to Anne Fletchall, Application Specialist in Respondent’s Sunbeam office.2/ Ms. Fletchall entered pertinent information from Petitioners’ applications, including personal identification and income information, into a system run by LexisNexis, a company with which Respondent contracted to conduct background, criminal, and financial screening of applicants.3/ LexisNexis screens applicants based on criteria selected by Respondent. For example, Respondent requires applicants to establish income of three times the rental amount, applies the combined income of multiple applicants for the same property (roommates), and requires criminal background checks on applicants 18 years of age and older. On debt issues, Respondent screens applicants for legal debts (e.g., judgments) of $1,000 or more within the most recent 48 months; as well as tax liens, landlord debt, and utility debt within the most recent 24 months. The screening system allows for exceptions, or “overrides,” on negative results for specified criteria. For example, if an applicant has a legal debt of $1,000 or more in the most recent 48 months, or a tax lien, landlord debt, or utility debt within the most recent 24 months, the system will return an override code of “800,” allowing approval of the applicant with a co-signor, or guarantor. The override determinations were made by Respondent at the time Respondent contracted with LexisNexis. Ms. Fletchall entered Petitioners’ information separately as two roommates applying for the Property. LexisNexis reported to Ms. Fletchall that Mr. Hodge had a legal debt of $1,000 or more within the last 48 months, thus failing one of the screening criteria. However, the program assigned an override code of “800,” meaning the application could be approved if Mr. Hodge obtained a guarantor. Mrs. Hodge passed all the LexisNexis screening criteria. LexisNexis further reported Petitioners’ rent-to- income ratio as 24.73 percent, based on a monthly rent of $1,195.00 and a combined income of $5,055.00. According to the criteria established by Respondent when setting up the screening process, a guarantor must establish an income of three and one-half times the amount of the monthly rent. Mrs. Hodge’s individual verified income was approximately $1,400.00, less than three and one-half times the monthly rental amount. Ms. Fletchall sent an email to Heather Cornett, property manager in the Westside office, informing her that Mr. Hodge was approved conditioned upon obtaining a guarantor. Ms. Cornett informed Mr. Hodge by phone that he would need a guarantor in order to qualify to rent the Property. Mr. Hodge asked why a guarantor would be required, but Ms. Cornett was unable to explain. Ms. Cornett informed Mr. Hodge that he would receive a letter from the third-party screening company that explained the details. During that telephone conversation, Mr. Hodge requested a telephone number for LexisNexis. Ms. Cornett did not have the LexisNexis telephone number and informed Mr. Hodge she would have to call him back with the number. Ms. Cornett obtained the number and made a return call to Mr. Hodge with the telephone number the same day. Through contact with LexisNexis, Mr. Hodge learned that a judgment against him by Freedom Furniture and Electronics had caused him to fail the applicable screening criteria, thus triggering the need for a guarantor. Mr. Hodge contacted Ms. Cornett and informed her that the debt had been satisfied. Ms. Cornett asked Mr. Hodge to obtain a letter from the debtor on the debtor’s letterhead verifying the debt had been satisfied. Mr. Hodge subsequently met with Ms. Cornett in her office and presented a letter from Freedom Furniture and Electronics. The letter represented that Mr. Hodge had entered into a payment agreement to satisfy the debt and that, thus far, payments had been made on time. Ms. Cornett faxed the letter to Ms. Fletchall to submit to LexisNexis as additional information. Ms. Fletchall called Ms. Cornett and told her the letter was only proof that payments were being made on the debt, not that the debt had been satisfied. Ms. Cornett called Mr. Hodge and informed him that the letter did not change the status of his application, and a guarantor was still required. Mr. Hodge requested Ms. Cornett submit the matter to a manager for review. Ms. Cornett took the Hodge’s applications, the letter, and the LexisNexis report to Terri Brown, Respondent’s Regional Manager. Ms. Cornett spoke to Ms. Brown via telephone, who confirmed that a guarantor would still be required for approval. Ms. Cornett again called Mr. Hodge with this information. Mr. Hodge did not obtain a guarantor and did not make another application, or otherwise arrange with Respondent to rent the Property. On June 10, 2013, Respondent received an application from a different set of applicants to rent the Property. The applicants were white and listed on their application that they had three children.4/ Ms. Fletchall processed two separate applications for the applicants as roommates, just as she did with Petitioners’ applications. The LexisNexis report showed that the male applicant failed three of the screening criteria, while the female applicant passed all the criteria. The system assigned an override code of “800” for the male applicant’s prior landlord debt, triggering the requirement for a guarantor. The system also assigned an override code of “920” based on the male applicant’s prior issue with a personal check, triggering a requirement that the male applicant pay monthly rent by certified funds. On June 21, 2013, the new applicants entered into a lease for the Property. The tenants obtained a guarantor who signed a lease guarantee which was incorporated into the lease.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014H0082. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSotoBuilding 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondents engaged in a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Caribe Co-Operative Club Apartments, Inc. (Caribe Club), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation and a co-operative association that owns the apartment complex at issue in this proceeding located in Lake Worth, Florida. There are twenty-one apartments in the Caribe Club. The apartments constituting the Caribe Club are subject to duly-enacted bylaws and to a form proprietary lease. These documents govern the management of the co-operative association and specify the terms and conditions of each tenancy. An existing lease cannot be transferred until the transaction has been approved by the stockholders of the Caribe Club. If the transaction is approved, the prospective lessee is required to purchase a share of stock in the cooperative association and execute the form proprietary lease. The existing lessee and the proposed transferee are required to apply to the board of directors for approval of the proposed transaction. The board is then required to convene a meeting of the stockholders, at which the proposed transaction is discussed and the prospective lessee may be interviewed. Thereafter, a vote by secret ballot is taken, with each apartment having one vote. A two-thirds affirmative vote of the stockholders voting at the meeting is required for approval of the proposed transaction. Petitioner agreed to purchase the apartment at the Caribe Club owned by Phyllis McAuliffe for the sum of $13,500. As required by the bylaws of the Caribe Club, Petitioner and Ms. McAuliffe requested approval of the proposed transfer and Petitioner submitted her personal financial information in addition to the application. For approximately a year before she decided to purchase the McAuliffe lease, Respondent lived in the Caribe Club apartment leased by Quentin Mason, her boyfriend. After she and Ms. McAuliffe had come to terms, but before she submitted her request for approval to the board of directors, Petitioner painted and cleaned the McAuliffe apartment. In addition, she replaced a door. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Caribe Club had a president, two vice-presidents, a secretary, and a treasurer. These officers constituted the board of directors. Francis A. Phillip, Jr., the president of the Caribe Club, reviewed Petitioner's application and her supporting financial information. As required by the bylaws, Mr. Phillip called a special meeting of the stockholders for January 22, 1996, to consider the application. After her financial information was determined to be in order, Petitioner was briefly interviewed and then excused from the meeting. The only discussion of the proposed transfer consisted of Fernand Roy making a statement against the transaction and Mr. Mason giving a response. The proposed transaction was rejected by the vote by secret ballot that followed. Of the twelve voting stockholders at the meeting, seven voted against the transaction and five voted in favor. To the knowledge of the witnesses who testified, this was the first occasion that a prospective transfer had been rejected. The following stockholders were present at the meeting: Mr. and Mrs. Brooks (with one vote), Mr. Mason, Mr. and Mrs. Todd (with one vote), Mrs. Knutson, Mrs. Loomis, Mrs. Mack, Mrs. Senn, Mrs. Lambert, Mrs. Tognacci, Mr. Phillip, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Roy. At the formal hearing, there was competent evidence as to how five stockholders voted and the reasons of those who voted against the transaction. Mr. Mason and Mr. Reed voted for the transaction. Mr. Roy, Ms. Senn, and Mr. Phillip voted against the transaction. The Petitioner did not establish by competent evidence how the other individual stockholders voted or the reason for their votes. 1/ Fernand Roy participated in the stockholder meeting as a voting stockholder. Mr. Roy and Petitioner's boyfriend, Mr. Mason, had a long-standing feud. Mr. Roy did not want Petitioner to become a stockholder because she would then be able to support Mr. Mason's positions on various issues pertaining to management of the Caribe Club. Florence Senn participated in the stockholder meeting as a voting stockholder. Ms. Senn voted against the proposed transaction because she did not like the fact that Petitioner and Mr. Mason had been living together without the benefit of marriage. Ms. Senn did not discuss her position on the matter with anyone prior to the vote being taken. Ms. Senn told Petitioner before the vote was taken that if the stockholders rejected her application it would be because she was Mr. Mason's girlfriend. Ms. Senn was of the opinion following the vote that most of the stockholders who voted against the transaction did so because they did not like Mr. Mason. Mr. Phillip participated in the stockholder meeting as the presiding officer and as a voting stockholder. Mr. Phillip voted against the proposed transaction because he believed that Petitioner's entering the McAuliffe unit to paint, clean, and make repairs before the stockholders had approved the transaction evidenced an unwillingness on her part to comply with the bylaws and rules and regulations of the Caribe Club. Mr. Phillip testified that he had told Petitioner not to work in the apartment before the transaction was approved, but that she did so anyway. Before the meeting, Mr. Phillip mentioned to one or two other stockholders that Petitioner was working on the McAuliffe apartment, but he did not discuss his position on the transaction with anyone prior to the vote being taken. The evidence did not establish that any stockholder voted against the proposed transaction based on Petitioner's age, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's discriminatory housing complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of May, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing") properly rescinded the preliminary funding awarded to RST Fruitland Housing, L.P. ("RST"), pursuant to applicable rules, prior agency practice, and the existing case law.
