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 the Respondent, Robert Dugger, committed the violations alleged in an Amended Administrative Complaint, DPBR Case Number 2002-007094, filed by the Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation on April 11, 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of community association management pursuant to Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Fact). Robert Dugger, is and was at the times material to this proceeding a licensed Florida Community Association Manager (hereinafter referred to as a “CAM”), having been issued license number CAM 1148. (Stipulated Fact). At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Dugger’s address of record was 7401 Beach View Drive, North Bay Village, Florida 33141. Miramar Gardens. At the times material to this proceeding, Mr. Dugger was employed by Timberlake Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Timberlake”). In his capacity with Timberlake, Mr. Dugger served as the CAM for 30 homeowners’ associations. In particular, Mr. Dugger served as the CAM for Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”). (Stipulated Fact). The Association is made up of approximately 350 homeowner members. The Association was initially created by the Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners Association, Inc., Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions adopted on or about December 16, 1975. By-Laws for the Association were also adopted on December 16, 1975. Article X of the By-Laws provides the following homeowners’ rights concerning the books and records of the Association: The books, records and papers of the Association shall at all times, during reasonable business hours, be subject to inspection by any Member. The Declaration, the Articles and these By-Laws shall be available for inspection by any Member at the principal office of the Association, where copies may be purchased at reasonable cost. Prior to 2001, the Association, along with Vista Verde Townhome Homeowners Association (hereinafter referred to as “Vista Verde”), an adjacent community association, had been placed in receivership and was managed by a civilian board. These events came about due to the dismal state the two communities were in. Crime was rampant, there were no street signs or lights, common areas and alleys were unkempt, there were abandoned vehicles, and the associations for both areas were essentially non-existent. Miami-Dade County had taken over ownership of many homes in the community by foreclosure. Mr. Dugger became involved early with the reorganization and revitalization of the Association and Vista Verde. In 1997, Mr. Dugger was appointed by the receiver as the CAM for the Association and Vista Verde. At the end of 2000, the Association was ready to govern itself. Toward that end, on or about December 21, 2000, the Association and Timberlake, entered into a Management Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “Management Agreement”). Pursuant to the Management Agreement, Timberlake was designated as the “Exclusive Managing Agent” for the Association commencing January 1, 2001. Among the duties assumed by Timberlake, are the following: 2) MAINTENANCE OF ASSOCIATION FILES: The Manager will collect, organize and maintain in the office of the Manager, all Association information, including but not limited to the Articles of Incorporation, By-Laws, Declaration of, [sic] Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, site plans, owner lists, correspondence, rules and regulations, blue prints, specifications, corporate minutes, all maintenance and service contracts in effect and the necessary administrative financial information related to the Association. 8) ASSISTANCE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS: The Manager will provide administrative support services to the Board of Directors, to include notifying Directors of Board meetings, circulating minutes of the preceding meeting, as prepared by the Secretary . . . . Timberlake has continued to provide the services of Mr. Dugger as CAM since 2001. During his tenure, street signs and lights have been installed, the common areas have been cleared, and the community has greatly improved. Proposed findings of fact 14 through 19 of Mr. Dugger’s Proposed Recommended Order generally describe Mr. Dugger’s efforts as CAM, the improvement of the community, and Mr. Dugger’s reputation as CAM. Count I: Criminal Violations. During 2003, Mr. Dugger served as a city commissioner for the City of North Bay Village, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Village”). On or about December 12, 2003, Mr. Dugger was charged with eight criminal violations in an Information issued in case number F03-33076, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The alleged violations arose out of Mr. Dugger’s activities as a city commissioner for the Village. Two of the criminal charges, Counts 2 and 8, are of pertinence to this matter: (a) Count 2 alleges a violation of Section 2-11.1(d), Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes; and (b) Count 8 alleges a violation of Section 2-11.1(i), Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes. As to Count 2 of the Information, it was more specifically alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . ROBERT A. DUGGER SR., on or about April 08, 2003, in the County and State aforesaid, being a member of THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE COMMISSION, in Miami-Dade County, did vote on a matter presented to said COMMISSION, to wit: ITEM 7A, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 152.029 OF THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE CODE OF ORDINANCES (FIRST READING), when said defendant would or might, directly or indirectly, profit or be enhanced by this action of said COMMISSION on said matter, in violation of Miami-Dade County Code s.2.11.1(d) and s. 125.69, Fla. Stat. . . . As to Count 8 of the Information, it was more specifically alleged, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . ROBERT A. DUGGER SR., on or about July 01, 2003, in the County and State aforesaid, being a MUNICIAL OFFICAL to wit: MEMBER OF THE NORTH BAY VILLAGE COMMISSION, in Miami-Dade County, did fail to comply with the financial disclosure requirements of Chapter 112 (Part III) of the Florida Statutes by failing to DISCLOSE ALL LIABILITIES IN PART E. OF FORM 1 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL INTERESTS FOR 2002, filed with the City Clerk of THE CITY OF NORTH BAY VILLAGE, in violation of Miami-Dade County Code s. 2-11.1(i) and s. 125.69, Fla. Stat. . . . Counts 2 and 8 were based upon the following allegations of the Complaint/Arrest Affidavit: Robert A. Dugger was elected Village Commissioner for the City of North Bay Village on November 19, 2002. On September 21, 2002, Mr. Robert Dugger filed his Statement of Financial Interest for the calendar year 2001, as required by Miami- Dade County ordinance. In Part E of the Statement of Financial Interest (this section is designated for Liabilities – major debts-and asks for the name and address of creditor), Mr. Dugger marked N/A in this section. Commissioner Robert Dugger has substantial indebtedness to Al Coletta that was incurred when Al Coletta assumed the mortgage on one of Dugger’s properties and paid off the mortgage on another. Rachael Dugger admitted these debts under oath during her sworn statement. Commissioner Dugger failed to report these debts on his Statement of Financial Interest. Additionally, on March 15, 2001, a Summary Final Judgement of Foreclosure was ordered and adjudged on behalf International Financial Bank, against Tomin Incorporated, and Robert Dugger and Rachael Dugger personally, in the amount of $1,154,427.50. Following the Judgement on March 15, 2001, title of the property in question was acquire by International Finance Bank on Mary [sic] 2, 2001 and sold to a third party on June 1, 2001. The sale amount of the property was $750,000. A short fall of $404,427.50 remained after the sale and is still unpaid. Commissioner Dugger also failed to report this debt on his Statement of Financial Interest for the year 2001. . . . . Based on Commissioner Robert Dugger’s indebtedness to Al Coletta, he had a Conflict of Interest by voting on matters involving Al Coletta, that came before the North Bay Village Commission, each vote is a separate violation of the Miami-Dade Code, Section 2-11.1(d), a second [degree] misdemeanor. Commissioner Dugger violated the aforementioned Section 2-11.1(d), of the Miami-Dade Code on the following occasions: April 8, 2002, Item 7A, Page 7 of the Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes: A zoning amendment concerning property owned by Al Coletta. Page 14 of the Regular City Commission Meeting Minutes, Commissioner Dugger voted – yes, for approval of the ordinance. . . . . . . . . This action is in violation of Miami-Dade Code, Section 2-11.1(d), a second-degree misdemeanor . . . . Additionally, Commissioner Dugger is in violation of Section 2-11.1(i)(3), Miami- Dade County Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance. This Section required that candidates for County and municipal office must comply with the filing requirements, under Chapter 112, Florida State Statutes. This is a second-degree misdemeanor. . . . Section 2-11.1(d) of the Miami-Dade County Code, prohibits, in pertinent part, the following: Additionally, no person included in the term defined in subsection (b)(1) shall vote on or participate in any way in any matter presented to the Board of County Commissioners if said person has any of the following relationships with any of the persons or entities which would be or might be directly or indirectly affected by any action of the Board of County Commissioners: (i) officer, director, partner, of counsel, consultant, employee, fiduciary or beneficiary; or (ii) stockholder, bondholder, debtor, or creditor, if in any instance the transaction or matter would affect the person defined in subsection (b)(a) in a manner distinct from the manner in which it would affect the public generally. . . . Section 2-11.1(i)(3), of the Miami-Dade County Code, requires that candidates for County and municipal elective office meet the filing requirements of Chapter 112, Part III, Florida Statutes, “at the same time that candidate files qualifying papers.” Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, which provides procedures for the prosecution of county ordinances, states that they are to be prosecuted “in the same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted.” On July 29, 2005, Mr. Dugger entered a plea of nolo contendere to Counts 2 and 8 of the Information, in case number F03-33076, both second-degree misdemeanor violations of Section 2-11.1 of the Miami-Dade County Code, and Section 125.69, Florida Statutes. (Stipulation of Fact). Mr. Dugger was adjudicated guilty of the violations alleged in Counts 2 and 8, and was ordered to pay $468.00 in fines and costs. Mr. Dugger was, therefore, adjudicated guilty of having voted on a matter in which he had a conflict of interest because the matter involved an individual to whom he was indebted; and of having failed to fully disclose liabilities on financial disclosure forms he was required to file pursuant to Florida law at the time he qualified to run for public office. Neither of the convictions directly involved Mr. Dugger’s practice as a CAM. Nor has the Department made such an argument. Instead, the Department presented expert testimony in support of its position that at least one of the convictions relates to Mr. Dugger’s ability to practice as a CAM. That testimony was convincing. All CAMs are involved in a fiduciary relationship with the associations they manage. It takes little expert testimony to support a finding that such a fiduciary relationship requires trust and integrity. CAMs must be trusted to handle association money, maintain the records of the association, and to deal on behalf of the association with potential and existing vendors. The association must be able to assume that a CAM will fully disclose any possible conflict the CAM may have with the association’s vendors. Mr. Dugger is responsible for billing, writing checks, paying insurance premiums, and maintaining a payment book for the Association. Paragraph 10 of the Management Agreement specifically provides that Timberlake “shall provide financial management services to the Association . . . .” Paragraph D(11)(a) authorizes Timberlake to “solicit and analyze bids for necessary insurance coverage.” Mr. Dugger has similar responsibilities with Vista Verde. Clearly, the Association must be able to trust that Mr. Dugger will carry out all these duties without having any conflict of interest. The Association must be able to assume that Mr. Dugger is acting in its best interest and not his own. In his defense as to the voting of interest conflict charge, Mr. Dugger, prior to the pertinent vote, made disclosure of his relationship with Mr. Coletta, the owner of the property which was the subject of the vote, to the attorney for the City of the Village. The Department failed to prove that Mr. Dugger did not make full disclosure. Mr. Dugger was advised that no conflict existed. Mr. Dugger cast his vote after receiving this advice. Subsequent to the vote, Mr. Dugger sought an opinion from the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics & Public Trust (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”). The Commission, like the city attorney, opined in writing that no conflict of interest existed. Mr. Dugger entered his plea on the two charges in order to avoid the cost of litigation. The evidence, however, failed to prove why prosecutors agreed to accept a plea on only two of the eight counts. Count IV: Alleged Denial of Access to the Records of the Association. During 2003, Miryam Ruiz lived in Miramar Gardens Township and was a member of the Association. While she had been in arrears for 2001 and 2002, presumably in her association dues, she became current when she paid all outstanding dues in March 2003. On March 14, 2003, during normal business hours, Ms. Ruiz went to the office of Timberlake and requested that she be allowed to inspect certain records of the Association. She made her request verbally and in writing, leaving Petitioner’s Exhibit 13 with a Timberlake employee, apparently the receptionist, which listed the documents she wanted to inspect. She was told by the receptionist that she could not see the documents until she had made an appointment to do so. By letter dated Thursday, March 27, 2003, Ms. Ruiz was informed by Mr. Dugger’s wife, Rachel, that Ms. Ruiz could review the documents. She was also told that, “[i]f you would like, call us to make an appointment at your convenience.” On the morning of Monday, March 31, 2003, not having received Ms. Dugger’s March 27th letter, Ms. Ruiz sent a letter by facsimile to Timberlake stating that she would be at the office at 11:00 a.m. that morning to “pick up” the documents. When Ms. Ruiz arrived at the Timberlake office at 11:00 a.m. she was again told that she could not review the documents because she had no appointment. Ms. Ruiz left the office. Later that day, Ms. Ruiz sent a second facsimile letter addressed to Ms. Dugger. Ms. Ruiz ended the letter by informing Ms. Dugger that she would be at the office the next day, April 1, 2003, “for the inspection and copying of records at 9:30 a.m.” On April 1, 2003, Ms. Ruiz returned to the Timberlake office and was again told that the records were not available because no appointment had been made. Ms. Ruiz told the receptionist that she would return on Friday, April 4, 2003, at 9:30 a.m. to inspect the documents. In a letter to Ms. Dugger dated April 1, 2003, she stated that she was confirming the date and time. The evidence failed to prove whether the letter was received prior to April 4, 2003. When Ms. Ruiz arrived at the Timberlake office on April 4, 2003, she was again denied access to the documents and was told by Ms. Dugger that she had no appointment because the date and time suggested by Ms. Ruiz had not been confirmed by Timberlake. Ms. Ruiz left the office. The following day, April 5, 2003, Ms. Ruiz sent a letter by certified mail addressed to Mr. Dugger describing the events leading up to that moment and asking what it would take for her to be allowed to inspect the records. Mr. Dugger did not respond to this letter. In response to Ms. Ruiz’ April 5th letter, a letter dated April 22, 2003, was sent by Ms. Dugger. That letter indicated that the records would be available for inspection at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 2003. The letter, which was postmarked May 2, 2003, ten days after the date of the letter, was not received by Ms. Ruiz prior to May 6th. Sometime during the month of May 2003, approximately two months after first attempting to review the records of the Association, Ms. Ruiz was finally allowed to inspect the records. Ms. Ruiz, without doubt, had the right to review the records of the Association she had requested. Pursuant to the Management Agreement, Mr. Dugger was required to collect, organize and maintain the records of the Association. The Management Agreement also required that Mr. Dugger was to assist the Board of Directors in their enforcement of the provisions of the “Association documents and rules and regulations ” Pursuant to Article X of the By-Laws of the Association, also quoted, supra, gives Association members the right to inspect and copy all Association documents The right to inspect association documents is not an unfettered one. In light of the duty and responsibility of a CAM to “maintain” records, it is not unreasonable for a CAM to set reasonable safeguards for a member’s review of those records. The Department did not produce evidence to refute the evidence presented by Mr. Dugger concerning the reasonableness of a CAM insisting on being present during the inspection of documents. The evidence also failed to prove that, given the fact that Mr. Dugger is the CAM for as many as 30 associations, he is not always available at his office to supervise a review of documents. The procedure followed with regard to reviews of the Association’s had been announced at an Association meeting. Members were told that anyone who wished to review records could contact the Timberlake office and make an appointment so Mr. Dugger could be present during an inspection, or that a copy of a document could be obtained upon payment for the document. It is clear that not all of the requests to Timberlake made by Ms. Ruiz were totally reasonable: (a) her first request on April 14, 2003, was without any notice; (b) her notice of March 31, 2003, gave only three hours notice; (c) her request for review on April 1, 2003, gave only one day notice; and (d) her request for review on April 4, 2003, gave only 3 days notice. While Ms. Ruiz eventually was allowed to review the documents, it took approximately two months after her initial request had been made. It is also clear that, although she did not always give reasonable notice for appointments she announced, Mr. Dugger (and his employees) could and should have done more to remedy the situation. Mr. Dugger first became aware of the request on March 14, 2003. It took 13 days to respond to that request. When Ms. Ruiz mailed a certified letter to Mr. Dugger dated April 5, 2003, it was not until May 2, almost a month later that a letter in response to that letter was post-marked. Based upon the foregoing, while neither Ms. Ruiz nor Mr. Dugger did much to ameliorate the situation, for at least part of the two months it took Ms. Ruiz to obtain access to the records of the Association, Mr. Dugger “denied” Ms. Ruiz access to the records of the Association. Count VI: Alleged Failure to Maintain Association Records. Pursuant to the Management Agreement entered into by Mr. Dugger with Miramar Gardens, at paragraph D(2), quoted, supra, Mr. Dugger agreed to collect, organize, and maintain all Association documents in the offices of Timberlake. Beginning in 2001, the minutes of meetings of the Association (held jointly with the meeting of Vista Verde) were usually taken by Claudette Brinson, president of the Association. On occasions, they were taken by others. Minutes taken by Ms. Brinson were written by hand and, after the meeting, were taken home with her. On some occasions, Ms. Brinson would ensure that her hand-written minutes were typed at various locations, including Mr. Dugger’s office. When typed at Mr. Dugger’s office, a copy was retained by Mr. Dugger and maintained with the records of the Association. Ms. Brinson’s testimony at hearing as to whether Mr. Dugger was given a copy of all minutes was in conflict. She initially testified that she had provided him with a copy of all minutes. When recalled by Mr. Dugger, she testified that on some occasions, when she did not have the minutes typed at Mr. Dugger’s office, while maintaining a copy at her home, she did not always provide him with a copy. While the latter testimony was more convincing and has been credited, the bottom line is that Mr. Dugger did not maintain a copy of the minutes from all meetings of the Association. At hearing, Mr. Dugger admitted that when he was served an Investigative Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the Department on or about August 30, 2004, he realized that he did not have all the records the subpoena sought. In particular, Mr. Dugger did not have all of the documents requested in item number 5 of the subpoena: “[t]he minutes of all meetings of the board of directors and of the members of Miramar Gardens Townhouse Homeowners Association, Inc.” Mr. Dugger, therefore, contacted Ms. Brinson and asked her if she could provide a copy of the minutes of Association meetings that he did not have. She was not able to do so within the time Mr. Dugger had to respond to the subpoena. In a letter to the Department dated September 17, 2004, Mr. Dugger indicted the following with regard to the minutes requested in item number 5 of the subpoena: “The Minutes in our possession. Original minute meetings are in the hands of the Receiver, which were retained for his records. Some additional minutes are in the hands of Board members, which we will attempt to locate.” During calendar year 2002, minutes had been kept for meetings held during February, March, April, May, June, July, October, and December. During calendar year 2003, minutes had been kept for meetings held during January, February, March, May, June, July, August, September, October, and November. Finally, during calendar year 2004, minutes were kept for meetings held in January, February, March, April, July, August and September. Mr. Dugger at the time of responding to the Department’s subpoena did not have minutes for all of these meetings. For example, for 2002 he only had minutes for the meetings held in February, March, and