Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. is the developer of a 510 unit three-tower condominium project on an island now known as Grove Isle in Biscayne Bay. As part of the project Grove Isle plans to construct a ninety slip pleasure boat marina on the west side of the island. Since its inception, the project has been in litigation between the parties to this Proceeding. See Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., et al v. DER, DOAH Case No. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354; State ex rel. Gardner v. Sailboat Key, Inc., 295 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); Doheny vs. Sailboat Key, Inc., 306 So.2d 616 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1974); Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Ferre, Case No. 80-101-AP (Circuit Court, Appellate Division, Dade County, September 16, 1980). Petitioners Doheny and Filer have their residences near the site of the proposed marina. In the past they have used the waters in and around this site for fishing, boating and swimming. If the marina is constructed their use of the waters in the immediate area of the marina could be limited somewhat. While Petitioner Jaffer does not live in the immediate area of the marina, he also uses the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. The project could have some minimal impact on his use of those waters. The protesting organizations: Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., Coconut Grove Civil Club, Tigertail Association, and the Tropical Audubon Society, Inc. all have members who use the waters of Biscayne Bay in the area of the project for nature study or recreation. The use of these waters by their members could be diminished in some degree if the marina is constructed. That portion of Grove Isle from which the marina will project is owned by Grove Isle Club, Inc., an entity created to operate the recreational facilities appurtenant to the Grove Isle Condominium. The Club is an integral part of the Grove Isle condominium project. Membership in the Club is mandatory for unit owners. It is the plan of Grove Isle, Ltd. that after the marina is constructed the individual wet-slips will be sold to only condominium owners. Grove Isle, Ltd. expects to realize a onetime profit from the sale of each slip. The slips would therefore not produce a periodic or reoccurring income to the developer. In the recent past, DNR has interpreted its rules relating to submerged land leases not to require a lease for the construction of a marina over submerged state lands if the marina will not generate a regular income. Evidence of this practice dates back to June 8, 1978. On March 29, 1979, Grove Isle applied to DNR for a state lease of the submerged lands over which the proposed marina would be constructed. By a letter of April 4, 1979, from Daniel S. Meisen, Administrator, Operations Section, Bureau of State Lands, the Department informed Grove Isle that a lease would not be required. The full text of the letter follows: April 4, 1979 Ms. Pat Bourguin Post, Buckley, Schub and Jernigan, Inc. 7500 Northwest 52nd Street Miami, Florida 33166 Dear Ms. Bourguin: Martin Margulies A review of the above referenced application has aided us in determining that a lease will not be required although the submerged bottom lands are state-owned. Submerged land leases are not re- quired for private docks or non-income producing facilities. Your $150.00 refund is being processed and will be forwarded to you within the next two months. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please contact Laura Lewallen of this office. Sincerely, Daniel S. Meisen Administrator Operations Section Bureau of State Lands DSM/11m cc: DER West Palm Beach Health Department The State of Florida owns the submerged lands to the west of Grove Isle over which the marina would be constructed. Beginning in the fall of 1979 and continuing through the spring of 1980, there was a string of correspondence between DNR, Mr. Doheny and Grove Isle. This was its basic pattern. Mr. Doheny would write to DNR with some information indicating in his opinion that the proposed marina would not be private in nature, that is, persons other than condominium owners might be able to use the wet-slips. In response to Mr. Doheny's letter DNR would then query Grove Isle requesting assurances that the marina would be private. At least three of these inquiries, April 26, 1979; October 26, 1979; and February 12, 1980, appear in the record. Grove Isle then responded with letters indicating in various ways that the marina would not be income producing. It is apparent from some of the correspondence that there were also oral communications among the parties. The contents of these communications do not appear in the record. Finally on March 13, 1980, Mr. Doheny wrote to DNR on behalf of the Homeowner Petitioners to express his disagreement with the Department's position previously expressed in correspondence dating back to April 4, 1979, that if the proposed marina is limited to only condominium owners and does not produce direct income then it does not require a lease. Mr. Dean on behalf of Dr. Gissendaner replied to Mr. Doheny on March 24, 1980, by reiterating the Department's consistent position on this project. The text of the letter fellow's: March 24, 1980 David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Re: Grove Isle Marina Dear David: Dr. Gissendanner asked that I respond to your letter dated March 13, 1980 regarding Grove Isle Marina. Attached his a copy of the affidavit executed by Grove Isle, Ltd. and the subsequent letter to Grove Isle, Ltd. from the Department of Natural Resources. It is the position of the Department of Natural Resources that where a condominium marina will derive no income from the rental or lease of boat slips and furthermore, where all slips will be used exclusively by the condominium unit purchasers that the marina is not a commercial/industrial docking facility requiring a lease from the Trustees pursuant to Rule 16C-12.14, F.A.C. and Chapter 253.03, F.S. (1979). This position is based on the proposition that riparian rights attached to a single condominium unit purchaser as do riparian rights for a single family lot owner who likewise is exempt from a submerged land lease. Sincerely, Henry Dean Assistant Department Attorney Division of State Lands HD/le Enclosures cc: Elton J. Gissendanner Richard P. Ludington On May 3, 1979, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund passed a resolution which states in pertinent part that: Where the Trustees have title, by either deed of conveyance or sovereignty pursuant to 1 and/or 2 above, and where any person has requested an environmental or other permit and where the Trustees neither by statute nor rule must give permission for the use involved in the permit, the Execu- tive Director is authorized to indicate, by letter or otherwise, said circumstances and that no action by the Trustees is necessary for the said use; . . . Subsequently Mr. Jaffer, the Homeowners and Mr. Filer filed their petitions for administrative hearings on April 2, 1980, 4/ April 9, 1980, and April 21, 1980, respectively. DNR's position concerning a lease requirement was well known to all of the Petitioners by at least January 2 and 3, 1980, the date of the final hearing on the related DER cases for the instant project. 5/
Recommendation For the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Natural Resources issue a final order dismissing the petitions in Case Nos. 80-670, 80-768, and 80-815. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1980.
Findings Of Fact Peter P. Sedler, at all times material to the complaint, has been licensed as a real estate broker, holding license 0079017. He was last licensed as a broker c/o Marshall & Sedler, Inc., 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Marshall & Sedler, Inc., at all times relevant to the complaint, had been registered as a Florida real estate broker, holding license 0250511, its last licensed address was 7771 St. Andrews, Lake Worth, Florida 33467. Peter P. Sedler was the qualifying broker and officer for Marshall & Sedler, Inc. On about July 3, 1987, Tom Teixeira was employed as a salesman by Cartier Realty, of 11852 42nd Road North, Royal Palm Beach, Florida. Cartier Realty had solicited, through a direct mailing, listings for property in the Royal Palm Beach area. Ms. Mary Myers, an older woman of about 70 years of age, responded to the advertisement, and gave Mr. Teixeira an open listing for real property which she owned. While Mr. Teixeira placed a Cartier Realty "For Sale" sign on the property, the sign was somehow removed shortly thereafter, and no party dealing with Ms. Myers during the months of July, August and September of 1987 would have been placed on notice that Cartier Realty had any listing on the property. Mr. Sedler had nothing to do with the disappearance of the sign. Ms. Myers had originally acquired the property from her daughter. Long before Ms. Myers gave a listing to Cartier Realty, William Kemp and his wife Gina DiPace Kemp had told Ms. Myers that they were interested in purchasing the property, which is adjacent to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Kemp. When Mr. and Mrs. Kemp first contacted Ms. Myers, she had wanted to keep the property, in the belief that she might eventually convey it back to her daughter. Mr. Teixeira brought to Ms. Myers an offer from David R. and Maureen C. Rose to purchase the land for $11,900. Ms. Myers did not accept that offer, but the Roses accepted Ms. Myers' counteroffer on July 24, 1987, to sell it for $12,300. The sale was contingent upon the buyers obtaining financing; they applied for a loan, and ordered both an appraisal and a survey. The closing was to be held by September 1, 1987. (Contract, paragraph VI.) The closing date passed, without the buyers obtaining the necessary financing, so the contract was no longer effective. On about September 8, 1987, Mr. Teixeira attempted to contact Ms. Myers. He had obtained no written extension of the contract but hoped the sale might yet close. Ms. Myers told Teixeira that she was still willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose. In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Kemp became aware that Ms. Myers wanted to sell the property, because they noticed Mr. and Mrs. Rose coming to look at the land, and had engaged them in conversation. Ms. Kemp then contacted Ms. Myers to remind her that they were still willing to purchase the property, and also to say that they would offer more than the current offer on the property. On about September 11, 1987, Ms. Kemp contacted Cartier Realty to say that she also wished to make an offer on the Myers' lot. For a reason which was