The Issue Whether Respondent's registration as a general contractor should be suspended or revoked, or the respondent otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Sections 468.112 (2)(a), (2)(g), and (2)(h), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Phillip H. Bare, Ocala, Florida, is registered with Respondent as a general contractor under the provisions of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and was so registered throughout the year of 1977. He operates under the name of American General Corporation of Florida, but that firm has not been qualified to engage in the contracting business in Florida, pursuant to Section 468.107, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 2, Stipulation, Testimony of Cherry) On August 15, 1977, Respondent, as president of American General Corporation of Florida, entered into a Home Improvement Installment Contract and Note with Joe Wheeler and wife, who reside at Route 2, Box 63, Live Oak, Florida. The contract provided that for a price of $4,250 Respondent would make the following property improvements on the Wheeler residence: Build 12 X 20 Room Addition and finish with paneling, ceiling tile, & all trim. Build 6 X 14 porch with top. Replace all Rotten sills. Replace all Rotten siding. Paint house with latex paint. Repair floor joist. The Wheelers made a down payment of $350 leaving an unpaid balance of $3,900. The promissory note provided for a total financed cost of $6,629.28 payable in monthly payments over a period of seven years. On August 29, 1977, the parties entered into another such contract for additional work to the residence for the price of $1,600 as follows: Install ceiling tile in (2) bed rooms and bathroom complete with trim. Install paneling in (2) bed rooms complete. Install paneling and tile board in bath. Remove old shingles and install new 235lb asphalt shingles. Install 54" kitchen sink complete and hook to water. The Wheelers paid $100 as a down payment on the work and financed the remainder with a total deferred price of $2,100 payable in 48 consecutive monthly installments. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6, Testimony of E. Wheeler, J. Wheeler) Respondent subcontracted the work on the Wheeler residence to one John Compton. Respondent did not secure a Suwannee County Building Permit for the work, nor was he licensed in that county to act in the capacity of a contractor. (Testimony of Respondent, Wilson) On September 12, 1977, Mr. Wheeler signed a Customer's Completion Certificate" wherein he acknowledged that the contract work had been satisfactorily completed. Although Respondent testified that he explained the contents of the document to Wheeler at the time it was executed, Wheeler denied the same and testified that he had not read its contents prior to signing it. (Testimony of Respondent, J. Wheeler, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Prior to completion of the work, the Wheelers noted that certain deficiencies in the work existed, including a floor that "shaked" in the new addition, looseness of wall paneling, failure to replace rotten siding and lower sills, and failure to install ceiling tile in one bedroom. They spoke to workmen on the job who said that they would return and finish the work. However, nothing further was done in spite of the fact that Respondent told Mrs. Wheeler in a telephone conversation that he would be back to complete the job. As a result, Mrs. Wheeler made a complaint to Derl W. Wilson, the building official for Suwannee County. (Testimony of E. Wheeler, J. Wheeler, Wilson) Pursuant to Mrs. Wheeler's complaint, Wilson inspected the premises at some time during the month of September, 1977, and observed that the accomplished work was of a substandard nature involving various violations of the Southern Standard Building Code which had been adopted by Suwannee County in 1975. These violations, which Respondent acknowledged at the hearing to have been committed, included the following: concrete foundation blocks improperly aligned and unsupported by required concrete pad; improper spacing of floor joists at 24 inch rather required 16 inch intervals; use of one-ply instead of two-ply flooring material; failure to extend vent stack for plumbing system in kitchen to a height of 6 inches above the roof line; failure to provide a shutoff valve for cold water line under kitchen sink; failure to cover and protect splices in wiring of ceiling light fixture; failure to install ridge board for support of roof rafters; improperly installing two inch by four inch wood braces in attic; failure to connect sewer line to septic tank. Additionally, Wilson observed various instances of poor workmanship in installation of an electric wall receptacle and connection of the roof of the new addition to the existing building. Further, he noted that due to the improper spacing of floor joists, the substandard plywood flooring was not firm and constituted a safety hazard. (Testimony of Wilson, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3) After his inspection, Wilson wrote a letter to Respondent, dated October 18, 1977, pointing out the deficiencies in construction and advising that a complaint would be filed against him unless a building permit was obtained within ten days and the necessary corrections of deficiencies were made. Although Wilson testified that he did not hear from Respondent as a result of the letter, Respondent made several telephone calls to Wilson's office and was informed that he was on vacation. (Testimony of Wilson, Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 7) On June 14, 1978, Respondent entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Suwannee County, Florida to a charge of improper construction arising out of the Wheeler contract, and the Court withheld adjudication of guilt in the matter. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) Respondent was previously convicted in the County Court of Putnam County, Florida, on August 13, 1974 of engaging in the business or acting in capacity of a contractor without being duly registered in the county pursuant to Section 468.105(2), Florida Statutes. On June 16, 1975, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere in the County Court of Alachua County, Florida to a charge arising out of his activities as a home improvement contractor. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Respondent on probation for a period of six months and required that he "make necessary repairs to home of victim to satisfaction of Consumer Protection Section of State Attorney's Office, Eighth Judicial Circuit." (Petitioner's Exhibits 7-9) Petitioner has been a building contractor for twelve years. He testified that his subcontractor for the Wheeler job had been competent in the past and he relied on this fact in not closely inspecting the work under the Wheeler contracts. For this reason, he was unaware that the building code violations had occurred until after he had sold the Wheeler contracts and mortgages to a third party who was contacted by the Wheelers regarding the deficiencies. Respondent denied that he abandoned the work because he thought it had been completed until subsequent notification of the Wheeler complaint. He has since made attempts through Counsel to resolve the complaint by having the work performed by a contractor licensed in Suwannee County or by means of a monetary settlement. He further testified that he had inquired of Petitioner's office as to the necessity for obtaining a Suwannee County license prior to commencing the Wheeler contracts and was informed that his registration was valid for work in that county. He acknowledged that he made a "mistake" in not obtaining a building permit and in failing to supervise his subcontractor properly, but stated that the licensing rules in the various counties were "confusing." As to his prior difficulties in Putnam and Alachua Counties, Respondent testified that the Alachua matter involved a complaint raised four or five years after construction regarding quality of workmanship and that he had taken care of the matter. As to the Putnam County case, he testified that he was unaware that a building permit was necessary at the time he did the work for which he was subsequently prosecuted. It is found that Respondent's exculpatory testimony regarding his failure to obtain a building permit or county licensing, and lack of knowledge of code violations with respect to the work performed at the Wheeler residence is not credible. (Testimony of Respondent, Respondent's Exhibits 2-6)