June, and for 2003, he only had minutes for the meetings held in January and December. While Ms. Brinson adequately explained why she was not always able to provide a copy of meeting minutes to Mr. Dugger, Mr. Dugger did not provide an adequate explanation as to why he had not made sure that he obtained a copy of all minutes so that he could fulfill his obligation under the Management Agreement. No evidence was presented to suggest that Mr. Dugger’s failure to maintain all minutes was the result of bad faith or any intent on the part of Mr. Dugger to circumvent the rules of the Department or the requirements of the Management Agreement. Prior Discipline Against Mr. Dugger’s CAM License. Mr. Dugger’s CAM license was disciplined in DBPR Case Number 00-02226, pursuant to a Stipulation entered into by the Department and Mr. Dugger which was accepted by Final Order entered on April 9, 2001. The Stipulation provides that Mr. Dugger “neither admits or denies the . . . facts alleged in the Administrative Complaint ”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Mr. Dugger committed the violations described in this Recommended Order and imposing the following penalties: A stayed suspension of his license for six months, with the stay being lifted should Mr. Dugger be found to have committed any additional violation with regard to his CAM license within two years of the issuance of the final order in this case; An administrative fine in the amount of $1,500.00; Attendance at continuing education classes in records maintenance in an amount to be determined by the Department; and Payment of the costs of this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Philip F. Monte, Esquire Department of Business & Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 E. Gary Early, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. 2618 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Rules 15C-1.0102(4) and (5); 15C-1.0104(1)(a) and (b), (2)(b), (3), and (4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Manufactured Housing Association of Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Association"), is a Florida corporation organized for the purpose of representing its members with regard to regulatory matters involving the installation of mobile and manufactured homes. The membership of the Association consists of manufactured housing dealers, manufactured housing installers, and one manufactured housing manufacturer. Hudz Manufactured Housing, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Hudz"), is a licensed dealer of homes. Hudz contracts with installers for the installation of manufactured homes. (Stipulated Facts.) Bob Uhl Mobile Home Sales, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Uhl"), is a licensed dealer-installer of manufactured homes. (Stipulated Facts.) Jabo's Mobile Home Services (hereinafter referred to as "Jabo's"), is a licensed installer of manufactured homes. (Stipulated Facts.) Respondent, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is charged with the authority to regulate manufactured mobile homes in Florida pursuant to Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. Regulating the Installation of Manufactured Homes. Manufactured homes are required under state and federal law to be anchored to the ground in order to withstand a minimum level of wind forces. Anchoring systems consist of a combination of diagonal, vertical, longitudinal, and centerline ties (metal straps). These metal straps are connected at one end to the frame of the manufactured home and the I-beam which runs the length of the home and at the other end to anchors which are augured into the ground and held in place by stabilizing plates. (Stipulated Facts.) The requirement for some form of anchoring system has been a part of federal regulations and state rules for many years. (Stipulated Facts.) Changes were made to the federal regulations in 1994 in response to concerns raised about the adequacy of anchoring systems after Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida in 1992. These changes to the federal regulations became effective on July 13, 1994. The federal regulations, which are administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (hereinafter referred to as "HUD") required that, after July 13, 1994, manufactured homes and their anchoring systems must be designed to withstand certain wind forces depending on where the homes are to be located. The HUD regulations establish three wind zones in the United States: Wind Zones I, II, and III. All of Florida is located in either Wind Zone II or III. For manufactured homes which are to be located in Wind Zone II, the homes and their anchoring systems must be designed to withstand the forces of winds with a speed of 100 mph. For homes in Wind Zone III, the homes and their anchoring systems must be designed to withstand the forces of winds with a speed of 110 mph. (Stipulated Facts.) As a result of the destruction and deaths that were caused by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, tornadoes that struck central Florida in 1998, and a tornado that struck Hyde Park, Florida, in 1998, the Department concluded that more stringent tie down requirements were required for manufactured homes. The Department adopted Chapter 15C-1 in an effort to carry out its responsibility under Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. Throughout the last several years, the Department has amended these rules several times. The last amendments, which are, in part, the subject of this proceeding, were adopted effective March 31, 1999. (Stipulated Facts.) In particular, the Department amended Rules 15C-1.0102(4) and (5); 15C- 1.0104(1)(a) and (b), (2)(b), (3) and (4)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rules"). (Stipulated Facts.) Competent Substantial Evidence to Support the Challenged Rules. In the second Amended Petition, Petitioners have alleged generally that all of the Challenged Rules constitute an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. In particular, Petitioners have alleged that the all of the Challenged Rules, except Rule 15C-1.0104(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, are invalid because they are "arbitrary and capricious" and they are "not supported by competent substantial evidence." Section 120.52(8)(e) and (f), Florida Statutes. Petitioners have alleged that Rule 15C-1.0104(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, is invalid because it is "vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vest unbridled discretion in the agency." Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes. As discussed further in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Final Order, Petitioners had the burden of proving that the Challenged Rules in fact constitute an invalid exercise of delegated authority as alleged in their second Amended Petition. The Challenged Rules are not "arbitrary and capricious" on their face. Therefore, in order for Petitioners to meet their burden of proving that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious," Petitioners were required to prove what the Department's rationale for adopting the Challenged Rules was and then offer evidence to refute the Department's rationale. The first step in meeting this burden could have easily been met by calling someone designated by the Department to speak on its behalf and asking that person to explain the Department's rationale for adopting the Challenged Rules. Petitioners did not take this first step and the Department was under no obligation to do so for them. In order for Petitioners to meet their burden of proving that the Challenged Rules are not supported by competent substantial evidence, Petitioners were required to prove what the Department relied upon in adopting the Challenged Rules and then offer evidence to refute the competency of the evidence relied upon by the Department. Again, the first step in meeting this burden could have easily have been meet by calling someone designated by the Department to speak on its behalf and asking that person to explain what evidence the Department relied upon in adopting the Challenged Rules. Petitioners did not take this first step and the Department was under no obligation to do so for them. As a result of Petitioners' failure to provide the starting point for determining whether the Challenged Rules are arbitrary and capricious or are not supported by competent substantial evidence, Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof in this case. Because the Challenged Rules are not arbitrary and capricious on their face it cannot be concluded that they are arbitrary and capricious without knowing the precise reason for the adoption of the Challenged Rules. Without knowing precisely what evidence the Department relied upon in adopting the Challenged Rules it cannot be concluded that they are not supported by competent substantial evidence. To the extent that evidence was offered in this case to explain the Department's rationale, at least in part, for adopting the Challenged Rules, and to show some of the evidence that the Department relied upon in adopting the Challenged Rules, that evidence supported the Department's adoption of the Challenged Rules. Galvanizing; Rules 15C-1.0102(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Prior to the amendment of Rule 15C-1.0102, Florida Administrative Code, to its present form, the Rule contained no requirement that anchors or stabilizing devices used with manufactured homes be galvanized. (Stipulated Facts.) Rule 15C-1.0102(4), Florida Administrative Code, now provides, in pertinent part, the following: all mobile/manufactured homes and park trailers shall be anchored with approved auger anchors, which shall be coated with hot-dipped zinc galvanizing (ASTM Standard #123-89A, which is hereby incorporated by reference); .60 ounces per square foot. (Stipulated Facts.) Rule 15C-1.0102(5), Florida Administrative Code, now provides, in pertinent part, the following: all ground anchors shall have approved stabilizing devices approved by the department, each of which shall be coated with hot-dipped zinc galvanizing (ASTM Standard #123-89A, which is hereby incorporated by reference); .60 ounces per square foot or zinc coated to ASTM (A929/A 929M--96, which is hereby incorporated by reference). (Stipulated Facts.) The process of galvanizing anchors and other tie down components begins with the cleaning and preparation of ungalvanized, or "black," steel. The black steel is then placed in molten zinc. Iron in black steel reacts chemically and metallurgically with the molten zinc to form alloys of intermetallic layers. The layer immediately next to the steel is about 25 percent iron, the next layer is about 10 percent iron, the next is about 5 percent iron, and the outer layer is about 99 percent pure zinc. The outer layer of zinc makes up about one fifth of the total thickness of the coating and is soft enough to be scratched with a coin. The inner three layers are harder and more resistant to abrasions than the steel it coats. Zinc galvanizing protects the steel from corroding. As the zinc corrodes, it forms zinc compounds that remain in the soil and continue to provide protection to the steel even after the zinc is completely corroded off the steel. Thus, zinc galvanized steel is better protected from corrosion than steel that is not galvanized. If a small gap in the zinc coating occurs, the zinc around the gap will still protect the steel