never adequately explained at the hearing, Teixeira, who should have been working on behalf of the seller, refused to take the offer, even though it was for a higher price. After this rebuff by Teixeira, Ms. Kemp contacted Marshall & Sedler, Inc., in order to try to find a broker who would convey their offer to Ms. Myers and spoke with Patricia Marshall, Ms. Marshall referred her to her partner, Peter Sedler. The Kemps told Sedler that Ms. Myers had told them that she had received a $9,000 offer on the lot. Why Ms. Myers told the Kemps that the Rose offer was $9,000 is not clear, for the actual offer had been $12,300, but Sedler did not know this. There was no listing of the lot in the local board of realtors multiple listing service book, and Mr. Sedler found the address of Ms. Myers through the public records. Mr. Sedler knew from his conversations with Ms. Kemp that Cartier Realty had some involvement with an offer on the property. He called Cartier Realty and tried to speak with the broker handling the matter. He spoke with a man named Tom, who he thought was a brother of the owner of Cartier Realty, Pete Cartier. Mr. Sedler actually talked with Tom Teixeira. Sedler believed he was dealt with rudely by Teixeira, who had hung up on him. Sedler then called Pete Cartier directly to find out whether there was an outstanding contract on the property, and Cartier told Sedler that he would call Sedler back. When Cartier called Sedler, Cartier warned Sedler that he should stay out of the deal. Mr. Sedler became suspicious about Cartier Realty's failure to bring a higher offer to the attention of the seller, and on September 16, 1987, filed a complaint against Tom Cartier with the Lake Worth Board of Realtors. Mr. Sedler then traveled to Pompano Beach to meet with Ms. Myers at her home, and brought with him a contract for sale and purchase of the property, already signed by the Kemps and dated September 14, 1987. While at the door, Ms. Myers asked Peter Sedler if he was "Tom." Ms. Myers knew that she had been dealing with a "Tom" at Cartier Realty, but all her dealings were on the phone, and she did not know what Tom Teixeira looked like. Sedler replied "Yes, but you can call me Pete." Sedler merely intended the comment as humor. At that time Sedler gave Ms. Myers his pink business card and specifically identified himself as Pete Sedler of Marshall & Sedler, Inc. Mr. Sedler asked Ms. Myers if she had any paperwork, such as the prior contract for the sale of the lot which had expired on September 1, 1987, but she did not. While Sedler was with Ms. Myers, she agreed to sell the property to the Kemps for $12,500 and signed the Kemp contract. The Kemps had put the purchase price of $12,500 into the Marshall & Sedler escrow account. Three days later, on September 18, 1987, Mr. Sedler, in the company of his wife Bonnie, presented a post-dated check to Ms. Myers in the amount of $11,020, the net amount due to Ms. Myers for the lot, based on the purchase price of $12,500. When they met this second time he introduced himself again as Pete Sedler and offered Ms. Myers his card for a second time. The post-dated check was conditioned by an endorsement making it good upon a determination that the title to the lot was good. A quit claim deed to Mr. and Mrs. Kemp was executed by Ms. Myers and witnessed by Bonnie Sedler. The post-dated check was given to Ms. Myers because she was about to leave on vacation. The check was given as a sort of security for good title, in return for the quit claim deed which closed the transaction. Mr. Sedler had structured the transaction in this way because he was concerned that someone at Cartier Realty might also attempt to purchase the property from Ms. Myers on behalf of one of their clients. At that time, Mr. Sedler held the reasonable belief that no other party had a subsisting contract to purchase the property from Ms. Myers. Sedler had no reason to believe the Roses would or could pay more for the property than the Kemps offered. Ms. Myers knew that Tom Teixeira from the Cartier realty firm represented a distinct business entity from Marshall & Sedler or Pete Sedler. After a title search showed that Ms. Myers had clear title to the property, the check which Mr. Sedler had given to Ms. Myers on September 18, 1987, with the restrictive endorsement was replaced. Later Mr. and Mrs. Rose tried to close their purchase, but found they could not. Ms. Myers had failed to inform them of the sale she made to the Kemps through Mr. Sedler. Mr. Teixeira, in retribution, filed an ethics complaint about Mr. Sedler with the West Palm Beach Board of Realtors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint against Peter P. Sedler and Marshall & Sedler, Inc., be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6183 Rulings on findings proposed by the Department: 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding 1. 4 - 6. Adopted in Finding 2. Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Finding 3. Implicit in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 5. Adopted in Finding 6. Implicit in Finding 6. This does not mean that the contract subsisted, however. Rejected. Ms. Myers was willing to sell the property to Mr. and Mrs. Rose after the contract expired, but she was not under any obligation to do so. Adopted in Finding 7. Rejected, because there was no pending contract. Teixeira never obtained a written extension of the closing date and Ms. Myers was free to sell elsewhere. Rejected. No one could have truthfully told Sedler there was a pending contract. None existed. Rejected, because Mr. Sedler had no reason to believe that there was a subsisting contract for the sale of the property; there was none. Admission number 20 is not to the contrary. Adopted in Findings 10 and 11. Rejected. See, Findings 9 and 10. Rejected as unpersuasive. Rejected as cumulative to Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 14. Adopted in Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frank W. Weathers, Esquire Frank W. Weathers, P.A. Post Office Box 3967 Lantana, Florida 33465-3967 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether, with respect to each application filed, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) review and decision-making process in response to the Request for Applications 2020-201 (RFA) was contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the RFA.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing 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 (commonly referred to as “tax credits” or “housing credits”) was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These housing credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. The effect is to reduce the amount that the developer must otherwise borrow. Because the total debt is lower, the housing 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 housing credits. The demand for housing credits provided by the federal government exceeds supply. The Competitive Application Process Section 420.507(48) authorizes Florida Housing to allocate housing credits and other funding through requests for proposals or other competitive solicitations, and Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to prescribe the competitive solicitation process. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). Applicants for funding request, in their applications, a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally will sell the rights to the future stream of income housing 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 an applicant can receive depends on 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 areas of some counties. These are just examples of the factors considered, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Housing credits are made available through a competitive application process that starts with the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is considered to be a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA in this case was issued on August 26, 2020, and responses were due November 5, 2020. The RFA was modified September 11, 2020, and October 12, 2020, but with no change with respect to the response deadline. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $15,275,810 of housing credits to proposed developments in medium-sized counties, and up to an estimated $1,453,730 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 84 applications in response to RFA 2020-201. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board). The Review Committee found 79 applications eligible and five applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 10 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. The federal government enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CCA) in December 2020, and as a result, an additional $3,367,501 in housing credits became available for affordable housing for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay Counties, which were impacted by Hurricane Sally. The staff at Florida Housing recommended using the CCA funding to award housing credits to additional highest-ranking eligible applications in qualified disaster areas, subject to the county award tally, regardless of the county size in RFA 2020-201 and developed a chart listing its CCA funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On January 22, 2021, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee and staff for RFA 2020-201. At approximately 2:50 p.m. that day, all of the applicants in RFA 2020-201 were provided notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration of funding, and that certain eligible applicants were preliminarily selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Notice was provided by posting on the Florida Housing website two spreadsheets: one listing the Board-approved scoring results in RFA 2020-201; and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the January 22, 2021, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 24 applicants, including The Villages, Pinnacle at Hammock Springs, and Rosemary Place. Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceedings. All Intervenors have been properly recognized as such. The terms of RFA 2020-201 were not challenged. RFA 2020-201 Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A summary of the eligibility items is listed in Section 5.A.1. of the RFA, beginning at page 71. Only applications that meet all of the eligibility requirements will be eligible for funding and considered for the funding selection. This challenge does not raise any issues with respect to the point totals awarded to the applicants. The RFA has four funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund five Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a of the RFA, with a preference that three of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(1) of the RFA to be considered submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113, and two of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(2) of the RFA to be considered not submitted in RFA 2019-113. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.5.i of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund two Developments with a Demographic commitment of Family that select and qualify for the geographic Areas of Opportunity/ SADDA Goal outlined in Section Four A.10.a(1)(d) of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the SunRail Goal outlined in Section Four, A.5.e.(5) of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process, outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal with one exception: If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, the SunRail Goal will also be considered met. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp.75). At page 76 of Joint Exhibit 1, the RFA also sets forth the sorting order to be used when selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal: The highest scoring applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Priority I Medium County Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order. This will then be repeated for Priority II Applications: First, counties of the Applications that (i) qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal in FRA 2019-113 and (ii) were invited to enter credit underwriting will receive lower preference than other Medium Counties competing for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. This affects the following counties: Brevard, Lee, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, and Volusia. The remaining counties will receive higher preference. Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. Next, the RFA sets forth the sorting order for selecting applications to meet the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. It then sets for the sorting order after selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal (LGAO Designation) and Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. The RFA includes a funding test where a) small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding ($1,453,730) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount, and b) medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding ($15,275,810) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount. The RFA outlines a specific County Award Tally based on Priority Levels as follows: Priority I County Award Tally As each Priority I Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. Priority II County Award Tally As each Priority II Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority II Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp. 78-79) The RFA outlines the selection process at pages 79-81 as follows: Five Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal Applications that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not Awarded The first three Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not awarded, subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this preference is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this preference, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this preference is met. Applications that were not submitted in RFA 2019-113 The next Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were not submitted in 2019-113, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this Goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are not eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this Goal. One Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Two Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal The next two Applications select [sic] for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are no eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this goal. One Application that Qualifies for the SunRail Goal If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal described in a. above or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal described in b. above also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, this Goal will be considered met without selecting an additional Application. If none of the Applications selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization also qualify for the SunRail Goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Small County Applications that (i) can meet the Small County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Small County Priority I Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Priority I Application can meet the Small County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded Small County Priority II Application can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test, no further Small County Applications will be selected, and the remaining Small County Funding will be added to the Medium County funding amount. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Medium County Applications that (i) can meet the Medium County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Medium County Priority I Applications. If Medium County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority I Applications can meet the Medium County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority II Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Medium County Funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Application can meet the Medium County Funding Test, no further Applications will be selected and the remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. After the description of the sorting process, the RFA specifies: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or provisions outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 84 applications for RFA 2020-201 were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. The Fletcher Black Application During the scoring process, Florida Housing determined that the Fletcher Black application was eligible for funding, but ineligible for the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black was not selected for preliminary funding. If Fletcher Black’s application was eligible for the LGAO Designation, it would have been selected for funding. It would have been selected as the second of the three developments selected for the LGAO Priority I applications that qualified for the preference for those development applications submitted in RFA 2019-113, but not awarded as outlined on pages 69-70 of the RFA. Additionally, if Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, then The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs will be displaced from funding. In order to qualify for the LGAO Designation and Goal, applicants must “demonstrate a high level of Local Government interest in the project via an increased amount of Local Government contributions in the form of cash loans and/or cash grants.” The RFA outlines the types and amounts of contributions from Local Governments that will be accepted to meet the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black’s proposed development is in Bay County. Therefore, Fletcher Black would be required to demonstrate a contribution of at least $340,000 to be considered for the LGAO Designation. The RFA at page 67 expressly limits the number of applications from the same government jurisdiction as follows: Limit on the number of Applications within the same jurisdiction A proposed Development may only qualify where a jurisdiction (i.e., the county or a municipality) has contributed cash loans and/or cash grants for any proposed Development applying for this RFA in an amount sufficient to qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. A Local Government can only contribute to one Application that qualifies for the Local Government Area of Opportunity Designation, regardless of how the contribution is characterized. Any single jurisdiction may not contribute cash loans and/or cash grants to more than one proposed Development applying for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. If multiple Applications demonstrate Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding from the same jurisdiction and those Applications qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, then all such Applications will be deemed ineligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, regardless of the amount of Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding or how the contribution is characterized. However, Local Governments may pool contributions to support one Application (i.e., the county and the city may provide contribution to the same Development and each Local Government will submit its own form as an Attachment to the Application). Page 68 of the RFA describes the requirements for demonstrating LGAO funding: In order to be eligible to be considered Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding, the cash loans and/or cash grants must be demonstrated via one or both of the Florida Housing Local Government Verification of Contribution Forms (Form Rev. 07-2019), called “Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan” form and/or the “Local Government Verification of Contribution -- Grant” form. The forms must meet the Non-Corporation Funding Proposal Requirements outlined in 10.b.(2)(a) above, the qualifying funding must be reflected as a source on the Development Cost Pro Forma, and the applicable form(s) must be provided as Attachment 16 to the Application. Applications are not required to reflect the value (difference between the face amount and the net present value of the payment streams) on any Local Government Verification Forms. Similarly, Section 10.b.