Findings Of Fact RST is a limited partnership authorized to do business in Florida and is controlled by Roundstone Development, LLC ("Roundstone"). Roundstone is in the business of providing affordable rental housing. In addition to Florida, Roundstone operates in Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Michael Hartman, the consultant for Roundstone, has been involved in the development of over 70 affordable housing developments, including many in Florida. Florida Housing is a public corporation created by Section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Florida Housing's statutory authority and mandates appear in Part V of Chapter 420, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of nine individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. On July 31, 2009, Florida Housing issued RFP 2009-04 (the "RFP") setting forth criteria and qualifications for developers to seek funding for affordable housing projects from funds that Florida received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5 ("ARRA"). ARRA was enacted in 2009 by Congress as part of federal economic stimulus efforts. RST received notice of the RFP through e-mail notification on July 31, 2009. The RFP required applicants to submit proposals to Florida Housing no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 14, 2009. RST submitted an application and intended to seek financing for its affordable housing project by applying for funding from the sources that are proposed to be allocated through the RFP. Florida Housing's Programs Florida Housing administers numerous programs aimed at assisting developers to build affordable housing. These programs include: the Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program ("MMRB") established under Section 420.509, Florida Statutes; the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program ("SAIL") created pursuant to Section 420.5087, Florida Statutes; and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (the "Tax Credit program") established under the authority of Section 420.5093, Florida Statutes. These funding sources are allocated by Florida Housing to finance the construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing. A portion of the units constructed based upon funding from these programs must be set aside for residents earning a certain percentage of area median income ("AMI"). For purposes of these proceedings, the primary program of interest is the Tax Credit program. Tax Credits The Tax Credit program was created in 1986 by the federal government. Tax Credits come in two varieties: competitively awarded nine percent tax credits, and non- competitively awarded four percent tax credits. For the nine percent credits, the federal government annually allocates to each state a specific amount of tax credits using a population- based formula. Tax Credits are a dollar for dollar offset to federal income tax liability over a 10-year period. A developer awarded Tax Credits will often sell the future stream of Tax Credits to a syndicator who in turn sells them to investors seeking to shelter income from federal income taxes. The developer receives cash equity with no debt associated with it. Thus, Tax Credits provide an attractive subsidy and, consequently, are a highly sought after funding source. Florida Housing is the designated agency in Florida to allocate Tax Credits to developers of affordable housing. Every year since 1986, Florida Housing has received an allocation of Tax Credits to be used to fund the construction of affordable housing. Universal Application Florida Housing has historically allocated funds from the MMRB, SAIL, and Tax Credit programs through a single annual application process. Since 2002, Florida Housing has administered the three programs through a combined competitive process known as the "Universal Cycle." The Universal Cycle operates much the same as an annual competitive bidding process in which applicants compete against other applicants to be selected for limited funding. Florida Housing has adopted rules which incorporate by reference the application forms and instructions for the Universal Cycle as well as general policies governing the allocation of funds from the various programs it administers. Typically, Florida Housing amends its Universal Cycle rules, forms, and instructions every year. The typical process used by Florida Housing to review and approve the Universal Cycle applications operates as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004, and is summarized as follows: Interested developers submit applications by a specified date. Florida Housing reviews all applications to determine if certain threshold requirements are met. A score is assigned to each application. Applications receive points towards a numerical score, based upon such features as programs for tenants, amenities of the development as a whole and of tenants' units, local government contributions to the specific development, and local government ordinances and planning efforts that support affordable housing in general. Florida Housing has built into its scoring and ranking process a series of "tiebreakers" to bring certainty to the selection process. The tiebreakers are written into the application instructions which, as indicated above, are incorporated by reference into Florida Housing's rules. After the initial review and scoring, a list of all applications, along with their scores, is published by Florida Housing on its website. The applicants are then given a specific period of time to alert Florida Housing of any errors they believe Florida Housing made in its initial review of the applications. An appeal procedure for challenging the scores assigned by Florida Housing is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.005. Following