through an electrochemical process. The gap can be up to 6 millimeters or 1/4 of an inch wide. The effectiveness of galvanizing will be reduced if a galvanized anchor strap is attached to an ungalvanized anchor. According to a report prepared by the National Bureau of Standards which included the findings of a 45-year study of the National Bureau of Mines and Standards, the rate of corrosion for steel varied from 2.6 times that of zinc to about 23 times that of zinc, with the average being six times that of zinc, depending of soil conditions. In no case was it found that the rate of corrosion of zinc was greater than the rate of corrosion of steel regardless of the soil conditions. Galvanization provides greater protection for manufactured home anchors from corrosion than paint. Paint is less resistant to scratching. Paint also fails to provide the same protection than galvanization provides in the case of a small scratch. Painted anchors suffer greater scratching when driven into the ground than galvanized anchors. Galvanization will increase the structural life of ground anchors buried into the ground. Manufactured homes between five and ten years old which were destroyed or damaged in 1998 in Hyde Park, Florida, evidenced excessive corrosion on the anchor heads and straps that had been used to secure the homes. These anchor heads and straps were not galvanized. The corrosion of anchor heads and straps found at Hyde Park contributed to the failure of the heads and straps during the storm. Although no tests were performed by the Department concerning the amount of galvanization per ounce which should be required for augers and stabilizing devices required by Rules 15C-1.0102(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, the amount of zinc required by these Rules is within the range of reasonable mounts which the Department could have selected. The evidence failed to prove that Rules 15C-1.0102(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, are arbitrary and capricious or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Diagonal Tie-Downs; Rule 15C-1.0104(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Prior to amendment to its present form, Rule 15C- 1.0104(2), Florida Administrative Code, provided the following: (2) Frame Ties All new manufactured homes shall be certified and manufactured as meeting the Department of Housing and Urban Development Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards. New manufactured homes and park trailers shall be anchored to the specifications as provided by the manufacturer. New manufactured homes and park trailers shall be anchored to each anchor point as required by the manufacturer's set-up manual. Used units where the manufacturer's specifications are not available shall be anchored every six feet (6') with the anchors placed within two feet (2') of each end. (Stipulated Facts.) Rule 15C-1.0104(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, now provides, in part, the following: (b) Diagonal tie-downs for new and used mobile/manufactured homes, in all wind zones, shall be spaced no farther apart than five feet four inches (5' 4") on center with anchors placed within two feet (2') of each end. (Stipulated Facts.) Old Rules 15C-1.0104(2)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code, were repealed. "Frame ties" or "tie downs" are defined in the Department's rules as "any device or method approved by the department and used for the purpose of securing the mobile/manufactured home or park trailer to ground anchors in order to resist wind forces." Rule 15C-1.0101(6), Florida Administrative Code. (Stipulated Facts.) Prior to promulgating the recent change to Rule 15C- 1.0104(2), Florida Administrative Code, the Department conducted field observations in February and March of 1998 of storm damage from several tornadoes that passed through areas of central Florida on February 22 and 23, 1998. (Stipulated Facts.) The Department also discovered that one cause of the damage caused to manufactured homes by Hurricane Andrew in 1992, was the breaking of strapping used to connect anchors to the manufactured homes. The Department relied on two reports in promulgating the change to Rule 15C-1.0104(2), Florida Administrative Code: "The Effects of Central Florida Tornadoes on Manufactured Homes" and "Recommendations on Manufactured Home Tie Down Components and Methods." (Stipulated Facts.) The Department concluded, based upon the reports it relied upon and observations of damage from Hurricane Andrew and the tornadoes in 1998, that additional diagonal tie-downs would improve the stability of manufactured homes. By reducing the space between diagonal tie-downs from six feet to five feet, four inches the load on the straps used to tie down a manufactured home will be distributed between more anchors and will decrease the load on each strap. While the evidence failed to prove that the additional tie-downs will prevent damage to manufactured homes from all storms, the additional tie-downs will result in meaningful additional protection. Tie-downs can reasonably be placed every five feet, four inches on center. Petitioners presented evidence concerning "overlapping cones of influence." For an anchor placed in the ground a cone of influence is in essence the area of dirt around the anchor which helps support and hold the anchor down. The area of influence is shaped like a cone, with the widest area of influence on the surface. If anchors are placed too close together, the area of influence of the cone at ground level will overlap and weaken the influence of the individual cones. While the cone of influence on the anchors required by the Challenged Rules may overlap because they are to be spaced closer than 7.35 feet apart, the evidence failed to prove that the requirement that diagonal tie-downs be placed five feet, four inches on center will not provide additional support. In fact, more anchors spaced closer together will result in greater overall support even if the cones of influence of the anchors overlap. The evidence failed to prove that Rule 15C- 1.0104(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, is arbitrary and capricious or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Longitudinal Tie-Downs; Rule 15C-1.0104(3), Florida Administrative Code. Prior to adoption of the Challenged Rules, Chapter 15C-1, Florida Administrative Code, did not contain a separate requirement for longitudinal tie-downs. Rule 15C-1.0104(2), Florida Administrative Code, simply required that new manufactured homes be anchored according to the manufacturer's specifications. (Stipulated Facts.) Rule 15C-1.0104(3), Florida Administrative Code, now provides, in part, the following: Longitudinal Tie-downs. All new and used mobile/manufactured homes, installed sixty (60) days after the effective date of this rule, must have longitudinal tie-downs or other approved longitudinal stabilizing systems designed to resist horizontal wind loads in the long direction of the home (i.e.: wind load applied to each end of the home). The longitudinal tie-downs are in addition to the anchoring systems required along the exterior side walls and/or marriage walls of the mobile/manufactured home. . . . . At least four (4) anchors and straps are required (i.e., 16 per double-wide home) at the end of each section of the mobile/manufactured home. . . . . (Stipulated Facts.) The Department's decision to amend the rule to add a separate requirement for longitudinal tie-downs was based on field observations of the central Florida tornado damage in February of 1998. The Department relied on two reports as the basis for the rule: "Recommendations on Manufactured Home Tie Down Components and Methods," which was not offered into evidence, and "Effects of Central Florida Tornadoes on Manufactured Homes." (Stipulated Facts.) Damage to some homes caused by the 1998 tornadoes and Hurricane Andrew was caused by the lack of longitudinal tie- downs. Without longitudinal tie-downs, little protection is afforded manufactured homes from winds that strike the home at the ends of the home. Wind hitting the end of a manufactured home can cause a "zipper" effect, where the lift at the end pulls the first diagonal tie-down out and then, like a zipper, the rest of the anchors are pulled out down the side of the manufactured home. Evidence concerning the impact of overlapping cones of influence did not prove that the requirement of longitudinal tie-downs was invalid for the same reasons it did not support such a finding concerning diagonal tie-downs. The evidence failed to prove that Rule 15C-1.0104(3), Florida Administrative Code, is arbitrary and capricious or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Centerline Tie-Downs; Rule 15C-1.0104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Prior to amendment to its present form, Rule 15C- 1.0104(4), Florida Administrative Code, provided the following: Multiple section homes are to be secured at the centerline with straps or cable to the specifications in the manufacturer's manual or at the locations designated on the home. Used multiple section homes shall have anchors installed at all factory installed anchor strap connections including ridge beam column straps, shear wall straps/attachments or other locations designated by the manufacturer. (Stipulated Facts.) Rule 15C-1.0104(4), Florida Administrative Code, now provides the following: Centerline ties are required for all new and used multiple section homes. Multiple section homes are to be secured at the centerline with straps to the specifications in the manufacture's manual or at the location designated on the home. In addition to centerline ties specified by the manufacturer, a centerline tie must be attached within two feet (2') of each end of each section of the mobile/manufactured home. Where necessary, an approved bracket shall be added by the installer. (Stipulated Facts.) The Department's decision to amend Rule 15C-1.0104(4), Florida Administrative Code, was based on field observations of damage resulting from the central Florida tornadoes in February 1998. The Department also relied on two reports as the basis for this rule: "Engineering Report by K-2 Engineering" (1998) and "Effects of Central Florida Tornadoes on Manufactured Homes." (Stipulated Facts.) Requiring centerline ties two feet from each end of a multi-unit home will provide additional protection against wind damage. The tie-downs are necessary to counteract wind forces carried to the centerline of a home by the sheer wall system. The evidence failed to prove that Rule 15C-1.0104(4), Florida Administrative Code, is arbitrary and capricious or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Anchor Lengths; Rule 15C-1.0104(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 15C-1.0104(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides the following: Type I anchor holding power for homes manufactured before July 13, 1994, shall be tested to a working load of three thousand one hundred and fifty (3,150) pounds, with an ultimate load of four thousand seven hundred twenty-five (4,725) pounds. Type II anchor holding power for new homes manufactured after July 13, 1994, shall be tested to a working load of four thousand (4,000) pounds with an ultimate load of six thousand (6,000) pounds. (Stipulated Facts.) Petitioners did not provide evidence to support a finding that the requirements of Rule 15C-1.104(1), Florida Administrative Code, are not clear. Any confusion about this Rule comes from other rules which deal with when Type I or Type II anchors are used. Those rules, however, were not challenged by Petitioners. The evidence failed to prove that Rule 15C-1.0104(1), Florida Administrative Code, is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vest unbridled discretion in the agency. I. Standing. The Association was organized to represent its members in matters involving the regulation of mobile homes and mobile home installation. In particular, the Association has the authority to institute this proceeding on behalf of its members and to seek the relief requested in this case. The Association has approximately 30 members that are dealers and 12 to 15 members that are installers. The cost associated with installing manufactured homes has increased as a result of the Challenged Rules. Those costs are passed on to consumers. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Hudz, Uhl, or the members of the Association have been adversely impacted by passing on the increased cost caused by the Challenged Rules. Jabo's business, which is limited to the installation of manufactured homes, has declined as a result of increased cost caused by the Challenged Rules. While the evidence failed to prove how many of the members of the Association have lost business as a result of the Challenged Rules or that Hudz or Uhl have lost business as a result of the Challenged Rules, all the Petitioners have been required to comply with the requirements of the Challenged Rules. The Petitioners are, therefore, substantially affected by the Challenged Rules.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s ("Florida Housing") intended action to award housing tax credit funding to Intervenors Westside Phase, I, LLLP ("Westside"), HTG Edgewood, Ltd. ("HTG Edgewood"), Diplomat South, LLC ("Diplomat"), and Tranquility at Milton, LLC ("Tranquility"), under Request for Applications 2019-113 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the "RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, the RFA specifications, and clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
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. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. The low income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as "tax credits" or "housing credits") was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These housing tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects that qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is that the credits reduce the amount that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the total debt is lower, a housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the housing credits. The demand for housing tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. The Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized to allocate housing tax credits and other funding by means of a request for applications or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48) and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60, which govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for housing tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. 1 In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally sell the rights to that future stream of income housing tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount which can be received depends 1 A request for application is equivalent to a "request for proposal" as indicated in rule 67- 60.009(3). upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected total development cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. The RFA was issued on August 20, 2019, and responses were initially due October 29, 2019. The RFA was modified on September 10, 2019, and the application deadline was extended to November 5, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms of the RFA. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $14,805,028 of housing tax credits to proposed developments in medium counties and up to an estimated $1,413,414 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 184 applications in response to the RFA. A review committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing's Board of Directors (the "Board"). The review committee found 169 applications eligible and 15 applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 11 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The review committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On March 6, 2020, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee. Also, on March 6, 2020, at approximately 9:35 a.m., Petitioners and all other applicants received notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and that certain eligible applicants were selected for award of housing credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets on the Florida Housing website, www.floridahousing.org, one listing the Board approved scoring results and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the March 6, 2020, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 11 applicants, including Westside, HTG Edgewood, Diplomat, and Tranquility. Petitioners timely filed notices of protest and petitions for formal administrative proceedings, and Intervenors timely intervened. The RFA 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 available in section 5.A.1., beginning on page 64 of the RFA. Only applications that meet all the eligibility items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. There were two total point items scored in this RFA. Applicants could receive five points for Submission of Principals Disclosure Form, stamped by the Corporation as "Pre-Approved," and five points for Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive, for a total application score of up to ten points. The RFA has three funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund four Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a. 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.11.b. of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) Development that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.c. of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal. As part of the funding selection process, the RFA starts with the application sorting order on page 68. The highest scoring applications are determined by first sorting together all eligible applications from the highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated as follows: 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.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 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); 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. The RFA includes a Funding Test where small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding available to fully fund the eligible housing credit request amount, and medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding available to fully fund the eligible housing credit request amount. The RFA outlines a specific County’s Award Tally: As each application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County’s Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. According to the RFA, the funding selection process is as follows: The first Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Applications that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. The next four Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next two Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded 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 Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Application 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 Application(s) selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded 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 Applications. 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. According to the terms of the RFA: 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, will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 184 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. HTG Edgewood’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1778BID) During scoring, Florida Housing determined that the HTG Edgewood application was eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, selected HTG Edgewood for funding. HTG Edgewood, Florida Housing, and Rochester now agree that HTG Edgewood’s application is ineligible for consideration for funding and the application of Rochester is eligible for funding. Accordingly, HTG Edgewood, Florida Housing, and Rochester agree that Florida Housing should deem the HTG Edgewood application ineligible for funding and Rochester’s application eligible for funding. Diplomat’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1779BID) During scoring, Florida Housing deemed the Diplomat application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Diplomat for funding. Diplomat and Madison Square now agree that Diplomat is ineligible for funding. Florida Housing does not contest Diplomat’s admission of ineligibility. Madison Square, Diplomat, and Florida Housing agree that Madison Square is eligible for funding. Tranquility’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1780BID) Florida Housing deemed the Tranquility application eligible for funding, and pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Tranquility was selected for preliminary funding. Tranquility’s Principals Disclosure Form Madison Oaks contests Florida Housing’s preliminary selection of Tranquility for an award of housing tax credits. In its challenge, Madison Oaks argues that Tranquility failed to correctly complete its Principals Disclosure Form by not identifying the multiple roles of its disclosed principal. Specifically, Madison Oaks argues that Tranquility failed to list Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, which is disclosed as a manager, as a non- investor member as well. Accordingly, Madison Oaks contends Tranquility is not eligible or should lose five points. The purpose of the Principals Disclosure Form is to allow Florida Housing to track an entity’s past and future dealings with Florida Housing so that Florida Housing is aware of the entity with which it is dealing. In regard to principal disclosure, the RFA states, in relevant part: c. Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer (5 points) Eligibility Requirements To meet the submission requirements, the Applicant must upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 05-2019)("Principals Disclosure Form") with the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, as outlined in Section Three above. Prior versions of the Principal Disclosure Form will not be accepted. The Principals Disclosure Form must identify, pursuant to subsections 67-48.002(94), 67- 48.0075(8) and 67-48.0075(9), the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. The investor limited partner of an Applicant limited partnership or the investor member of an Applicant limited liability company investor must be identified. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. Point Item Applicants will receive 5 points if the uploaded Principal Disclosure Form was stamped "Approved" during the Advance Review Process. The Advance Review Process for Disclosure of Applicant and Developer Principals is available on the RFA Website and also includes samples which may assist the Applicant in completing the required Principals Disclosure Form. Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline. The RFA website provides guidance and instructions to assist applicants in completing the principal disclosure. The instructions state: "List the name of each Member of the Applicant Limited Liability Company and label each as either non-investor Member or investor Member (i.e., equity provider and/or placeholder), as applicable." The RFA website guidance and instructions further provides Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQ’s") concerning principal disclosures. FAQ number 4 states: Q: If the Applicant entity is a member managed limited liability company, how should it be reflected on the form since there is no "member-manager" choice at the First Principal Disclosure Level? A: Each member-manager entity/person should be listed twice—once as a non-investor member and once as a manger. If Housing Credits are being requested, the investor-member(s) must also be listed in order for the form to be approved for a Housing Credit Application. On its Principals Disclosure Form, Tranquility listed two entities at the first principal disclosure level: Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, identified as a manager of the applicant and Timshel Partners, LLC, identified as an investor member of the applicant. However, Tranquility failed to identify the dual role of Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a non- investor member in addition to its disclosed role as a manger. Nevertheless, Tranquility’s equity proposal letter submitted as part of its application identified Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a member of the LLC because according to the equity proposal, Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, would retain a .01% ownership interest in the company. Thus, the role of Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a member is available within Tranquility’s application. Tranquility participated in Florida Housing’s Advance Review Process, and on October 17, 2019, Florida Housing approved the Principals Disclosure Form submitted by Tranquility during the Advance Review Process for an award of housing credits. During scoring, Tranquility received five points for having its Principals Disclosure Form stamped "Approved" by Florida Housing. Tranquility’s Principals Disclosure Form met the eligibility requirements of the RFA and Tranquility is entitled to the five points. In addition, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that even if Tranquility’s failure to list the dual role of its disclosed principal on the Principals Disclosure Form is an error, it is so minor as to constitute a waivable, minor irregularity. As detailed above, Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, was specifically designated as a manager on the form and information identifying Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC’s, additional role as a member is included in the equity proposal letter submitted with the application. Madison Oak’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1779BID) Madison Oaks’ application was deemed eligible for funding, but pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Madison Oaks was not selected for preliminary funding. Madison Oaks Site Control Certification Florida Housing and Tranquility now argue that Madison Oaks failed to demonstrate site control. As an eligibility item, the RFA requires applicants to 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. An eligible contract must meet all of the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before April 30, 2020 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 April 30, 2020; 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. In demonstrating site control, 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 requirements 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 is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. Additionally, the RFA requires that the site control "documentation include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases, and subleases." In the instant case, Madison Oaks attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Madison Oaks Agreement") to its Site Control Form. The Madison Oaks Agreement lists West Oak Developers, LLC, as the "Seller" and Madison Oaks East, LLC, as the "Purchaser." However, the City of Ocala owns the property in question. The Madison Oaks Agreement in section 12 states that: "Seller has a valid and binding agreement with the City of Ocala, Florida pursuant to which Seller has the right to acquire fee simple title to the Property …." Tranquility and Florida Housing contend that Madison Oaks failed to demonstrate site control because Madison Oaks failed to include the City of Ocala Redevelopment Agreement for Pine Oaks ("Redevelopment Agreement") in its site control documentation. Madison Oaks maintains that the City of Ocala is a seller, pursuant to the Joinder and Section 28 of the Madison Oaks Agreement, and therefore, the Redevelopment Agreement did not need to be included. However, the Madison Oaks Agreement clearly identifies West Oak as the "Seller" and the City of Ocala as the "City." At hearing, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that the Madison Oaks application is ineligible because it did not include the Redevelopment Agreement, which is a relevant agreement for purposes of demonstrating site control. The Redevelopment Agreement was a relevant intermediate contract, which was required to be included in Madison Oak’s application. Madison Oak’s failure to include the Redevelopment Agreement renders its application ineligible. Madison Oaks contends that including the Redevelopment Agreement in its application was unnecessary because of a joinder provision within the Madison Oaks Agreement. The Madison Oaks Agreement contains a Joinder and Consent of the City of Ocala approved by the City Council ("the Joinder"), whereby the City of Ocala joined and consented to the Madison Oaks Agreement "solely for the purposes set forth in, and subject to, Section 28 herein." The Madison Oaks Agreement in Section 28 states that: "Seller hereby acknowledges and agrees that in the event of Seller’s default hereunder, that is not timely cured, or Seller's refusal to close hereunder, Purchaser shall be entitled to close on the property subject to this Agreement … directly with the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 28." However, Section 28 only applies in the event of a default by West Oaks that is not timely cured or West Oak’s refusal to close. There is no information within the Madison Oaks application to determine whether a default or termination of the Redevelopment Agreement occurred as of the application deadline. Westside’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1770BID) Florida Housing deemed Westside’s application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Westside was preliminary selected for funding to meet the goal to fund one development that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. Westside’s Election to Compete for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal In order to qualify for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal, the RFA states: Applicants for proposed Developments that are part of a local revitalization plan may elect to compete for this goal. To qualify for this goal, the Applicant must submit the properly completed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government/Community Redevelopment Agency Verification That Development Is Part Of A Local Community Revitalization Plan form (Form Rev. 08-2019) as Attachment 18. The form is available on the RFA Website. Included with the form must be either (1) a link to the local community revitalization plan or (2) a copy of the local community revitalization plan. The plan must have been adopted on or before January 1, 2019. Florida Housing, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, also has a goal to fund four medium county developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. Westside included an executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government/Community Redevelopment Agency Verification that Development is Part of a Local Community Revitalization Plan form (the "Local Community Revitalization Plan Form") and a link to the local government revitalization plan at Attachment 18 of its application. At question 11.c. in the application, applicants are asked to select "Yes" or "No" from a drop-down menu in response to the question: "Is the proposed Development eligible for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal?" Westside selected "No" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.c. regarding the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. At question 11.a. in the application, applicants are asked to select "Yes" or "No" from a drop-down menu in response to the question: "Is the proposed Development eligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal?" Westside selected "Yes" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering questions 11.a. regarding the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. During scoring, Westside was deemed to have qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal and the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. During the funding selection process, Westside was selected for funding to meet the Local Government Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. HTG Addison selected "Yes" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.c. regarding the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. HTG Addison included an executed Local Community Revitalization Plan Form at Attachment 18 of its application. HTG Addison selected "No" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.a. regarding the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. HTG Addison is the next highest ranked eligible applicant qualified for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal after Westside. If Westside is deemed not to have qualified for the revitalization goal, then HTG Addison, as the next highest ranked eligible applicant, would qualify for that goal. HTG Addison alleges that Westside should not be selected to meet the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal because Westside selected "No" from the drop-down menu in response Question 11.c. Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that Florida Housing does not rely on the drop-down responses to questions 11a., b., or c. in determining whether an applicant "elects to be eligible for a certain goal" because answering "Yes" or "No" to these requirements is not a requirement of the RFA. Rather, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that in determining whether an applicant qualifies for a funding goal, Florida Housing relies on the documentation submitted with the application that is required for the funding goal. In the instant case, Westside included the executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Revitalization Plan form and a link to the local community revitalization plan at Attachment 18 of its application.2 In addition, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that even if Westside erred in selecting "Yes" in response to question 11.c., it is so minor as to constitute a waivable, minor irregularity because Florida Housing has the required information within the application (the executed form and a link to the local community revitalization plan at Attachment 18). 