Recommendation That Respondent's registration as a general contractor be suspended for a period of one year and that an administrative penalty in the amount of $500 be imposed, for violation of Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 C. Valentine Bates, Esquire 726 NW 8th Avenue - Suite B Gainesville, Florida J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621
Findings Of Fact The Problem: A Seawall In Danger of Collapse Applicant is an incorporated condominium association which owns the Gulf front property of Bonita Beach Club, a residential condominium located on the northern portion of a barrier island known as Little Hickory Island. The island is south of Fort Myers and part of Lee County. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney; R-1.) Applicant's Gulf front property is protected by a 600-foot seawall; that seawall, exposed to wave and storm attack, is now in the beginning stages of failure. Applicant seeks a permit to place a revetment along the entire seaward face of the seawall "to help strengthen the seawall and stop the erosion at [its] . . . base . . . ." (R-1.) (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney, Sharma; R-1) The seawall shows evidence of profile lowering; sand has been scoured from its face, exposing 6 to 7 feet of wall above the sand line. Its face shows abrasions from buffeting by sand and sediment; its joints have begun to separate, allowing sand from behind the wall to leak through the cracks. Under high tide conditions, the seaward portions of the seawall are under water; under other tidal conditions there is no more than 6 to 7 feet of wetsand area between the base of the wall and the waterline. (Testimony of Truitt.) The present condition of the seawall is mainly due to two processes: the long-term shoreline migration of Little Hickory Island, and (2) profile steepening, scouring, and accelerated sand loss in the immediate vicinity of Applicant's seawall. There is a south-to-north longshore or littoral sand transport in the area off Little Hickory Island, a northward flowing "river of sand." This phenomenon has caused sand loss to beaches in front of and south of Applicant's property and sand accretion to the undeveloped northern beaches north of the island. The localized profile steepening and accelerating sand loss at Applicant's seawall is caused by waves hitting the vertical seawall, then rebounding-- causing removal of sand at the foot of the wall and steepening of the offshore profile. This localized sand loss and erosion has been aggravated by the original placement and alignment of Applicant's seawall. 7/ The seawall protrudes further seaward than adjacent seawalls or bulkheads. 8/ This protrusion, together with the wall's irregular shape, disrupts the otherwise straight shoreline and acts as a headland: an abutment which concentrates wave energy and longshore currents and causes accelerated erosion and sand loss in the immediate area. The effects of the northerly longshore drift and the localized sand loss have been dramatic: between 1974 and 1980 the sandy beach in front of Applicant's seawall has receded landward 50-60 feet. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney, Sharma; P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, 1-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7.) In addition, the shoreline of Little Hickory Island is gradually and inexorably eroding. This is due to long-term backyard erosion, a natural )process by which barrier islands gradually migrate landward. (Testimony of Sharma, Tackney, Truitt.) II. Applicant's Solution: Place a Rock Revetment in Front of the Seawall In October, 1980, Applicant applied for a DNR permit to place a rock revetment along the existing seawall. By January, 1981, DNR's Bureau of Beaches and Shores determined that all of the documentation required by its rules 9/ had been submitted and the application was complete. Subsequently, the Applicant agreed to several design changes suggested by DNR and agreed to a permit condition requiring it to dedicate a travel easement to assure continued public access to beaches north of its property. As so modified, DNR proposes to issue the requested permit. (Testimony of Truitt; R-1, -R-11, R-12.) The proposed permit, with conditions, is contained in Respondent's Exhibits R-1, R-11, and R-12. 10/ The proposed shore protection structure is described as a rock toe-scour revetment to be placed along the seaward face of Applicant's existing seawall. The revetment extends 7 feet in the shore-normal direction and approximately 600 linear feet in the shore-parallel direction. It will consist of lime-rock boulders of various sizes stacked on top of each other. The top layer of rocks will be the largest, 75 percent of them weighing greater than 500 pounds. The rock revetment will rest on a layer of Filter-X mat to help stabilize the underlying sand. The revetment's elevation will range from 0.0 feet (NGVD) 11/ at the toe of the seawall to -0.5 feet (NGVD) at 7 feet seaward. Its slope will be no greater than 3 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit. The mean high waterline will intercept the revetment-seawall interface at a maximum elevation of approximately +1.5 feet (NGVD). (R-1, R-11, R-12.) III. The Effects of the Proposed Revetment The proposed revetment will fulfill its primary purpose: it will protect the Applicant's seawall by reducing the amount of sand that is scoured and removed from its face and it will add significant structural stability to the wall. It will provide these benefits because its sloping surface will intercept and dissipate waves which would otherwise hit and rebound off the vertical seawall. Because wave deflection energy will be lessened, steepening of the offshore profile will be reduced and accelerating longshore currents will be slowed. It will also protect the seawall against storm, but not hurricane, damage. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney.) However, the proposed rock revetment will not stop the migration of sands from the southern to the northern reaches of Little Hickory Island; the northward flowing longshore currents will continue. Neither will the revetment protect Applicant's property against long-term background erosion; the entire island will continue its steady easterly retreat to the mainland. Scouring at the ends of the existing seawall will be reduced, but not eliminated. Eddy currents at the ends of the revetment will cause some localized scouring to take place. Wave and water action will take its toll on the revetment; it will require periodic repair and rebuilding in the years ahead. (Testimony of Sharma, Tackney, Truitt.) Although the testimony is conflicting, the weight of the evidence is that the proposed revetment will not adversely affect adjacent beaches and the offshore profile. 12/ While localized scouring will not be eliminated, the evidence indicates that the rates will be lessened--that the existing erosion problems will be mitigated, not aggravated. With reduced localized scouring, longshore currents will not accelerate, and the offshore profile will not deepen at increasing rates. The expert witnesses agreed that, at least for the short term, the proposed revetment will protect the existing seawall against at least three-year storm conditions. (Testimony of Tackney, Truitt, Sharma.) While the revetment will not accelerate or contribute to the erosion of adjacent lands, it will impair the public's use of the beaches in front of and to the north of the Applicant's seawall. Because the revetment will protrude 6 to 7 feet seaward from the seawall--intercepting the mean high waterline--the public will be precluded from traversing the beaches in front of Applicant's property. That narrow corridor of wet-sand beach now permits dry passage only during low tide. With placement of the rock revetment on that passageway, it will become impassable to most people who use the Little Hickory Island beaches. 13/ (Testimony of Sharma, Member of the Public.) Generally, rip-rap revetments, such as that proposed by Applicant, do not eliminate erosion or cause sand to accrete. Rather, they tend to increase erosion and escarping beyond that which would occur if a shoreline is left in its natural, unaltered condition. (Testimony of Sharma, Truitt, Tackney.) IV. DNR Coastal Construction Permits: Practice and Policy There may be alternatives to the proposed revetment which will not endanger the Applicant's upland structure or block the public's access to beaches in front of and north of Applicant's property. 