the completion of the appeal proceedings, Florida Housing publishes final rankings which delineate the applications that are within the "funding range" for the various programs. In other words, the final rankings determine which applications are preliminarily selected for funding. The applicants ranked in the funding range are then invited into a "credit underwriting" process. Credit underwriting review of a development selected for funding is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. In the credit underwriting process, third party financial consultants (selected by Respondent, but paid for by the individual applicants) determine whether the project proposed in the application is financially sound. The independent third party examines every aspect of the proposed development, including the financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning verification, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. Subsection (10) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.0072 expressly requires that an appraisal (as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice), and a market study be ordered by the Credit Underwriter, at the applicant's expense. The Credit Underwriter is required to consider the market study, as well as the development's financial impact on other developments in the area previously funded by Florida Housing, and make a recommendation to approve or disapprove a funding allocation. RST's Application in the 2008 Universal Cycle RST timely submitted an application in the 2008 Universal Cycle seeking an award of Tax Credits and a supplemental loan to construct a 100-unit garden style apartment complex ("Plata Lago") in Fruitland Park, Lake County, Florida. RST complied with all of the requirements of the 2008 Universal Cycle Application and Instructions, and achieved a perfect score for its application. RST also achieved maximum tie-breaker points. As a result, RST was allocated by Florida Housing $1,334,333 in Tax Credits from the Universal Cycle allocation. Based on the final ranking of its application, RST was invited into the credit underwriting process on October 6, 2008. RST timely accepted the invitation and paid the necessary underwriting fees. Credit Underwriting Under the credit underwriting process, a professional credit underwriter is appointed by Florida Housing to review the proposed project that qualified for funding as a result of the Universal Cycle. The credit underwriter reviews and assesses numerous financial, demographic, and market factors concerning the proposed project. The credit underwriter selected by Florida Housing to review the RST application was Seltzer Management Group, Inc. ("Seltzer"). As required by the applicable 2008 Universal Cycle Application requirements and rule, the credit underwriting process required the preparation of a Market Study by an independent appraiser. Seltzer engaged Meridian Appraisal Group ("Meridian") to perform an independent appraisal and market study as required by the RFP. This initial Market Study was issued with the identified purpose defined as follows: Provide a site analysis for the subject property. Provide regional and neighborhood analyses for the subject property. Provide an Apartment Market Overview for the subject market area. Provide an evaluation of market demand within the competitive area for affordable rental apartment products. Identify and evaluate the relevant competitive supply of affordable apartments. Perform an income band analysis for the subject property based on achievable restricted rents. Perform a Capture Rate analysis for the subject property as a restricted property, and estimate an absorption rate. Establish rental estimates for the subject, both as a market rate project and as restricted by the Housing Credit program. Illustrate the difference between our estimate of the market rental rates and restricted rental rates. Estimate the impact of the subject project on the existing rental inventory. Economic Downturn By the fall of 2008, significant changes were taking place in the economic environment and the affordable housing market in particular. Many of the projects that had been awarded funding through Florida Housing allocation process were encountering difficulties and in many instances were unable to close. By the latter part of 2008, it became evident that the market for Tax Credits had precipitously dropped as a result of the changed economic environment. Shortly before RST was to complete the credit underwriting process, the syndicator who had originally expressed its intent to purchase the Tax Credits awarded to RST announced that it would not go forward with the syndication. This withdrawal was a direct result of the nationwide downturn in economic conditions. Many other projects that were awarded Tax Credits during the 2007 and 2008 (and later the 2009) Universal Cycles similarly experienced difficulty in finding syndicators to purchase the awarded Tax Credits and were also unable to proceed to closing. In early 2009, in recognition of the collapse of the housing market and the difficulty in marketing Tax Credits, the federal government, as part of its economic stimulus efforts, established mechanisms to assist in the development of affordable housing and offset some of the economic devastation to developers. ARRA The ARRA enacted by Congress and signed by the President on February 17, 2009, included specific provisions intended to address the collapse of the Tax Credit market. ARRA gives states the ability to return to the federal government previously awarded Tax Credits that had not been utilized. These Tax Credits are exchanged for a cash distribution of 85 cents for each tax credit dollar returned. The money that is awarded to the states for the return Tax Credits (the "Exchange Funds") is to be used by Florida Housing to fund developers who were unable