(2)(a) of the RFA specifies that, Note: Eligible Local Government financial commitments (i.e., grants and loans) can be considered a source of financing without meeting the requirements above if the Applicant provides a properly completed and executed Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Form 0702019) and/or the Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form (Form 07-2019). Fletcher Black submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Grant Form) from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000. Fletcher Black’s Grant Form was executed by Greg Bridnicki, as the Mayor of Panama City and “Approved as to Form and Correctness” by Nevin Zimmerman, City Attorney. Fletcher Black’s request for funding from Panama City was placed on the agenda for the City of Panama City City Commission’s August 25, 2020, meeting, and approved by the City Commission, which authorized Mr. Bridnicki to sign the Grant Form. Fletcher Black had obtained a similar LGAO Form in the previous year using the same established process. Fletcher Black did not submit any documentation in the RFA Application regarding the process used to gain approval of the grant. However, no party identified any requirement in the RFA that such a description must be included in the Application. Fletcher Black cannot be faulted for not supplying something that is not required. Another Applicant, Panama Manor App. No. 2021-074C, submitted a Grant Form from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000 executed by Michael Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s title is listed as the Director of Community Development/CRA/CDBG/SHIP. During the scoring process, Florida Housing’s scorer found that since both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor submitted documentation for the LGAO Designation from the same jurisdiction, the City of Panama City, according to the terms of the RFA, both applications were deemed ineligible for the LGAO Designation. The Grant Form submitted by both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor contains the following instruction regarding who is authorized to sign the form on behalf of the local government: This certification must be signed by the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approvals, Mayor, City Manager, County Manager/ Administrator/ Coordinator, Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners. … One of the authorized persons named above may sign this form for certification of state, federal or Local Government funds initially obtained or derived from a Local Government that is directly administered by an intermediary such as a housing finance authority, a community reinvestment corporation, or a state-certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Other signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed. To be considered for points, the amount of the contribution stated on this form must be a precise dollar amount and cannot include words such as estimated, up to, maximum, not to exceed, etc. Michael Johnson was not authorized by the City of Panama City to sign the Grant Form. Greg Bridnicki, as Mayor of Panama City, is an authorized signatory. Panama Manor’s request was not submitted to the City Commission for approval. Because the Grant Form was improperly signed, Panama Manor should not, by the terms of the RFA, receive credit for the LGAO Designation. Had Panama Manor’s application received the LGAO Designation, it would not have been selected for funding because its lottery number was too high. Michael Johnson is the Director of Community Development for the City of Panama City. While he is an employee for the City of Panama City, he also performs duties for Bay County through an interlocal agreement between the city and the county. The Grant Form submitted for Panama Manor stated on its face that it was signed on behalf of the City of Panama City, but Mr. Johnson testified that the form was supposed to reflect that it was for Bay County. Mr. Johnson testified that over the last 17 years, he has executed approximately 40 forms for applications for funding from Florida Housing. He acknowledged that there are multiple types of forms that may need signatures from city or county officials to complete a Florida Housing application, such as zoning forms and infrastructure-verification forms, as well as local government contribution forms. Since Florida Housing changed its process to use RFAs in 2013, Mr. Johnson could not recall if he signed the Grant Forms or whether the city manager did. He could not confirm signing a single Grant Form for either the city or the county since 2013. Mr. Johnson believed that he had the authority to sign Grant Forms on behalf of both the city and the county. Mark McQueen, the City of Panama City city manager and Mr. Johnson’s boss, does not share his belief. According to Mr. McQueen, whose testimony is credited, Panama City committed only to the Fletcher Black property, took no official action with respect to Panama Manor’s application, and Mr. Johnson was not authorized to sign the Grant Form committing funds on behalf of the City. When Mr. Johnson realized that the Panama Manor Grant Form stated that it was signed on behalf of Panama City as opposed to Bay County, he called the legal department for Florida Housing to explain the error. He testified that he spoke with several people at Florida Housing, including Jean Salmonson, David Weston, and someone in the multi-family development section. Mr. Johnson was not sure of the dates when these telephone calls were made, but it appears that the telephone calls were after the submission of the applications but before the posting of funding selections. Marissa Button is Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs. She testified that Florida Housing is aware of the contention that the form submitted by Panama Manor was signed in error and should have reflected that it was signed on behalf of Bay County. She was also aware that according to Mr. McQueen, Mr. Johnson did not have the authority to sign a Grant Form on behalf of the City of Panama City. She stated: Q. How does that information impact Florida Housing’s scoring decision? A. This --at this juncture it does not impact Florida Housing’s scoring determination as to the Panama Manor or Fletcher Black being designated as LGAO goal. … We take the requirement of the RFA specifically references the – the submission of what – when there’s a submission of multiple applications from the same jurisdiction, and so we, Florida Housing, consider that as of – as of the application deadline what this applicant has submitted is a form executed on behalf of the City of Panama City. To change the designation, which I understand from Mr. Johnson’s testimony it was a mistake, he intended to issue on behalf of Bay County and reflect that, we interpret that to be a – an improper amendment or modification to the application after the application submission. So we do not consider it to change the scoring designation of the – of either the Panama Manor application or the resulting consequence to the Fletcher Black application. * * * Q. Now, Fletcher Black may argue that it’s unfair to treat its application as ineligible for the LGAO designation and goals when the Fletcher Black [application] did not contain an error. What would your response be to that? A. You know, my response is, we score the application in accordance with the terms of the RFA. The applications are responsible for all parts of that – that RFA with regard to their application submission. It’s clear in this RFA that there would be a consequence if other applications were submitted from the same jurisdiction for an LGAO designation. And, unfortunately, that’s the mistake that happened, but the fairness – it is a fair process because we are – we are administering the RFA as it has been, you know – as the terms exist to the public and to the fellow applications that came in for funding. So, I – I do believe it’s unfortunate that that consequence impacts their application; however, it is – it is fair because that’s the consequence if it happens. (T-39-40, 45-46). Panama Manor’s application did not demonstrate local government funding because the Grant Form was not signed by someone with authority to do so. The RFA specifically states that “[o]ther signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed.” Where forms signed by local government officials are challenged, Ms. Button indicated that Florida Housing has in the past relied upon or deferred to local government officials to address the propriety of the forms signed. The issue usually arises with forms related to zoning or other facets encompassed in the Ability to Proceed forms. Here, the credible testimony of local officials is that the Grant Form for Panama Manor was intended to reflect a funding commitment from Bay County and the signator on Panama Manor’s Grant Form was not authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Panama City. It would be contrary to competition if Panama Manor were allowed to amend its application to correct the Grant Form. It is appropriate to disregard Panama Manor’s Grant Form, given the inaccuracies contained therein. If Panama Manor’s application is not selected for the LGAO Designation because of its failure to demonstrate that the City of Panama City is providing local support for Panama Manor’s project, then there is only one application with a valid Grant Form from the City of Panama City, and that is Fletcher Black. Ms. Button testified that it would provide a competitive advantage to Fletcher Black if Fletcher Black were considered for the LGAO Designation. However, she stated that applicants are responsible for all parts of their application submission. Fletcher Black did not make an error in its application and is not requesting that it be amended in any way. It is asking that the application be considered as submitted, just as other applications are considered. Florida Housing’s decision to find Fletcher Black ineligible for the LGAO Designation is clearly erroneous, in light of the clear demonstration that Panama Manor did not demonstrate a local funding commitment from the City of Panama City, and Fletcher Black is the only entity that did so. The Rosemary Place Application Florida Housing deemed the Rosemary Place application to be eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Rosemary Place for funding. One of the requirements for eligibility under the RFA is that applicants demonstrate Site Control by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Site Control Certification form (Site Control Form). For the Site Control Form to be considered complete, the applicant must attach documentation demonstrating that it is a party to an eligible contract or lease or is the owner of the subject property. Applicants can demonstrate Site Control by providing documentation that meets the requirements in the RFA for an eligible contract, deed or certificate of title, or a lease. The RFA specifies at pages 39-40 that an eligible contract must meet the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021; It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant: and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The RFA notifies applicants that Florida Housing’s review of the Site Control documents is limited. At page 40, the RFA states: Note: The Corporation will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, the Corporation will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. The Corporation has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. The RFA also requires that, for the purpose of demonstrating Site Control, “documentation must include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” A “scattered site” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(106) as “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. …” Rosemary Place submitted a properly completed and executed Site Control Form which was accepted by Florida Housing during its review, scoring, and ranking process. As an attachment to its Site Control Form, Rosemary Place attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement (Rosemary Place Agreement) between Kyle McDorman as the Seller and RM FL XX Prime, LLC (the applicant entity for Rosemary Place) as the Purchaser. The Rosemary Place Agreement has a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021, and states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The Rosemary Place Application identified the address of the proposed development as “690’ N of intsctn of 331-Bus & Azalea Dr on W side of 331- Bus; within city limits of Freeport, FL (Walton County).” (J-16, page 5). The Development Location Point, consisting of latitude and longitude coordinates was correctly identified, and the Rosemary Place Application stated that the proposed development did not consist of scattered sites. Exhibit A of the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement identifies the property as follows: That Thirteen (13.0) Acres situated in the City of Freeport, FL (Distrct 2); Section 10, Township 1S, Range 19, and which is part of Walton County, FL Parcel 10-1S-19-23000-009-0020 which is further described in the land records of Walton County, FL as 210FT SQ FT IN THE SE/C OF THE W1/2 OF THE NE1/4 OF SW1/4 IN SEC 10-1S-19W, 204-184, 1204-279, 2660- 2976, 3084-4417 and which is recorded in that Warranty Deed from Grantor Aaron M and Rachel N Sloan Elkins to Grantee Kyle J. McDorman which Warranty Deed is recorded in the land records of Walton County, FL at Book 3084 and Page Number 4417. The Property is further described and identified as the shaded area denoted with an X in the image below. Based on the Walton County Property Appraiser map, the shaded area denoted with an X is contained within Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000, which is owned by the Seller, Kyle McDorman, as opposed to Parcel No. 10- 1S-19-23000-009-0020. Timshell contends that the shaded area denoted with an X overlaps parcels outside of Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000. Timshell contends that the submitted Site Control documentation submitted by Rosemary Place is not consistent with the requirements of the RFA because of the uncertainty of the property that is actually being purchased and where the proposed Development site is actually located. Timshell also contends that the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement, as written and submitted to Florida Housing, denotes scattered sites which were not disclosed by Rosemary Place in its application. Rosemary Place contends, and Florida Housing agrees, that the shaded area denoted with an X on Exhibit A to the Rosemary Place Agreement sufficiently identifies the property being purchased through the agreement as the Development site. Moreover, the visual depiction of the property is consistent with the written description of the development location in the Rosemary Place Application at J-16, page 5. The Rosemary Place Application does not depict scattered sites. Even assuming that the parcel number included in Exhibit A were part of the purchase reflected in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, an eligible contract may involve the purchase of multiple properties or a larger parcel of property than will be developed. What is most important is that the documents show where the development will be located, which Rosemary Place’s application demonstrates, and that the applicant will have control over the location. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing did not consider the Rosemary Place Application to be proposing a scattered sites development. Rosemary Place affirmatively stated that it was not proposing a scattered sites development; did not list coordinates for scattered sites; and did not identify the location of scattered sites on other forms required by the RFA. Exhibit A to the Purchase and Sale Agreement contains typographical errors in the written description of the property being sold. Stewart Rutledge, who prepared the Purchase and Sale Agreement, testified credibly that parcel numbers are listed on the Walton County Property Appraiser website, and that to see a particular parcel description, the user clicks on the parcel number he or she wants to see. When preparing the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mr. Rutledge mistakenly clicked on the parcel number immediately above the parcel number he wanted, and he did not notice the error. The parcel number reflected in the Purchase and Sale Agreement references another parcel owned by the seller, Kyle McDorman. Florida Housing considered the typographical error within Exhibit A that results in the listing of the wrong parcel number and property description to be a waivable minor irregularity because the error did not result in the omission of any material information; did not create uncertainty that a term of the RFA was met; and did not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. The same could be said for other typographical error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, such as capitalizing the word “property” when it should not have been. Ms. Button also noted that the RFA does not require applicants to submit a land survey of the proposed development site with its application. The RFA states that Florida Housing reserves the right to waive minor irregularities. A minor irregularity is defined in rule 67-60.008 as: those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Timshell presented the testimony of Stephen Rutan, a professional land surveyor. Mr. Rutan believed that, based on the property description in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the proposed development site overlapped with another parcel not owned by the seller. Mr. Rutan did not perform a professional land survey and admitted that the boundary lines in his informational Exhibit (Timshell Exhibit 4) were not completely accurate. Given that the measurements that Mr. Rutan provided were estimates and not the result of a survey, and the testimony by Mr. Rutledge that the parcel identification was the result of a clerical error, Mr. Rutan’s testimony is given little weight, and does not demonstrate that the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement included in Rosemary Place’s application created any real uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met. Florida Housing’s determination that the error in Rosemary Place’s application was a waivable minor irregularity is not clearly erroneous. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove Florida Housing determined that the Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove Applications were eligible for funding but ineligible for the “submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 Preference.” Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove were not selected for preliminary funding. Within the LGAO Designation and Goal, the RFA contained preferences for funding. One of those preferences was for developments that were submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 (the 2019-113 Preference). In order to qualify for the 2019-113 Preference, an Applicant must meet the following requirements: The question at 11.b.(1) of Exhibit A must reflect confirmation that the Development was submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113; The Application in RFA 2019-113 must have provided a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan or Grant form demonstrating the minimum Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Amount outlined in RFA 2019-113; The Development Location Point and latitude and longitude coordinates for all scattered sites stated at question 5. of Exhibit A for the proposed Development must be located on the same site(s) as the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. These coordinates do not need to be identical to the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. All entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical; and The Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 was not invited to enter credit underwriting. Florida Housing scored Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove as qualifying for all requirements of the 2019-113 Preference except for the requirement that “[a]ll entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical.” (Identical Principals Requirement). The Principals disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form for Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove in RFA 2019- 113 were identical to the Principals disclosed in the applications submitted for RFA 2020-201. The plain language of the RFA only requires that the “entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) be identical.” The plain language of the RFA does not require that the Applicant and Developer entities be identical to those listed in the 2019-113 application. Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove met the requirements for the 2019-113 preference. However, even though Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, they would not be selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. The Villages Florida Housing determined that The Villages Application is eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, The Villages has been preliminarily selected for funding. During scoring, Florida Housing reviewed the Villages’ Zoning Form and determined that it met the requirements of the RFA to demonstrate appropriate zoning. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove alleged in their Petitions that The Villages failed to demonstrate Ability to Proceed and appropriate zoning as required by the terms of the RFA. Prior to hearing, Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove withdrew their challenge to The Villages’ eligibility for funding. However, should Florida Housing determine, as recommended, that Panama Manor’s Grant Form did not demonstrate a funding commitment from Panama City, then Fletcher Black would receive funding as opposed to The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to Case No. 21-0515BID, finding that Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, and awarding funding to Fletcher Black, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting; that with respect to Case Nos. 21-0516BID, 21-0517BID, and 21-0518BID, finding that Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, but are not selected for funding; and with respect to Case No. 21-0520BID, finding that the decision to award funding to Rosemary Place was not clearly erroneous, and the error in its application was a minor waivable irregularity. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc., failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 440.10, 440.107, and 440.38, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate amount of penalty which should be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Financial Services (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent, Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Coconut Cove”), is a Florida corporation, which at the times relevant operated a small hotel/resort located in Islamorada, Florida. On November 4, 2008, a complaint was received by the Bureau of Compliance Office of the Division of Workers’ Compensation located in Miami, Florida, requesting a determination of whether Coconut Cove was in compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation coverage requirements. The complaint was referred to Xotchilth Valdivia, a Department investigator, for investigation. After performing an in-office audit of the Department’s databases and finding no evidence that Coconut Cove had secured workers’ compensation coverage or had obtained exemptions from Florida workers’ compensation laws, Ms. Valdivia traveled to Coconut Cove’s location on November 6, 2008. Upon arriving at Coconut Cove’s location, Ms. Valdivia spoke with a woman by the named Comeau, who was manning the front desk of the resort. Ms. Valdivia asked to speak with Mr. Bates, but was informed that Mr. Bates, a commercial airline pilot, was away. Ms. Comeau, however, told Ms. Valdivia that Mr. Bates’ wife, Magda was available. While waiting for Ms. Bates to arrive, Ms. Valdivia observed four individuals who appeared to be performing work for the resort, in addition to Ms. Comeau, who was manning the front desk: a male who was working around the swimming pool, and two women who appeared to be maids with cleaning mops. When Ms. Bates arrived, Ms. Valdivia identified herself and the purpose of her visit. During the course of her discussion with Ms. Bates, Ms. Bates identified 18 individuals as employees of Coconut Cove by name and occupation. The 18 individuals included Mr. and Ms. Bates, both officers of Coconut Cove. While indicating that she knew nothing about Florida workers’ compensation requirements, Ms. Bates also stated that Coconut Cove did not have workers’ compensation coverage. Finding that Coconut Cove had four employees as of November 6, 2008, and no workers’ compensation coverage, conclusions not disputed by Ms. Bates, Ms. Valdivia issued Stop- Work Order No. 08-326-D5 and served it on Ms. Bates. A Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (hereinafter referred to as the “Request for Records”), was also served on Ms. Bates. The Request for Records sought payroll records for the three-year period preceding the date of the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Ms. Valdivia explained the reason why the Stop-Work Order was being issued and the purpose of the Request for Records. She also explained that the business records would be utilized in calculating any penalty owed by Coconut Cove for failing to carry workers’ compensation coverage. Although Coconut Cove attempted to prove that Ms. Valdivia acted arbitrary in her actions to this point, the evidence proved the contrary. Ms. Valdivia acted reasonably, appropriately, and had good cause for the actions taken. In response to the Request for Records, Ms. Bates telephoned the accountant for Coconut Cove and requested that he provide the payroll information being sought by the Department. Almost all that information was immediately faxed to Ms. Bates, who then provided a copy to Ms. Valdivia. The documentation consisted of a payroll report for Coconut Cove for the period January 1, 2008, to November 6, 2008, UCT-6 reports filed by Coconut Cove with the Florida Department of Revenue for the fourth quarter of 2005 through the third quarter of 2008. (Petitioner’s Exhibits 4B, 4E, 4F, and 4G.) Based upon the information contained in the UCT-6 reports provided by Coconut Cove to the Department, the names of employees and the gross income paid to them by Coconut Cove was reported by Coconut Cove to the Department of Revenue. Those reports indicate that Coconut Cove employed four or more individuals each month from October 2005 through September 2008. Subsequently, Coconut Cove provided additional payroll information to the Department concerning payroll for the periods of November 7, 2005, through December 31, 2005, and November 1, 2008, through November 6, 2008. Again, the documents, which were provided by Coconut Cove, indicate that it had employed four or more individuals during the periods of time covered by these documents. The Request for Records included a request for time sheets, check stubs, and check ledgers for the period of time at issue, November 7, 2005, to November 6, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Audit Period”). None of these documents were provided to the Department or at hearing. While Coconut Cove had a stack of documents at hearing which Mr. Bates referred to generally as time cards, those documents were not offered into evidence and no specific testimony concerning the vast majority of the documents was provided. Based upon the documentation provided by Coconut Cove to the Department, documentation which was offered and admitted at hearing, the Department proved clearly and convincingly that Coconut Cove employed four or more individuals during each month of the Audit Period. This finding excludes Mr. and Ms. Bates, who, although employees of Coconut Cove who had not obtained exemptions from coverage during the audit period, received no remuneration from Coconut Cove during the Audit Period. The documentation provided by Coconut Cove was provided to Russell Gray, an employee of the Department since 1986. Mr. Gray reviewed all the payroll information provided by Coconut Cove to Ms. Valdivia, transferred the payroll information to spread sheets, and proceeded to calculate the penalty imposed pursuant to statutes and rules for Coconut Cove’s failure to comply with the insurance coverage requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The manner in which Mr. Gray calculated the penalty is more specifically and accurately described in the Department’s proposed findings of fact numbered 21 through 25 and 27, which are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. Mr. Gray determined that the penalty to be assessed against Coconut Cove was $27,897.58. An Amended Order of Penalty Assessment for the penalty was issued December 3, 2008, and served on Coconut Cove by certified mail on December 4, 2008. Subsequently, Mr. Gray concluded that his penalty calculation was incorrect to the extent that he had included gross income in the amount of $1,316.65 to an employee named Gerald Elmore. This figure was the income of another employee and not income attributable to Mr. Elmore. In order to correct his error, the Department filed a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment on September 18, 2009, seeking to file a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, lowering the penalty assessment to $27,821.74. Despite objections to this amendment raised at hearing by Coconut Cove, the Motion to Amend was granted after hearing the impact of the change and the reason it was required. On December 15, 2008, Coconut Cove entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. The Department, therefore, issued a Conditional Release from Stop- Work Order, also dated December 15, 2008. Coconut Cove’s relevant defense to the foregoing consisted of the assertion by Mr. and Ms. Bates that they simply did not have more than three employees at anytime. It was asserted that employees listed on the documentation provided by Coconut Cove’s accountant to Ms. Bates and given by Ms. Bates to Ms. Valdivia, were actually employees of another entity owned by the Bates, Paul’s Beach Bar and Grill, Inc., which runs an on- site restaurant and catering service. The testimony of Mr. and Ms. Bates on this issue was not convincing and is rejected as unworthy. The testimony was uncertain as to time, short on specifics, and was contrary to the information reported on the payroll records and UCT-6s provided by Coconut Cove’s accountant. That testimony is also rejected because no explanation as to why the individuals had been listed as employees of Coconut Cove on the payroll records and UCT-6s if they were indeed employees of Paul’s Beach Bar and Grill, Inc. The Department proved clearly and convincingly, based upon documentation produced to it by Coconut Cove, that the individuals named on the penalty worksheet attached to the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were employees of Coconut Cove during the Audit Period, that Coconut Cove paid those individuals the gross income included in the penalty worksheet, and that the calculation of the penalty assessment, as amended at hearing, was accurate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc., failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees during the Audit Period, in violation of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty against Coconut Cove Resort and Marina, Inc., in the amount of $27,821.74. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 30th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy L. Newhall, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Paul Bates Magda Bates 8401 Overseas Highway Islamorada, Florida 33036 Tracey Beal, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues presented for determination are whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s determination that the three applicant-parties were eligible for the allocation of low-income housing tax credits; and its intended decision to award such tax credits to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, are contrary to governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.1/