14/ DNR does not require the consideration of shore protection alternatives when it processes coastal construction permit applications. Neither, in its view, is public access to adjacent beaches a matter of regulatory concern in this licensing process. 15/ At the staff level of DNR, the sole consideration is engineering design of the proposed structure: At the level of staff of the Bureau of Beaches and Shores there are no other con- siderations other than simply engineering judgments on the appropriateness or other considerations of the design. I have no idea what the governor and cabinet or exec- utive director may consider. (Tr. 170.) This view of the agency's duty helps explain why DNR has never denied an application to construct a shore protection revetment, although it has suggested design modifications, as was done in this case. (Testimony of Truitt.) V. Interests of Objectors to Proposed Revetment Project DNR requires applicants for coastal construction permits to provide a map showing the location of the proposed erosion control structure and the shoreline for at least 1,000 feet on each side. Applicants are also required to provide a list of the names and addresses from the latest county tax role of all riparian property owners within 1,000 feet. It is DNR practice, in accordance with its rule, Section 165-24.07, Florida Administrative Code, to mail notice of a proposed project to those riparian property owners. By rule, such interested persons or objectors to a proposed project have the right to appear and make their positions known to the Governor and Cabinet at the time the agency decision is made. Id. (Testimony of Truitt; R-1.) Petitioners, Casa Bonita I and II Condominium Associations, Inc., and Seascape Condominium I and II Associations, Inc., assert that the proposed revetment will adversely affect their rights as riparian owners, that it will cause erosion of their shorelines; they also allege that it will prejudice their recreational use of sovereignty lands--the public's beaches lying below the line of mean high water. Relative to the site of the proposed revetment, Casa Bonita I Condominium Association, Inc., lies 1,350 to 1,400 feet south; Casa Bonita II Condominium Association, Inc., 670 feet south; Seascape Condominium I and II Associations, Inc., lie immediately adjacent to the site. (Testimony of Tackney; R-1, R-14.) No evidence was presented to establish that intervenor Lee County is a riparian property owner within 1,000 feet of the proposed revetment. The Lee County Board of County Commissioners were, however, notified of the instant application and given an opportunity to object. The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact; to the extent such findings are incorporated in this Recommended order, they are adopted; otherwise they are rejected as irrelevant to the issues presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Bonita Beach Club Condominium Association, Inc., for a coastal construction permit be GRANTED, subject to the agreed-upon conditions described above, including the dedication of a travel easement allowing the public to circumvent the 600-foot rock revetment. 21/ DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1981.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Ruben S. Ares was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida holding license number CG CO 14769. Sentinel Building Company of Central Florida, Inc. was engaged in the business of building residential homes for sale. It was the practice of Sentinel Building to buy the land, engage the services of a general contractor to obtain a building permit and help in the supervision and consultation on construction and sell the hones built to others. The contractors were paid a fee of between $250 and $500 per residence for obtaining permits and providing consultation and services. The Vice-President of Sentinel Building was responsible for hiring and paying subcontractors and suppliers. Sentinel Building was not a Florida licensed general contractor, nor was it qualified by respondent or other Florida registered or certified licensee to engage in the business or contracting in Florida. Respondent Ares was not an officer, stockholder, member of the board of directors or employee of Sentinel Building Company. In 1980, respondent entered into an agreement with Sentinel Building to act as the general contractor for the con- struction of at least four residences. His responsibilities were to supervise the construction of the hones and obtain all necessary permits, including the original building permit and the final certificate of occupancy. The responsibility for engaging subcontractors and ordering and purchasing materials and supplies remained with Sentinel Building Company. Respondent was paid a fixed fee of $350 per house. During the period of time in which four residences in Seminole County were constructed, respondent held another full time job with a building company for which he worked 43 to 44 hours per week. His activity with Sentinel Building consisted of obtaining permits and periodic checks on the construction work. According to respondent, his inspections on construction activity occurred once every three to ten days and consumed approximately too to four hours of respondent's time per week. In 1980 and 1981, respondent applied for and obtained building permits for four single-family residences in Delmar Estates, Seminole County. The applications and permits listed Sentinel Building as the owner of the property and respondent Ruben S. Ares as the contractor. At least one of the four homes was under a contract of sale prior to construction. Three of the four purchasers were under the impression that the homes were built by Sentinel Building. None of the three had ever met respondent Ares, nor were they aware that he was the general contractor.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(e) and (f), Florida Statutes, that an administrative fine in the amount of $1500 be imposed against respondent and that the remaining charges of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Aldo Icardi, Esquire P.O. Box 879 990 Lewis Drive Winter Park, Florida 32790 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Sections 489.119(2), 489.124(2), 489.129(1)(n) and (p), and 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes (1999) (hereinafter, "Florida Statutes"), respectively, by: engaging in contracting as a business organization without applying for a certificate of authority through a qualifying agent and under a fictitious name; failing to notify Petitioner of the mailing address and telephone number of the certificate holder or registrant; committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting; proceeding on a job without obtaining applicable building permits and inspections; and failing to provide a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund (the "Fund").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is licensed as a contractor with license number CC C018992. At all relevant times, Respondent was registered or certified with Petitioner as the qualifying agent for Earl Benjamin and Company, Inc. ("EBCO"). As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of EBCO's contracting activities in accordance with Section 489.1195. Respondent failed to obtain a certificate of authority from Petitioner. On April 4, 1998, EBCO entered into a contract with Mr. Joseph Chapman ("Chapman") to repair a leak in the roof of Chapman's residence at 1880 Jessica Road, Clearwater, Florida. On the advice of Mr. Dale Edwards, a representative of EBCO, Chapman entered into a second contract with EBCO to repair the entire roof for an additional cost. None of the contracts or other documentation provided by EBCO to Chapman contained a notice explaining the consumer's rights under the Fund. The contract prices for the first and second contracts were $4,500 and $7,500, respectively. After completing the work, Respondent sent another bill to Chapman for $1,750 for additional materials and repairs. Chapman paid, and Respondent accepted, $13,210 as payment in full of all amounts owed to Respondent. The checks signed by Chapman were made payable to "Earl Benjamin and Company and/or EBCO." After EBCO completed the work on the Chapman residence, the roof leaked in four places and continued to leak as of the date