to syndicate their Tax Credits due to the economic downturn. In other words, the Tax Credits that had not been utilized as a result of the declining economic conditions were allowed to be converted into cash from the federal government to be allocated to developers who were ready to proceed with their affordable housing projects but for the inability to syndicate their Tax Credits. ARRA also included a direct allocation of funds to state housing finance agencies under the Tax Credit Assistance Program ("TCAP"). These funds were allocated to the states to "resume funding of affordable rental housing projects across the nation while stimulating job creation in the hard-hat construction industry." TCAP is a separate program included as part of ARRA to provide gap financing for affordable housing projects that have been affected by the economic downturn. The RFP In response to ARRA, on July 31, 2009, Florida Housing issued RFP 2009-04 (the "RFP"), setting forth criteria and qualifications for developers to seek funding for affordable housing projects from money that had been allotted by the federal government as part of economic stimulus efforts. RST received notice of the RFP through e-mail notification on July 31, 2009. The RFP required applicants to submit proposals to Florida Housing by no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 14, 2009. The RFP solicits proposals from applicants with an "Active Award" of Tax Credits who were unable to close and are seeking alternate funding to construct affordable housing utilizing Exchange Funds from the Tax Credit Exchange Program authorized under Section 1602 of ARRA. The RFP provides a general description of the type of projects that will be considered eligible for this alternate funding. The RFP also sets forth eligibility criteria that are a precondition to award of an allocation of Exchange Funds, and also specifies that projects allocated Exchange Funds and also specifies that projects allocated Exchange Funds will be required to meet new credit underwriting standards. Occupancy Standards Section 5B.1b. of the RFP states that a tentative funding award under the RFP will be rescinded "if the submarket of the Proposed Development does not have an average occupancy rate of 92% or greater for the same Demographic population, as determined by a market study ordered by the Credit Underwriter, and analyzed by the Credit Underwriter and Florida Housing staff, as well as approved by the Board." The RFP does not define "submarket." Likewise, there was no definition of "submarket" in the rules which governed the 2008 or 2009 Universal Cycle. The word "submarket" is included in the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule, but it is not defined. RST timely submitted a response to the RFP on August 14, 2009, which sought additional funding for the Plata Lago project. On August 20, 2009, Florida Housing issued a Notice of Awards for RFP #2009-04. Based on the Notice, RST was one of the responders awarded funds subject to successfully completing the underwriting criteria listed in the RFP. Accordingly, RST was once again invited into credit underwriting. By accepting the invitation, RST was required by the credit underwriter to update its Market Study ("2009 Study"). This Second Market Study, which was completed approximately eight months after the 2008 study, was also prepared by Meridian on July 14, 2009. Likewise, Seltzer was the assigned underwriter. On September 9, 2009, Seltzer issued a letter to Florida Housing concerning the Plata Lago project. In essence, Seltzer in the letter considered the 2009 Market Study and concluded that "the submarket average occupancy rate for the subject does not meet the minimum requirement of 92%." On October 23, 2009, Florida Housing's Board of Directors considered Seltzer's letter and a staff recommendation and voted to rescind funding to RST because of the alleged failure to satisfy the 92 percent occupancy requirement. This action effectively stopped the underwriting process. While RST timely filed its petition with the Division, it also intervened in a challenge to the provisions of the RFP. The challenge specifically involved a review of the 92 percent occupancy standard. In that matter, Elmwood Terrace Ltd. P'ship v. Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp., Case No. 09-4682BID, 2009 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. Lexis 816 (Final Order entered December 7, 2009), the administrative law judge entered a Recommended Order on November 12, 2009, holding that the provision of the RFP which required a 92 percent occupancy rate is contrary to Florida Housing's governing statutes and rules. The administrative law judge concluded that Florida Housing is limited to using the 90 percent occupancy test established at Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072(10). Florida Housing issued its Final Order in the Elmwood case on December 7, 2009, adopting the administrative law judge's Recommended Order. Based upon the Final Order in Elmwood, Florida Housing has reevaluated the RST Market Study under the provisions of the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule which established a 90 percent occupancy test. Florida Housing has now concluded that RST's Market Study indicates an 87 percent occupancy rate. Accordingly, Florida Housing has not changed its previous position and refuses to allow Petitioner to move forward in the underwriting process. Unstipulated Findings of Fact Two market studies were commissioned by Florida Housing and Seltzer regarding the proposed Plata Lago development, the first in November 2008 and the second in July 2009. Both the First and Second Market Studies were performed by Meridian Appraisal Group and Robert Von, a state- certified general appraiser. While purported to be a new stand-alone study, the Second Market Study is identical in many respects to the First