2 Notably, another applicant responding to the RFA, Tranquility at Ferry Pass, selected "Yes" in response to question 11.c., but failed to include at Attachment 18 either a copy of or a link to the local community revitalization plan. During scoring, Florida Housing determined that Tranquility at Ferry Pass did not qualify for the revitalization goal. Florida Housing’s scoring of the Westside application is consistent with its scoring of the Tranquility at Ferry Pass application because in both cases, Florida Housing scored the application based on the requirements of the RFA for the revitalization goal and the documentation submitted in response to those requirements. Florida Housing did not rely on the applicant’s response to question 11.c. regarding the applicant’s expressions of its own eligibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: dismissing the protests of HTG Addison and Madison Oaks; (2) finding the HTG Edgewood, Diplomat, and Madison Oaks applications ineligible for funding; and (3) finding the Rochester, Madison Square, Tranquility, and Westside applications eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2020. Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-231 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Sarah Pape, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 820 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered specialty contractor in the state of Florida with license No. RR 0049820 and qualified Marion Pump Service with the state of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation. On January 8, 1986, Dorothy Dorsey and Respondent entered into a contract whereby Respondent was to install a four- inch well and a one horsepower pump on Dorsey's property in Marion County, Florida for a contract price of $1,410.00 Respondent commenced work on the well and pump installation on January 9, 1986, but it was not clear from the record when the Respondent completed the temporary installation of the pump. Temporary installation consists of drilling the well, installing and connecting the pump to a service pole for electrical service so the building contractor can use the water during construction of the house. Permanent installation could not be completed until Dorsey's home was at a stage completion to allow permanent pipe and electrical connection to the house. At the time of entering into the contract, Respondent requested that Dorsey "pull" the permit for the well and pump installation with the Marion County Building Department. It is not clear from the record when Dorsey attempted to "pull" the permit with the Marion County Building Department, but at that time she was informed by someone in the Marion County Building Department that the contractor would have to "pull" the permit. Again, it is not clear from the record when, or if, the Respondent was advised by Dorsey that he would have to "pull" the permit. Dorsey attempted to contact the Respondent by telephone concerning this matter, but Respondent did not return her telephone call. Apparently, the Respondent had completed the temporary installation at this time and was not at the job site. Upon Dorsey's home being completed, Dorsey was unable to get a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) from the Marion County Building Department because no permit had been issued and no final inspection called for or made. Being unable to get any response from the Respondent, Dorsey obtained a permit through Armstrong Well Service. Permanent connections to the home were made and a final inspection made, resulting in a CO being issued sometime around September 9, 1986. There was no evidence that Respondent's action in this regard resulted in any substantial delay to Dorsey obtaining a CO. Marion County's ordinance number 85-8, duly enacted on June 25, 1985, requires that the "contractor and/or owner" apply for and be issued a permit before well construction or pump installation, unless the State requires a permit, in which case proof that such permit has been issued exempts the applicant from this provision of the ordinance. This ordinance was in effect at all times material hereto. Ordinance 85-8 provides for doubling the permit fee as a penalty for failure to obtain the permit prior to commencing the well and pump installation. At all times material hereto, the water management district covering Marion County, Florida, the agency usually responsible for well permits, did not require a permit in the section of Marion County where Dorsey's home was located. It was Respondent's understanding of the ordinance that a permit was not required until the final inspection. There was no evidence that any inspection other than the final inspection was required by the Marion County Building Department for well construction and pump installation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed herein against the Respondent, Johnny Lee Bryant. RESPECTFULLY submitted and entered this 15th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 David E. Bryant, Esquire Jonathan M. Deer, Esquire 220 East Madison Street, Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Johnny Lee Bryant, Pro Se Post Office Box 600 Silver Springs, Florida 32688
The Issue Petitioner's administrative complaint dated September 1, 1989, alleges that Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), F. S. in the negligent and incompetent supervision and construction of a residence for Leonard Bassi in the City of Sebastian. The issue here is whether the violation occurred and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Iktidar Hussain, is now, and at all times material to the issues in this proceeding, has been licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RG0050519. Mr. Hussain's license qualifies his business, Classic Builders, Inc., 2900 North A1A Highway, Indialantic, Florida, 32903. On or around October 31, 1986, Iktidar Hussain and Leonard and Elizabeth Bassi executed a contract for construction of a single family residence by Classic Builders, Inc. for the Bassi's on their lot at 573 Browning Terrace in Sebastian, Florida. The construction price was $50,000.00, plus $2,000.00 in options (a screen porch and french door). Permits were obtained, and construction commenced sometime in January 1987. Direct supervision of the work was primarily left to an employee of Classic Builders, Tahir Qizilebash, a licensed general contractor and licensed engineer. Iktidar Hussain met formally on site with his supervisor approximately every two weeks, but also made frequent drive-by inspections and stops as he toured the area in his supervision of several construction jobs undertaken by Classic Builders. On May 5, 1987, when the house was substantially completed, Iktidar Hussain and Mr. Bassi with members of his family walked through the site identifying items which needed to be corrected or completed. A list was made by Mr. Bassi or his sister, and was signed by Mr. Hussain and Mr. Bassi. The list provides the following items: Front Door Entrance: Dead bolt lock Saddle to be painted white on inside. Black spots show. Living Room: Off white plastic molding to be installed around fireplace per carpenter - 5/5/87 and Bassi. Touch up paint on ceiling and wall. Air conditioner thermostat to be adjusted. Master Bedroom: Touch up paint on corner of closet. Touch up by wall switch to bathroom. Small Bedroom: Touch up paint on bedroom door. Back Bedroom: Clean off paint on glass door. Inside door jam to be touched up with white paint. Bedroom Hallway: Trap door should be replaced with plywood and painted white. Guest Bathroom: Medicine cabinet door needs to be sanded and repainted white. Master Bathroom: Leak under toilet bowl tank. Garage Floor: Plaster to be removed from floor by laundry room. Cement apron to outside indents inside - not to outside. Water collects. Lip to be added at end of street across driveway. Kitchen: Change TV outlet to sink wall. Lawn: Sod to be added in bare spots. Outside of House: Needs to be repainted, spots are different color. Windows: Almost all windows have bad frames. Corners need to be filled - sanded and repainted. Roof Overhang: Aluminum strip needs to be nailed down around facia strip. Culvert: Swale and piping to be added so that water does not settle at bottom of property. Painter: French doors and windows need to have rust paint removed. Also on vinyl windows. Trees: Trees have to be added where pine trees are removed. Screen Porch: Screens to be installed with alum. base and 1 door. $3,000 balance due. Payments will be made as corrections are completed. (Respondent's Exhibit 3.) On that date the parties also prepared and signed a handwritten document titles "Final Settlement", providing that the balance due on the contract price, $3,000.00, would be placed in escrow with Professional Title Company for the completion of the correction items. (Petitioner's composite exhibit #3) The next day Mr. Bassi sent a letter to Iktidar Hussain stating that the correct balance was $2,500.00, not $3,000.00 and that he was sending $2,500.00 to the escrow agent. (Petitioner's composite exhibit #3) The certificate of occupancy was issued by the City of Sebastian Building Department on May 6, 1987. Mr. Bassi and his family moved into the house in August 1987. Prior to that they had been in south Florida, about 160 miles away. The record is unclear as to a sequence of events and precise dates, but sometime between the issuance of the certificate of occupancy and early 1988, relations between Leonard Bassi and Iktidar Hussain deteriorated substantially. Mr. Bassi made several new lists of complaints about the construction of the house. Mr. Hussain claims that he tried to make corrections in good faith, but nothing would satisfy Mr. Bassi. At one point, after Mr. Hussain felt corrections on the May 5, 1987 list were 80% completed, he approached Mr. Bassi about release of some of the escrow money; Mr. Bassi called the sheriff and threatened to have him arrested for trespassing. The escrow funds were never released to the contractor and eventually he relinquished his claims on the funds. Leonard Bassi sent a list of complaints to the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). (Respondent's exhibit #6) Some items were the same as those found in the May 1987 list; most were new items. Respondent was informed by the DPR, in a letter dated February 22, 1988, from Staff Attorney Douglas Shropshire, that the agency was taking no action on the complaint and was closing the file. The letter further stated that the matter could be reopened later if further evidence was presented. (Respondent's exhibit #7) Sometime prior to March 1988, Leonard Bassi complained to the City of Sebastian Construction Board. The Board's vice-chairman, John Laman, inspected the house on March 15, 1988. He found the exterior siding in poor condition, with paint peeling off, and some of the siding cracked and dry. There was a ceiling leak in the laundry room; the weather strip on the front door was not in place properly; a recessed area in the driveway pavement under the garage door sloped into the garage, retaining water; the driveway was not wide enough to accommodate a second car's entry into the garage without rolling on the yard; the door thresholds were not properly supported-one had no support, the other was supported by a piece of lumber what had become unfastened from the concrete; the garage door was not smoothly finished; the