of hearing. Chapman contacted Respondent and other EBCO representatives repeatedly in attempt to stop the leaks. EBCO has been unable to stop the leaks in Chapman's home. The Pinellas County Building Department (the "Building Department") never performed a final inspection approving the work performed by Respondent. The Building Department issued building permit number 175919 to Respondent on April 23, 1998. On May 26, 1998, Chapman indicated to the Building Department that the roof leaked, and an inspector for the Building Department inspected the roof on the same date. The inspector found that the birdcage was not reassembled, some flashing was too short, and other eaves and rates were not constructed properly. The inspector issued a red tag for the violations. On June 16, 1998, the inspector inspected the roof again and issued a second red tag for some violations that remained uncorrected. On November 16, 1998, the inspector inspected the roof again and issued another red tag because the roof still leaked. On January 14, 1999, the inspector met with Chapman and representatives for EBCO to address the continuing problems with the roof. The inspector instructed Respondent to update his address and licensing information. On January 26, 1999, the inspector inspected the roof for the last time. The roof still leaked. On May 9, 1998, EBCO entered into a contract with Jack and Dawn Wilcox ("Wilcox") to repair the roof and install roof vents in the Wilcox residence at 247 144th Avenue, Madeira Beach, Florida. The contract price for the Wilcox job was $1,800. The Wilcoxes paid, and Respondent accepted, $1,800 as payment in full of all amounts owed to Respondent. The checks signed by the Wilcox's were made payable to "EBCO" or "EBCO Roofing." After EBCO completed the work on the Wilcox residence, the roof leaked around the vents installed by Respondent. The work performed by Respondent suffered from incompetent workmanship including ragged and non-uniform holes cut into the roof for the vents. Mr. Wilcox attempted to contact Respondent and other EBCO representatives repeatedly in an attempt to correct the leaks in the roof. No one from EBCO returned the messages from Mr. Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox attempted to physically locate Respondent at Respondent's business address, but Respondent's address was incorrect. The Wilcoxes incurred additional expenses of $1,500 to correct problems caused by Respondent. On October 24, 1998, Mr. Wilcox entered into a contract with Kurt Dombrowski Roofing Contractor ("Dombrowski") to repair the leaks in the roof and to re-install the vents in the roof. Dombrowski correctly performed the work, and Wilcox paid Dombrowski $1,500. The Wilcoxes have no further problems with the roof. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the work performed on the Wilcox roof. The Wilcox home was located within the jurisdiction of the City of Madeira Beach (the "City"). The City no longer has a building department. The Pinellas County Building Department assumed the responsibilities of the City. Respondent never obtained a building permit for the Wilcox job.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.119(2), 489.124(2), 489.129(1)(n) and (p), and 489.1425(1), imposing administrative fines in the aggregate amount of $3,200, requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Chapman and Wilcox in the respective amounts of $13,210 and $1,800, and requiring Respondent to pay costs of investigation and prosecution in the amount of $690.40. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 9th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robert A. Crabill, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Earl Henry Benjamin 9914 Connecticut Street Gibsonton, Florida 33534
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified building contractor, a registered mechanical contractor and a certified air conditioning contractor in the state of Florida having been issued license numbers CB-CA09793, RM-0031246 and CA-C024348, respectively. At all times material hereto, Respondent's building contractor and air conditioning contractor licenses qualified George E. Bonsino and Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. In February 1984, Respondent contracted with Carl and Patricia Powers of 4530 Victor Street, Jacksonville, Florida for the construction of a room addition. The contract was presented to the Powers by Peter Stamires. Mr. Stamires was, at the time, acting as sales manager for George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. The contract price was approximately $13,000.00 and construction of the Powers' room addition was estimated to be completed by March 30, 1984. On March 20, 1984 Respondent received from Carl and Patricia Powers a payment of $6,850.00 on the contract. On May 4, 1984 Respondent received from Carl and Patricia Powers an additional payment of $5,000.00 on the contract. The contract called for a "dry-in room" only, i.e., the room was to be put to a stage where water would not penetrate it. The contract also included: (1) covering the existing asbestos shingles with a cut brick and stone veneer; (2) the installation of aluminum windows; (3) the installation of aluminum gables and eaves; (4) re-roofing the entire home; and (5) the installation of overhead lights, light switches and electrical outlets. Respondent's contract with the Powers contemplated that electrical work would be done, but did not include any plumbing. Respondent sub-contracted the Powers' project to two (2) individuals, Mr. Walker and Mr. Todd. Respondent did not know what type of license Mr. Walker or Mr. Todd held and was never shown a license by either individual. Mr. Walker agreed to obtain permits for the Powers' project, to submit building plans and specifications, and to request the mandatory building inspections. Neither the Respondent nor the sub-contractors obtained a City of Jacksonville building permit prior to commencing construction of the Powers' room addition. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractors submitted building plans and specifications for approval by the, City of Jacksonville Building Department prior to commencing construction at the Powers' residence as required. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractors requested the City of Jacksonville Building Department to perform any type of building inspections during the process of construction, as required. On June 11, 1984 Respondent obtained building permit no. 7048 from the City of Jacksonville Building and Zoning Inspection Division for the Powers' project. Shortly after construction commenced, the Powers became concerned with the quality of work being performed. Respondent, while at the project site near the end of March, told Mr. Powers that a building permit had been obtained for the project. However, at that time, no building permit had been obtained. Mr. Theron Brannan, a building inspector for the City of Jacksonville, became involved with the Powers' case when Mrs. Powers called in May 1984 and complained about ;he work being performed by Respondent. Mr. Brannan checked and found that no permit had been issued. He then went out and inspected the construction site. Mr. Brannan found that the walls were approximately 3 or 4 inches out of alignment and that the floor was spongy and needed repair. Major work would have been required to straighten the walls. In Mr. Brannan's opinion, the work was well below average and was of very poor quality. Electrical and plumbing work was performed at the Powers' project site. Ten (10) electrical outlets, six (6) overhead lights and six (6) light switches were installed. The electrical work also included a 220 volt outlet for a clothes dryer. Mrs. Powers is a housewife and was present during the time the electrical work was performed. The individual performing the electrical work told Ms. Powers that he worked for Respondent and was being paid on an hourly basis. The plumbing work performed at the Powers' project included: (1) installation of hot and cold water lines for the bathroom sink, which were tied into the existing water supply; (2) a water line to the toilet, and (3) a drain pipe from the toilet to the existing septic tank. The individual performing the plumbing work told Ms. Powers that he worked for Respondent on an hourly basis and that he was a licensed plumber. When Respondent was advised of the problems at the construction site, he immediately obtained the necessary permits and offered to correct some of the building problems. The Powers refused Respondent's offer to correct the problems because they were concerned as to whether the remedial measures proposed by Respondent were actually feasible. From an appearance standpoint, the measures contemplated by Respondent were not feasible. In April 1984, Respondent contracted with Glenn and Debora Blanchard of 521 Astral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida for the construction of a room addition. The total contract price was $6,780.00. Respondent received $3,390.00 as a down payment on the contract; the balance was due upon completion. The contract called for the construction of a room addition between the existing home and the garage. The room addition was to be completed to the "dry-in" stage only. The contract also included re-roofing the entire residence. The Respondent sub contracted the Blanchard project to a person by the name of A. Rhoden. Mr. Rhoden agreed to obtain all permits, draw all plans and specifications and obtain all required inspections with the exception of the roofing aspects of the project. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor obtain ed a building permit prior to commencing construction at the Blanchard's residence as required. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor submitted building plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville Building Department prior to commencing construction. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor requested the building department perform any type of building inspections during the process of construction In May 1984, Ms. Blanchard became concerned because the concrete slab appeared uneven and had developed a crack. She contacted the City of Jacksonville Building Department because she was concerned with the quality of the work being performed. On May 30, 1984 the City of Jacksonville Building Department and Zoning Inspection Division issued a stop work order on construction work being performed at the Blanchard residence. The Notice of Violation cited the failure to submit building plans and failure to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction at the project site. On June 11, 1984 Respondent obtained building permit no. 7047 from the City of Jacksonville Building and Zoning Inspection Division for the construction work at the Blanchard residence. Such Permit was obtained after commencement of the project. Shortly after commencement of construction, Respondent met with Mr. Blanchard at the project site to discuss a few changes to the original plans. In late April, 1984, Respondent told Mr. Blanchard that a building permit had been obtained, when in fact, no building permit had been obtained. Respondent told Mr. Blanchard that the permit needed to be kept at his office. The construction of the room addition included the forming and pouring of a monolithic slab. The City building department inspects the excavation of the slab prior to the pouring of concrete. A tie-beam inspection is required after the foundation is poured and the masonry walls are erected. Neither inspection was performed nor requested. The Respondent told Mrs. Blanchard that two (2) inspectors had inspected the property, when in fact no inspectors had inspected the property because no building permit had been applied for at the time Respondent made such statement. Unless a building permit is obtained, the City is generally not aware that a construction project is being undertaken and, therefore, does not conduct building inspections. Lewis D. Franks, an expert in residential construction inspected the work done at the Blanchard's home on behalf of the City of Jacksonville Building Department. Several problems existed in regard to the Blanchard project. There was a large crack in the concrete which resulted from the settling of the southeast corner of the building. The settling of the southeast corner resulted from either an inadequate footing or none at all. Also, the roof rafters were not centered properly and were about fourteen (14) feet off. The Blanchard project was of very poor workmanship, the construction was not structurally sound, and the project failed in several respects to meet requirements of the City of Jacksonville Building Code. When Respondent found out that no permit had been obtained he promptly drew up plans and specifications and obtained a permit from the City of Jacksonville Building Department. The Blanchards, thereafter, refused to allow Respondent to continue working on the project. The roofing portion of the Blanchard project was sub- contracted by Respondent to Richard Davenport. Mr. Davenport holds a state license as a roofing contractor and a local occupational license. Mr. Davenport's sub-contract called for him to tear off the existing roof, carry off the rotten wood and put on a new roof. Respondent was not satisfied with the roofing job done by Mr. Davenport and failed to pay him for such roofing job. Thereafter, Mr. Davenport demanded payment from the Blanchards but they also refused to pay him. Mr. Davenport filed a Claim of Lien against the Blanchards' property. However, the Blanchards hired an attorney and the Claim of Lien was dismissed. Respondent's failure to pay Mr. Davenport was based on his good faith belief that the roofing job was not done in a satisfactory manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of failing to supervise the construction activities of the company which he qualified and incompetence in the practice of contracting as alleged in Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that all other alleged violations contained in Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. That Respondent be found guilty of failing to supervise the construction activities of the company which he qualified and incompetence in the practice of contracting as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that all other alleged violations contained in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. That Count Three of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed, the Petitioner failing to introduce any evidence in regard to Count Three and requesting that it be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's building contractor's license be suspended for a period of 6 months and that an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1985.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to fund the application of Petitioner Duval Park, Ltd. (Duval Park), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation that administers low-income housing tax credit programs. As of July 1, 2012, Florida Housing was authorized to use up to ten percent of its annual allocation of low-income housing tax credits to fund high-priority affordable housing developments selected through a competitive solicitation process, such as the RFP. See Ch. 2012-127, § 4, Laws of Fla. (2012)(creating § 420.507(48), Fla. Stat.). Examples of "high priority" affordable housing developments include housing for veterans and their families, and housing for persons with special needs. Prior to issuing the RFP, Florida Housing conducted some demonstration RFPs for developments serving special needs households, but the RFP represents the first actual use of the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits. Previously, low-income housing tax credits were awarded through what was known as the universal application cycle, a process described as cumbersome, lengthy, and inflexible. As part of the universal application cycle, an applicant could indicate by checking a box that it intended to provide affordable housing to special needs households. However, the general universal application process did not lend itself to a targeted proposal detailing how the unique needs of specific special-needs population groups would be addressed. The competitive solicitation process was seen as a way to allow applicants to respond to particular high-priority development needs identified by Florida Housing. In setting forth their development proposals for defined target population groups, applicants would be able to tell their story: applicants would identify and describe the unique needs and household characteristics of the specific special-needs population group that is the focus of their application; applicants could detail and demonstrate their know-how with regard to the resources available in the community where the proposed development is located, to