Market Study. However, the First Market Study predated the requirement of the occupancy test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072(10), while the Second Market Study included the 90 percent occupancy test analysis. In each of the two studies, a circle is drawn extending out 10 miles from the proposed location of the Plata Lago development. That circle represents the primary market area ("PMA") which includes Fruitland Park, Lady Lake, and Leesburg. The PMA is where generally two-thirds to three-quarters of the demand for a facility originates. In the Second Market Study, when the occupancy rate of the three existing senior apartment developments within the PMA is considered, the threshold requirement of 90 percent is met. If the PMA alone were considered, Florida Housing would not have rescinded the Tax Credits, and Petitioner would be entitled to move forward with its project. The Second Market Study, performed in 2009, added an additional factor to the analysis. The concept of a Competitive Market Area ("CMA") was introduced. A CMA was not designated in the 2008 Market Study. CMA is neither defined in the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule or RFP 2009-04. The delineation of a CMA was not a requirement of the RFP, nor was it otherwise requested by Florida Housing. CMA is not a term defined in either the development or market analysis industries. The term appears to have been created or borrowed by Florida Housing's designated market analyst based upon his experience as a certified appraiser. Unlike the PMA, the CMA was not mapped or otherwise designated in the Second Market Study. However, both the First and Second Market Studies included information regarding a development known as Lake Point Senior Village ("Lake Point"). Both Plata Lago and Lake Point are affordable housing developments targeted at the elderly demographic category. Lake Point is not in the PMA of the proposed Plata Lago development as PMA is defined in the Second Market Study. The PMA as defined in the Second Market Study is a predetermined geographic area used for purposes of demographic analysis, but not for competitive analysis. A set unmovable circle on a map could lead to skewed or absurd results if the nature and character of the developments within and without the circle are not considered by the appraiser. Lake Point is an elderly affordable housing development located 13 miles from the proposed location of Plata Lago. It is located in Tavares which is outside the 10-mile radius from the proposed development and is past two lakes that separate Tavares from those developments contained within the PMA. The analysis by Florida Housing's expert was that an individual moving into the Lake County area would look for elderly housing developments in close proximity to his or her work, shopping, health care, and other amenities they deemed important. The tenant does not necessarily look to see if other elderly housing developments are nearby. This is especially true when only four elderly developments are located in the county. Plata Lago and Lake Point are similar to each other, both serve the elderly demographic category, and each would compete with the other for residents if the Plata Lago development were built. It was appropriate for the Second Market Study to include Lake Point in its analysis of occupancy data for the purpose of determining whether Plata Lago passed the test set forth in the rule requiring a 90 percent occupancy rate in its applicable submarket. To address the requirement of the rule regarding occupancy rates for the submarket of the Plata Lago development, it was necessary for Florida Housing's consultant to determine what developments would compete with the proposed project. To do a competitive analysis, it is necessary for the consultant to move beyond the fixed PMA to a study of the market as real people in the real world look at it. In the Second Market Study, the term CMA is used to describe the "submarket" as it applies to the occupancy test of the rule, as well as to distinguish this area from the PMA and from other incidental uses of the term "submarket." Florida Housing's consultant investigated all the comparable properties and interviewed the manager of Lake Point about where the competition lay. The manager mentioned a property around the corner from the proposed Plata Lago (Silver Pointe) as a competitor which led the consultant to expand the CMA to include Lake Point. The manager at Silver Pointe named Lake Point as part of its competition. Florida Housing's appraiser considers the submarket to be where a project's competitive property is located. In this case, the submarket or competitive market is larger than the PMA. Lake Point suffered a drop in its occupancy between the First and Second Market Studies. This was most likely attributable to the nature of elderly developments. Elderly residents tend to expire or suffer health issues that cause them to move to facilities providing health care or assisted living services. On October 23, 2009, Florida Housing's Board of Directors met and considered the market study letter prepared by Seltzer along with its finding that the Plata Lago development did not pass the required occupancy test of 90 percent set forth in the rule. Based upon the occupancy rate being only 87 percent, as well as the results of the market study and credit underwriter recommendations, the Board voted to rescind Florida Housing's commitment to fund the Plata Lago development.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order rescinding funding to the Plata Lago development for failing to pass the occupancy standard set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-48. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Wellington H. Meffert, II, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Hugh R. Brown, 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