Findings Of Fact Parties and Process Florida Housing is a public corporation and, for the purposes of these proceedings, is an agency of the State of Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, 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.3/ Florida Housing is authorized by law to allocate tax credits (and other funding) by means of requests for proposal or other forms of competitive solicitation. On October 6, 2017, Florida Housing published the RFA, starting the competitive application process being challenged in this proceeding. Completed applications were due December 28, 2017.4/ As explained below, all of the non-agency parties (HTG Heron, Channel Side, and Ocean Breeze) in this case applied for funding for a proposed development in Palm Beach County. According to the terms of the RFA, only one application for each county was to be funded. Moreover, the RFA’s stated goal was to fund one application wherein the applicant applied and qualified as a non-profit applicant. This non-profit goal did not apply within each of the six counties included in this RFA; one non-profit applicant in any of the six counties could satisfy the non-profit applicant goal for the entire RFA. No challenges were made to the terms or requirements of the RFA. HTG Heron is an applicant to the RFA, requesting an allocation of $1,541,751.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-289C, was deemed eligible for consideration but was not selected for funding under the RFA. Channel Side is also an applicant to the RFA. It is requesting an allocation of $2,100,000.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-278C, was deemed eligible for consideration but was not selected for funding under the RFA. Ocean Breeze is an applicant requesting an allocation of $2,070,000.00 in competitive tax credits. Its application, assigned number 2018-286C, was deemed eligible for consideration and was selected for funding under the RFA, subject to a credit underwriting review process. Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the tax credit program. See § 420.507(48), Fla. Stat. The bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3) are adopted as part of the process for allocating tax credits, except that no bond is required. See Fla. Admin Code R. 67-60.009. A review committee was appointed to evaluate the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the Board). Thirty-three applications for the RFA were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA; Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60; and applicable federal regulations. The review committee found 25 applications eligible and eight applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, seven applications were recommended for funding, including Ocean Breeze. The review committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On March 16, 2018, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee for the RFA. The same day, the applicants to the RFA received notice of the Board’s determinations as to whether the applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and which of the eligible applicants were selected for award of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of a credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” applications to the RFA and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund.5/ Relevant to this proceeding, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding for Palm Beach County to Ocean Breeze, which received the maximum points available. Channel Side and HTG Heron were deemed eligible and scored the maximum number of points, but were not recommended for funding. Each applicant-party timely filed a Notice of Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. RFA The RFA contemplated a structure in which each applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. To determine if an application is eligible for funding, it must meet all of the requirements listed in section 5.A.1, of the RFA. The following eligibility terms and requirements are challenged in this proceeding: The evidence of control of the development site (site control) by Ocean Breeze and Channel Side; and The address of the development site provided by HTG Heron. For scoring the applications, the RFA allows up to a total of 20 points with the following point allocations: Submission of Principal Disclosure form stamped by Corporation as “Pre-Approved” (5 points); Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive (5 points); and Local Government Contribution Points (5 points) or Local Government Area of Opportunity Points (10 points). As explained in pages 66-67 of the RFA, the first step in evaluating the applications is the sorting order. All eligible applications are ranked by first sorting all eligible applications from the highest score to the lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.11.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); [sic] Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); [sic] Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); [sic] Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and [sic] And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. In other words, those competing for the RFA must first submit an application that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors before it is scored. After scoring, any tiebreakers are determined strictly by the luck of the draw. After applications are filed, but before they are scored, Florida Housing randomly assigned each a lottery number, and the highest scoring applicant with the lower number wins any ties, thus becoming the intended funding recipient. The notice of the intended award does not end the process, and the selection of an applicant for funding does not guarantee distribution of tax credits to that applicant. Florida Housing’s representative, Ms. Button, explained at the hearing: Q Okay. What happens once a preliminary agency action from Florida Housing becomes final agency action? A The awardees who are recommended or preliminarily approved for funding, once that becomes final, those applicants are then invited to credit underwriting by Florida Housing. * * * Q Can you provide some general information about credit underwriting? A Credit underwriting is essentially a de novo review of all the information that the applicant has provided in their application to proceed forward with the proposed development. Florida Housing retains their party underwriters who review that information and provide recommendations to Florida Housing. Similarly, the RFA provides that each selected awardee must complete a credit underwriting process before receiving funding or credits. The RFA states on page 68: Notwithstanding an award by the Board pursuant to his RFA, funding will be subject to a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter based on criteria outlined in the credit underwriting provisions in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C. Rule 67-48.0072, in turn, provides in part: Credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding, including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for Housing credits. The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team’s experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. Thus, an application might fail in this de novo credit underwriting phase and never receive funding, even though it was “awarded” tax-credit funding as a result of a proceeding such as this one. In that event, page 67 of the RFA provides: 4. Returned Allocation Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the [Review] Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing its Application, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting, or an Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA and/or Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. Therefore, if an intended applicant (such as Ocean Breeze), was nominally selected for funding at the end of the eligibility and scoring phase, but failed to garner a positive recommendation from the credit underwriting process, the next eligible applicants in the queue (such as HTG Heron and Channel Side) would be awarded the tax credits. As a result, in this consolidated proceeding, the objective of Petitioners is to displace any and all applicants in more favorable positions. Here, Petitioner Channel Side challenges the eligibility of both the Ocean Breeze and HTG Heron applications; and Petitioner HTG Heron challenges the eligibility of Ocean Breeze. Ocean Breeze, in turn, challenges both HTG Heron’s and Channel Side’s eligibility. The specific issues raised as to the three challenged applications will be discussed below. OCEAN BREEZE APPLICATION HTG Heron and Channel Side challenge Ocean Breeze’s eligibility based on the RFA requirements relating to site control. The parties have stipulated, and the undersigned finds, that site control must have been demonstrated as of the application deadline of December 28, 2017. The RFA provides three ways an applicant can demonstrate site control: (1) eligible contract, (2) deed or certificate of title, or (3) lease. Ocean Breeze utilized the first method to satisfy the site control requirement by submitting a document titled “Purchase and Development Agreement” (PDA) as Exhibit 8 to its Application. The PDA included two attachments: the “Legal Description” and a “Reverter Agreement.” Petitioners challenge the enforceability of the PDA on two apparent grounds: (1) it was not executed by the applicant6/; and (2) it was executed before the applicant was properly incorporated to do business within the State of Florida. The RFA, however, does not mention “enforceability” of a contract in its definition for “Eligible Contract.” The requirements for establishing site control though an eligible contract are found on page 30 through 31 of the RFA. Eligible Contract - For purposes of this RFA, an eligible contract is one that has a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018; specifically states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. Any assignment must be signed by the assignor and the assignee. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided, and, if a contract, must contain the following elements of an eligible contract: (a) have a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or contain extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018, and (b) specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The initial paragraph of the PDA identifies the parties to the PDA as “Boyton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency,” as the “Seller,” and “Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC” as the “Purchaser.” Paragraph 14 of the PDA designates the following for purposes of notices: If to Purchaser: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC Attn: Lewis Swezy 7735 NW 146 Street, Suite 306 Miami Lakes, FL 33016 Under the signature block, however, the PDA states it was executed on behalf of the “Purchaser” by “OCEAN BREEZE APARTMENTS LLC By Ocean Breeze East GP LLC” and signed by Lewis Swezy, “Title: Authorized Member” on December 8, 2017. “Ocean Breeze East, GP, LLC” does not exist and never has in Florida. The parties admit that this entity was not in existence on December 8, 2017, and was never subsequently formed. Ocean Breeze admits the identification of “Ocean Breeze East, GP, LLC” was in error. The PDA was executed on behalf of the “Seller” by BBCRA and signed by Steven B. Grant, “Title: Chair” on December 15, 2017. Paragraph 4 of the PDA indicates that its effective date is the date when the last party signed the PDA; in this case being the date the BBCRA executed the document--December 15, 2017. The Reverter Agreement is executed by the “Purchaser” “Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC” and signed by Lewis Swezy, “Title: Manager of Manager,” on December 12, 2017. The Reverter Agreement is executed by the “Seller,” BBCRA, and signed by Steven B. Grant, “Title: Chairman” on December 15, 2017. Mr. Swezy testified Ocean Breeze complied with all the terms of the PDA, including submitting an initial $25,000 deposit within two days of full execution of the PDA and a second deposit within 30 days. The Articles of Organization for Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC were filed on December 19, 2017, and effective December 14, 2017. Rachael Grice, Florida Housing Multifamily Programs Manager, scored the site control portion for this RFA based on the information in the application. Mrs. Grice found that Ocean Breeze met the RFA requirements for site control. It is unnecessary, and beyond the scope of the undersigned’s jurisdiction, to make a factual or legal determination as to the enforceability of the PDA. The RFA does not mention enforceability or validity as requirements for an “Eligible Contract” for site control purposes. There is no dispute that on its face, the PDA with the Reverter Agreement satisfied the RFA’s requirements for an “Eligible Contract” listed on page 30 and 31. In fact, as of the date of the application deadline the following was true: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, was listed as the applicant for the RFA. Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, was listed as the “Purchaser” on the PDA. Mr. Swezy had signature authority to bind Ocean Breeze and was listed on the Ocean Breeze application as the “Authorized Representative.” Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, and Mr. Swezy were identified in the notice provision in the PDA. The Reverter Agreement, which was signed after the PDA, correctly identified the applicant entity as Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC. Effective December 14, 2017, Ocean Breeze was incorporated. The PDA was fully executed on December 15, 2017. HTG Heron and Channel Side have not established that the PDA was fatally flawed or that Florida Housing erred in accepting the PDA as an “eligible contract” satisfying the RFA’s site control requirement. Even if the PDA contained errors by listing “Ocean Breeze East GP, LLC” in the signature block or was prematurely signed before Ocean Breeze was effectively incorporated, the evidence at the hearing established that it was a minor irregularity waivable by Florida Housing, and that Florida Housing would have waived any such errors. If the PDA is ultimately determined to be unenforceable and site control is not established at the credit underwriting stage, Petitioners would be next in line to be selected to receive the tax credits under the terms of the RFA. The preponderance of the evidence established that Ocean Breeze’s application is eligible for funding, it received the proper scoring, and should be the intended award for Palm Beach County. HTG HERON APPLICATION Channel Side and Ocean Breeze challenge the eligibility of the HTG Heron application because they claim it fails to satisfy the RFA eligibility requirement to provide a correct address of the proposed development site. Page 18 of the RFA requires in relevant part: Indicate (1) the address number, street name, and name of city, and/or (2) the street name, closest designated intersection, and either name of city or unincorporated area of county. Ms. Button testified the purpose of the address requirement in the RFA is to allow parties, including Florida Housing, to know where the proposed development will be built and to ensure the property has access to utility and other services. In that vein, the RFA does not require the street identified in an application to be a publicly maintained street. In its application, HTG Heron provided the address of the proposed development as “W 17th Ct., W 17th Ct. and North Congress Ave., Riviera Beach,” along with latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates of the development location. Ryan McKinless, Multifamily Programs Senior Analyst for Florida Housing, scored the development address section for this RFA. Mr. McKinless found that HTG Heron met the requirements in the RFA for providing an address of the proposed development. Here, Channel Side and Ocean Breeze argue Florida Housing erred in accepting the “W. 17th Ct.” address provided by HTG Heron because the address does not exist. They point to the site sketch submitted by HTG Heron in support of its application which references a “W. 17th Street” (not “W. 17th Ct.”) and has “W. 17th Street” intersecting with “Congress Avenue Extension,” (not “N. Congress Ave.”). In support of this position that “W. 17th Ct.” does not exist, Ocean Breeze and Channel Side also rely on a 1975 plat and a 1999 City of Rivera Beach Ordinance. The sketches attached to HTG Heron’s application each contain the disclaimer “NOT A SURVEY.” Although the sketches contain a reference to an abandonment relating to “W. 17th Ct.,” the 1999 Ordinance describing the abandonment relied on by Channel Side and Ocean Breeze was not submitted to Florida Housing. Regardless, this plat and ordinance information was not required by the RFA nor was it considered by Florida Housing in determining whether to accept the address submitted by HTG Heron for eligibility determination purposes. There was no evidence at the hearing that the “W. 17th Court” address misled Florida Housing (or anyone else) or caused confusion as to the location of HTG Heron’s proposed development. To the contrary, other information in the application supports accepting the provided address. The “Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments” form executed by the City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations” form executed by the City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure- Electricity” form executed by an Associate Engineer from Florida Power and Light affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure” form for water and sewer services executed by a Utilities Engineer from City of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Verification of Availability of Infrastructure- Roads” form executed by a City Engineer from the City of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The “Local Government Verification of Contribution- Grant” form executed by the Interim City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the “W. 17th Ct.” address. The acting director of the City of Riviera Beach, Department of Community Development confirms by letter that the property at the “2003 W. 17th Court (adjacent to North Congress Avenue)” address is located with a “Qualified Census Tract for 2017 and 2018” and attaches a diagram of that tract. Documentation from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s website lists the address location as “2003 W. 17th Ct.” Given that the purpose of providing an address was fulfilled and there was no ambiguity as to the actual location of the HTG Heron’s development site, Channel Side and Ocean Breeze failed to prove that Florida Housing erred in accepting HTG Heron’s address for the purposes of eligibility. At the hearing, HTG Heron also submitted a certified copy of a 2017 map from the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser’s Office for range 43, township 42, which includes the area of the proposed development in HTG Heron’s application, and indicates there is a “W. 17th Ct.” that intersects with “N. Congress Avenue.” There was a preponderance of evidence establishing HTG Heron’s designation in its application of “W 17th Ct., W 17th Ct. and North Congress Ave., Riviera Beach” was not an error, and that HTG Heron’s application is eligible for funding. CHANNEL SIDE APPLICATION7/ To satisfy the Site Control requirements Channel Side submitted a Purchase and Sale Agreement that lists among the sellers an entity named “MWCP, Inc., f/k/a Blueprint Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation whose post office address is 248 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, NJ (‘Blueprint’)” in the initial paragraph. MWCP, Inc. (MWCP) did not exist in Florida when the Purchase and Sale Agreement was executed. The parties stipulated that the reference in the Channel Side site control documents to MWCP was erroneous and that the owner of the property for the Channel Side’s proposed development as of the application deadline was a Delaware corporation known as Blueprint Properties, Inc., which has never operated as, or been corporately related to, MWCP. Rachel Grice, Florida Housing Multifamily Programs Manager, scored the Site control portion of this RFA based on the information in the Application. Mrs. Grice found that Channel Side met the RFA requirements for Site control. The RFA does not require the listing of related names of any corporations other than the applicant or developer. Thus, the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement does not seem to affect Channel Side’s satisfaction of any requirement of the RFA. The error is insignificant and immaterial. There was no evidence presented at the hearing that Channel Side received a competitive advantage by identifying “MWCP, Inc. f/k/a Blueprint Properties, Inc.” instead of simply “Blueprint Properties” as the seller. The slight error conferred no competitive advantage on Channel Side; its application received no more points than it was entitled to by reason of the mistake. Ms. Button reasonably testified that had Florida Housing known about the mistaken listing of MWCP as the seller, it would have waived the error as a minor irregularity. The applicant-parties failed to prove that Channel Side’s application reflecting the “wrong corporate entity” as the seller was an error affecting eligibility of Channel Side’s application, or that Florida Housing erred in accepting the Purchase and Sale Agreement as proof of site control. The mistake was, at worst, a minor, inconsequential error that was waivable. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, Channel Side’s application is eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decisions: (1) finding the applications of Ocean Breeze, HTG Heron, and Channel Side eligible for funding; (2) awarding the RFA Palm Beach County funding for the Ocean Breeze proposed development; and (3) dismissing the formal written protests of HTG Heron and Channel Side. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