meet the unique needs of the target population; and applicants would be able to discuss the relevant experience of the developer and management teams that make them well-suited to carry out the proposed development and meet the unique needs of the targeted population group. The RFP The RFP solicited responses or applications proposing the development of "permanent supportive housing" (as defined in the RFP) for persons with special needs. Florida Housing issued the RFP with the expectation of funding two or more proposals. The RFP provided that applicants could propose developments for persons with special needs generally, or applicants could choose to focus on serving veterans with special needs. If an applicant chose to focus on veterans with special needs, the applicant was required to pick one of two specific subcategories: either veterans with service-connected disabling conditions transitioning from a Veterans' Administration (VA) hospital or medical center; or chronically homeless/ institutionalized veterans with disabling conditions who were significant users of public resources, such as emergency care and shelter. The RFP specified that it was Florida Housing's goal to fund at least one development proposing to serve veterans with special needs. Preference would be given to proposed developments focusing on serving special-needs veterans in the first subcategory, i.e., veterans transitioning from VA hospitals and medical centers. Duval Park, Osprey, and five other applicants timely submitted applications in response to the RFP. Both Duval Park and Osprey proposed permanent supportive housing developments to serve veterans with special needs transitioning from VA hospitals and medical centers. As described in the RFP, an evaluation committee comprised of Florida Housing employees reviewed and scored the applications. Members of the evaluation committee were instructed to independently evaluate and score the application sections assigned to them. The RFP specified that at least one public meeting would be held at which the evaluators were allowed to discuss their evaluations, make any adjustments deemed necessary to best serve the interests of Florida Housing's mission, and develop recommendations for the Florida Housing Board of Directors. For most application sections, a single evaluator was assigned to review and score the seven responses. For example, Mr. Aldinger was the evaluator who reviewed and scored the two application sections addressing developer and management company experience with permanent supportive housing. Two application sections were assigned for evaluation and scoring by two evaluation committee members. The two evaluators first independently reviewed and scored all seven application responses for the two sections. Then the two evaluators met in a noticed public meeting to conduct a "reconciliation process," in which they discussed their evaluations of the responses to the two application sections and reconciled differences in their scores. The evaluation committee ultimately concluded that Duval Park's application was entitled to a total of 119 points out of 133 possible points, and that Osprey's application was entitled to 117 points. A large gap in scoring separated these two highest-scoring applicants from the other five applicants; the next highest score was 95 points. The evaluation committee presented its recommendation to the Florida Housing Board of Directors, along with a summary of the scores assigned by the evaluation committee. The committee's recommendation was that Florida Housing should award funding to Duval Park for its proposed development. Florida Housing's Board adopted the committee's recommendation. Osprey's Protest Issue Remaining for Determination Following the parties' withdrawal of most of their protest issues, the only remaining disputed issue for resolution in this proceeding is Osprey's claim that Duval Park should have received "at least three" less points than Osprey for the sections addressing developer and management company experience.2/ Mr. Aldinger's assignment as the evaluation committee member responsible for reviewing and scoring these application sections comports with his expertise. Mr. Aldinger has served as Florida Housing's supportive housing coordinator since 2006. In that role, he has been coordinating with governmental bodies and industry stakeholders to develop strategies for focusing Florida Housing's resources on the provision of supportive housing to special needs households. The RFP was developed in furtherance of this effort, and Mr. Aldinger was one of the RFP's authors. Mr. Aldinger assigned the same number of points to the Duval Park and Osprey applications in both sections. Each application received 24 out of 25 possible points for developer experience, and all ten of the points available for management company experience. Osprey's contention is that its narratives for these two application sections show its objective superiority. Osprey's "objective superiority" argument is primarily based on a quantitative comparison, in which its narrative showed experience developing and operating a larger number of permanent supportive housing units than did Duval Park's narrative. Osprey also contends that its narrative was qualitatively better in providing greater detail regarding its experience developing and operating permanent supportive housing. As part of its argument, Osprey contends that Duval Park strayed from the RFP instructions by describing experience with more than just permanent supportive housing, but that the evaluator gave Duval Park credit anyway. The RFP instructions provide the starting point to assess Osprey's contentions. First, the RFP provided the following definition of "permanent supportive housing": Rental housing that is affordable to the focus households with household incomes at or below 60 percent of area median income (AMI), that is leased to the focus households, for continued occupancy with an indefinite length of stay as long as the Permanent Supportive Housing tenant complies with the lease requirements. Permanent Supportive Housing shall facilitate and promote activities of daily living, access to community-based services and amenities, and inclusion in the general community. Permanent Supportive Housing shall strive to meet the needs and preferences of the focus households. This RFP definition was acknowledged to be somewhat broader than how that phrase might be understood by some industry models. For example, Mr. Aldinger testified that transitional housing could be permanent supportive housing within the RFP definition, as long as a lease agreement is used. Permanency is not required, only an "indefinite" length of stay. The fact that leases are for finite terms of 12 or 24 months would not be dispositive; rather, the length of stay would be considered "indefinite" if tenants are not required to leave at the end of their lease terms, if they are not ready to leave and are otherwise in compliance with the lease terms. The provision of supportive services to meet the needs of the focus population is a key part of the RFP definition. The RFP instructions for the developer experience narrative were as follows: Developer Experience with Permanent Supportive Housing (Maximum 25 points): The Applicant must describe the experience of the Developer, co-Developer, and/or Principal in developing and operating Permanent Supportive Housing, and more specifically, housing for the households the Applicant is proposing to serve. Describe the role(s) and responsibilities of any Developer, co- Developer, and/or Principal listed in the Applicant's responses to Items A.2.c. and 3.a. of Section 6 of the RFP, related to the proposed Development, and describe the experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out the roles and responsibilities for this proposed Development. (emphasis added). The RFP instructions for the first application section must also be considered because they tie into the developer/ manager experience sections. The instructions for the first application section required the applicant to provide a detailed description of the focus population group, and the instructions also explained how that description would be used, as follows: [T]he Applicant must provide a detailed description of the resident household characteristics, needs, and preferences of the focus population(s) the Applicant is proposing to serve. This description will provide a point of reference for the