driveway lacked expansion joints; a lighting panel in the kitchen was not carefully covered; bi-fold doors did not fit properly in the headers; pulls on the kitchen cabinets had not been sanded and finished; the attic ladder was cut too short and the hinge mechanism was loose; and portions of two roof shingles were missing around the fireplace chimney. In addition, in certain places the footer was exposed as much as one to six inches. That is, beneath the footer there was a gap where the soil had washed away or had not been properly placed. The multiple problems evinced poor workmanship, but in John Laman's opinion all of the problems could have been corrected by one good man in two days. The city construction board ordered Iktidar Hussain to make corrections. At some point, the board suggested that Mr. Bassi absent himself from the premises when Mr. Hussain was there, because of the extremely poor relationship between the parties. Mr. Bassi's attorney told Hussain to refrain from direct contacts with Bassi and to work through him, the attorney, instead. Iktidar Hussain attempted to make the corrections. He sent workers to the site and paid them to do the work. On one occasion he had a roofer trying to repair the roof, but Mr. Bassi was upon the roof with the worker. Mr. Hussain was standing at the edge of the house when Mr. Bassi called the police to have him arrested for trespassing. The siding was repainted several times - the last time under the direct supervision of Mr. Bassi's attorney and the city construction board. Bickering between Hussain and Bassi continued, and finally the city board closed its file with the conclusion that this was a civil matter, a contract dispute, and they could not accomplish anything. DPR reopened its file. It retained an expert, Julian Garcia, licensed as an architect, engineer and general contractor, from Winter Haven, who did a site visit and a technical evaluation on April 2, 1989. Julian Garcia found some of the same problems, and some new problems. His report lists the following: the exterior siding was deteriorated with peeling paint and water damage; no termite shield was installed along the base of the wall; the door thresholds were supported with wood, rather than concrete; the bathroom mirror was deteriorated at the bottom one inch; the base of the air conditioning unit in the laundry room had broken drywall and exposed wood framing; the light panel in the kitchen and the kitchen cabinet pulls were still not properly finished; the covered screen porch ceiling was finished with interior ceiling material, "popcorn", and was showing signs of weakening and loosening; some windows were not caulked, could not be locked, and were etched with markings; the septic tank drainfield was leaking; the garage floor was still not smoothly finished and the door groove still allowed water to stand; the attic ladder was still not properly connected; the bi-fold door jambs were still not properly finished; lavatories in the bathroom were partially bleached from their original yellow color and were pitted around the drain; the footings were not deep enough, leaving gaps around some edges; and the drainage along the right of way needed adjustment to provide flow through an existing culvert. In Julian Garcia's opinion, the existence of all of these combined problems reflected gross negligence by the contractor. It was not established, however, that all of the problems were the fault of the builder, Iktidar Hussain. The residence had passed local building inspections without the need for reinspection, including the slab inspection which should have revealed a problem with the depth of the footers. Each time some one made a list of problems, new or different items appeared, over a period of three years. The siding was a recurring problem and one which still existed at the time of the hearing. Even Iktidar Hussain conceded this, but he insisted that he had tried to fix it and had done everything he was told to do by Mr. Bassi's attorney and the local construction board. Not all of the siding was in the same poor condition, and there could have been some bad panels in the batch, or the siding was left unpainted too long and moisture permeated the wood preventing proper adherence of the paint. The footers were not uniformly 12 inches below grade, as required by the 1982 edition of the Standard Building Code, the code adopted by the City of Sebastian. However, except where the soil washed away, it was impossible to determine how deep the footers extended. Mr. Bassi had moved a lot of dirt in his yard and had also moved away from the house the sod installed by the contractor. Many of the items noted by Julian Garcia were apparently not problems when Mr. Bassi did his lists at the time the house was completed and shortly after he moved in. Poor quality well water or cleansers used by the homeowner could have caused the bleaching and pitting of the bathroom fixtures. It was clear from the testimony of Petitioner's expert and from the local building officials that if the problems existed at the time the house was completed by the contractor and if he had not corrected them, he would be guilty of the gross negligence and incompetence with which he is charged. But it is not clear that all of the problems were caused by Classic Builders. Both Leonard Bassi and Iktidar Hussain were agitated and volatile at the hearing and their separate accounts of events were rambling and disjointed. Both were plainly frustrated at the length of time the dispute was pending without resolution. Both alleged harassment. Iktidar Hussain attempted in good faith to make repairs and to resolve the problems identified by Mr. Bassi in May 1987, and by the local construction board in 1988. He was supervising the work when Mr. Bassi lost confidence in him and insisted that he or the attorney or the board direct the repairs and that Hussain remain off the premises. Mr. Bassi concedes that he attempted some repairs himself and substantially altered the yard work. From the evidence presented it is impossible to find that Respondent is guilty of gross negligence and incompetence even though substantial problems exist in the house he built for Leonard Bassi less than four years ago.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the administrative complaint against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioner. 1. Rejected as unnecessary. 2 - 3. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2, except that the full contract price was $52,000.00. Adopted in paragraphs 3, 5, and 7. Adopted in paragraph 5, except for the conclusion that the deficiencies constituted "gross negligence". Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence, except for the statements regarding the condition of the siding, which are adopted in substance in paragraph 21. Adopted in part in paragraph 22, otherwise rejected as unsupported by clear, competent evidence. Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 18. Adopted in paragraph 18. Rejected as immaterial. No clear competent evidence established Classic Builders' responsibility for any drainage problems. Adopted in paragraph 18. 13 -17. Adopted in paragraphs 11 and 18. Rejected as unsupported by clear, competent evidence. Adopted in paragraph 18, except for the conclusion that the lavatories were of extremely poor quality. Adopted in paragraph 11, except for the facts related to the insulation, which facts are not supported by clear competent evidence. Adopted in paragraph 18, except that the conclusion with regard to lack of workmanship is rejected. This condition was not noted in the prior lists of problems and there is no indication it existed when the homeowner moved in. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence except for the fact that Respondent was given notice of some defects. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Copies furnished to: Robert B. Jurand, Esquire 1940 N. Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Iktidar Hussain Classic Builders 2900 North Highway AIA Indialantic, FL 33903 William J. Neale, Esquire Post Office Box 546 Melbourne, FL 32902-0546 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner herein) seeks to revoke Carroll L. Mozingo's (Respondent herein) license to practice as a registered general contractor based on allegations which will be set forth hereinafter in detail that he diverted funds in violation of Chapter 468.112(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following:
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered general contractor, who holds current license no. RG0015876. On September 7, 1976, Respondent entered into a contract with Robert Johnson and his wife Sandra Johnson for a room addition and patio to their house located at 197 North Roscoe Blvd., Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. The full amount of the contract plus agreed upon extras amounted to $9,640.00. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit Number 2) Respondent applied for and obtained a building permit for the construction of the Johnson's addition on or about September 27, 1976, and construction commenced shortly thereafter. (Petitioner's Exhibit Number 1) Donald Jermaine, a St. Johns County field inspector, testified that he conducted inspections on the subject job and noted numerous violations of the St. Johns County Building Code. He coordinated the inspections for this project up until the time it was abandoned by Respondent during mid February, 1977. At the time of abandonment, the owner, Robert Johnson, had paid a total amount of $11,021.96 to Respondent and/or various suppliers. To complete the job as contracted by the parties (Johnson and Mozingo) Messr. Johnson had to pay Proctors Construction Company $2,800.00, an electrical contractor $369.00 and a plumbing contractor $520.00 for a total expenditure over and above the above referenced contract amount of $3,689.00. He testified that no additional work was done to his home. The Respondent testified that he expended $7,458.00 for materials on the Johnson project and was unable to complete it because his mortgage payments were delinquent and he was not receiving any additional monies from Messr. Johnson to fulfill his obligations. He testified that he was unable to work at night and therefore had to seek other employment with another contractor. The above explanation by the Respondent which led to his abandonment of the subject project does not excuse him from his contractual obligations to either fulfill the contract as agreed upon or to seek a renegotiation based on additional costs and/or unexpected circumstances. This was not done nor was any other explanation given as to where the additional monies in excess of $4,000.00 was spent. I therefore conclude that he engaged in a diversion of funds as alleged in the administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner on May 27, 1977. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the Respondent's general contractor's license be suspended for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 C. H. Hoskinson, Chief Investigator Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Carroll L. Mozingo 1909 Ed Johnson Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32218 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, DOCKET NO. 77-1095 CARROLL L. MOZINGO dba CARROLL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RG 0015876, 1909 Ed Johnson Drive, Jacksonville, Florida 32218, Respondent. /