Corporation's evaluation and scoring of the Application, providing the foundation for the appropriateness of the experience of the Developer(s) and Management Company, proposed Construction Features and Amenities, Resident services and Access to Community Based Services and Amenities. (emphasis added). As part of this first application section, applicants focusing on special-needs veterans transitioning from VA facilities were required to designate the specific VA facilities with which the applicants expected to be working and coordinating. Osprey, whose proposed development is in Liberty City, Miami-Dade County, designated Miami VA Healthcare System (Miami VA) in Miami. Duval Park, whose proposed development is in unincorporated Pinellas County, designated Bay Pines VA Healthcare System (Bay Pines VA) in Pinellas County, as well as the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital and the Tampa Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center, both in Tampa, Hillsborough County. Osprey and Duval Park both provided extensive narratives describing their target populations and detailing the unique needs and preferences of their target populations. Osprey's narrative described the information learned from interviewing social workers in each of the programs under the umbrella of the Miami VA, with whom Carrfour would be coordinating for transitioning veterans. Osprey's narrative also described a VA grant to Carrfour of $1,000,000 per year for supportive services for veteran families, through which Carrfour provides a comprehensive case management program called Operation Sacred Trust. This program has an outreach team that works closely with social workers throughout the Miami VA. The Duval Park narrative discussed and documented the work of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority Wounded Warrior Community Advisory Group to assess housing needs for veterans. Developer-partner ServiceSource's director of housing was a participant. As part of the assessment, the advisory group conducted veterans' focus groups to hear from the veterans themselves regarding their needs and preferences, including the particular supportive services needed to allow veterans to transition to an independent living setting. The Duval Park narrative also described the information about transitioning veterans learned through ongoing projects with the VA facilities designated for the proposed development, including a Memorandum of Understanding between James A. Haley Veterans Hospital and ServiceSource's Warrior Bridge program. As called for by the RFP instructions, Mr. Aldinger used each application's detailed description of the target population in section one as the foundation for evaluating that application's developer and management experience narratives. The experience narratives were properly evaluated in accordance with the RFP instructions in the context of each applicant's specific proposal to focus on a defined population group transitioning from designated VA facilities, whose unique needs were fleshed out in the first section narratives. Mr. Aldinger reviewed and was impressed with both Osprey's and Duval Park's developer experience narratives, for good reason. As he explained, the two responses took different approaches, but both provided good detail in the limited space allotted. Osprey's narrative described Carrfour, a non-managing member of the applicant entity that will be the developer and, through a subsidiary, manager of the proposed development. Carrfour is a not-for-profit organization created in 1993 by the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, with the mission of developing permanent supportive housing to end homelessness. In setting forth Carrfour's experience, the Osprey narrative took a quantitative approach by enumerating Carrfour's 16 mixed-use housing development projects that included permanent supportive housing. Some details were provided for each development, such as the funding sources, the number of total units, how many of those units were permanent supportive housing units, and how many of the units were currently occupied by veterans. However, the narrative did not explain whether any supportive services provided for these developments were specifically geared to meeting the special needs of veterans. The types of supportive services were not identified for any of the 16 developments. For three developments, the description stated only that "a full array of supportive services" was provided or that "on-site supportive services" were provided. Supportive services were not mentioned in the descriptions of the other 13 developments. Other than providing the number of units then occupied by veterans, Osprey's developer experience narrative had no information to demonstrate experience providing housing specifically developed to meet the unique needs of the focus population for its proposed development: veterans with service- related disabling conditions transitioning from the Miami VA. Duval Park's developer experience narrative did not match Osprey's approach of enumerating individual permanent supportive housing developments and quantifying the units in each development. Duval Park's response chose instead to describe in general aggregate terms the permanent supportive housing experience of the developer-partners. The Duval Park narrative went into more detail to highlight the developer team experience with housing projects specifically designed to meet the unique needs of special-needs veterans transitioning from the VA facilities designated in its application, something lacking in the Osprey response. For example, Duval Park's response described developer- partner Boley's substantial experience since it was founded in 1970, in developing more than 500 units of permanent supportive housing in Pinellas County. The narrative also described the even longer-standing experience of developer-partner ServiceSource, founded in 1959 with a mission to provide services to needy people with disabilities. Initially providing employment, training, rehabilitation, and support services (relevant to the roles described for this developer-partner in operating the proposed development), ServiceSource began a housing program in 1995. ServiceSource's permanent supportive housing development experience was summarized in shorthand as including 20 separate "HUD 202/811 awards." The unrefuted testimony established that this shorthand reference was properly understood by Mr. Aldinger to signify 20 permanent supportive housing developments for persons with disabilities. Two specific supportive housing projects for veterans, developed and operated by Boley working with the Bay Pines VA, were detailed in Duval Park's developer experience narrative. In 2007, Bay Pines VA awarded Boley a contract for "Safe Haven Model Demonstration Project" services, described in the notice of contract award as "a specialty model of HCHV residential care as mandated by the . . . zero-tolerance policy to end homelessness within the Veteran population." Through this contract, Boley acquired and rehabilitated a former 20-unit skilled nursing facility to establish Morningside Safe Haven (Morningside), which provides housing and a residential treatment program with counseling for veterans. Half of the 20 veterans housed there have service-connected disabling conditions, and one-third of the veterans transitioned from VA facilities. Pinellas County and HUD provide funding support for this VA pilot program. Osprey contends that Boley's experience developing and operating Morningside should have been ignored in scoring Duval Park's developer experience, because a residential treatment program is not permanent supportive housing. However, according to Mr. Humberg, Morningside is considered permanent supportive housing under HUD guidelines. Veterans sign a 12-month lease to reside in a unit. Although the intent is that tenants will complete treatment and move on, tenants are not required to leave at the end of their 12-month lease terms; they can stay as long as they need to, if they are otherwise compliant with their leases. Even if Morningside did not technically meet the RFP definition of permanent supportive housing, the discussion of Morningside still would be appropriate for this narrative, pursuant to the RFP instructions. The Morningside experience demonstrates Boley's "experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out" its roles and responsibilities for the proposed development, identified in the same narrative to include mental health counseling, case management, and VA coordination. Also described in Duval Park's narrative was Boley's 2010 development of Jerry Howe Apartments, with 13 units developed specifically for formerly homeless veterans, many of whom have service-connected disabling conditions. Funding for this development was provided by the VA and the City of Clearwater. Boley coordinates with Bay Pines VA in operating this development, with Bay Pines VA providing screening and referral services to identify veterans who are candidates to lease apartment units. Boley's staff members work closely with the veteran tenants to provide supportive services, preparing them for more independent living. Osprey quibbles with whether Jerry Howe Apartments technically qualifies as permanent supportive housing, noting that while the veteran tenants do sign a lease, the intent of the project is to serve as transitional housing for up to 24 months. However, Mr. Aldinger explained that transitional housing would meet the RFP's broad definition of permanent supportive housing if tenants are not required to leave after a finite period of 12 or 24 months. Mr. Humberg confirmed that veterans residing at Jerry Howe Apartments are not required to leave after 24 months, if they are not ready to move on. Mr. Humberg also clarified that Boley owned the apartments before they were redeveloped in 2010, specifically to meet the needs of veterans. Before the 2010 redevelopment, Boley operated the property as permanent supportive housing, just not specifically for veterans. In fact, two of the units remain occupied by prior non-veteran permanent supportive housing tenants, who did not want to move out in 2010 when the property was redeveloped. It is not necessary to debate whether Jerry Howe Apartments technically is permanent supportive housing, although the evidence demonstrated that the development is and has been permanent supportive housing, as defined in the RFP. Certainly, this project demonstrates Boley's experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out its roles and responsibilities for the proposed development and, therefore, is worthy of consideration as part of the developer experience narrative. Duval Park's developer experience narrative also detailed specific veterans' supportive service programs developed by both Boley and ServiceSource. The descriptions of these programs demonstrate experience and qualifications directly relevant to the described roles and responsibilities for Boley and ServiceSource with respect to the proposed development. Duval Park's experience narrative details the many accomplishments of ServiceSource's nationally-recognized Warrior Bridge program, which provides a wide variety of supportive services to veterans. Noteworthy is a 2012 award of over $1,000,000 from the City of St. Petersburg to ServiceSource to expand housing options for wounded veterans. Under this program, in the past year, ServiceSource partnered with Home Depot to modify 16 homes and facilities serving wounded veterans in the Tampa Bay area to increase accessibility, safety, and energy efficiency. This experience translates directly to the role ServiceSource will serve as a participant in designing the proposed housing development specifically to accommodate the unique accessibility and other needs of special-needs veterans with disabling conditions. ServiceSource's Warrior Bridge program also operates the "Veterans' Mall" in the vicinity of the proposed development. At the Veterans' Mall, household appliances, cookware, business attire, and necessities are made available to wounded veterans transitioning to more independent housing settings. According to Duval Park's narrative, the Veterans' Mall has served more than 325 veterans since opening in October 2011, through partnerships with Bay Pines VA and local community organizations serving veterans. ServiceSource's representative testified that ServiceSource recently secured a five-year commitment from T.J. Maxx to stock the Veterans' Mall with new suits for veterans going on job interviews. The Duval Park developer experience narrative regarding the Warrior Bridge program portrays ServiceSource's experience and qualifications to carry out its described roles and responsibilities for the proposed development, which include community outreach, physical disability counseling, employment assistance, job training, and VA coordination. Another program described in Duval Park's developer experience narrative is Boley's Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. This is a case management, training, and employment program specifically for veterans, conducted by Boley case managers and employment specialists, demonstrating that they are well-suited to carry out the described roles and responsibilities for Boley with respect to the proposed development, which includes the lead case management role. A reasonable person attempting to compare the two developer experience narratives might say that Osprey's narrative demonstrated greater quantitative experience in developing more units of permanent supportive housing generally, but that Duval Park's narrative demonstrated better qualitative experience among the developer-partners in developing supportive housing specifically for veterans with special needs. Duval Park's narrative was more directly focused on specific experience developing supportive housing that addresses the unique needs of those special-needs veterans who are transitioning from VA facilities. In addition, Duval Park's narrative better demonstrated experience and qualifications among the developer- partners that are directly relevant to their described roles and responsibilities in carrying out the proposed development. Both narratives were very good and responsive to the RFP instructions, while taking very different approaches. Mr. Aldinger reasonably applied the RFP instructions, reasonably evaluated the two narratives, and reasonably judged them both to be deserving of the same very high score. The credible evidence does not support Osprey's contention that its developer experience narrative was superior, or that Duval Park's narrative strayed beyond the RFP instructions, or that Duval Park's narrative was judged by different standards than Osprey's narrative.3/ Osprey also takes issue with the scoring of the two applications' narratives describing management company experience with permanent supportive housing. As noted, Mr. Aldinger evaluated these narratives and awarded each application the maximum ten points for this application section. Osprey's narrative identified Carrfour's not-for-profit subsidiary, Crossroads Management, LLC (Crossroads), as the manager for its proposed Liberty Village development. Although Carrfour was established in 1993, Crossroads was not created until 2007. Before Crossroads was created, Carrfour did not manage the housing projects it developed; instead, it turned the developments over to traditional property management companies. As Osprey's narrative acknowledges, this created problems, as the traditional management companies lacked the sensitivity and training to address special needs of permanent supportive housing tenants. Since 2007, Crossroads has been taking over management functions for Carrfour developments and is now managing most of the 16 developments listed in the developer experience narrative. Osprey's application was given credit for proposing management with ideal experience. For Duval Park's application, Boley is identified as the management company. In addition, Boley will engage Carteret Management Company (Carteret), which is owned and operated by James Chadwick, a principal of developer-partner Blue Sky, to assist with tax-credit compliance and other matters within Carteret's expertise during the initial phases of the project. Boley's specific experience managing supportive housing for veterans with special needs, previously detailed in the developer experience discussion above, could not reasonably be questioned. As described in the manager experience narrative, Boley manages 561 units of its own permanent supportive housing. Boley also manages 112 additional permanent supportive housing units owned by other not-for-profit companies (including an 88-unit development owned by ServiceSource). The management narrative describes the profile of the typical Boley-managed housing unit tenant as having mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder and/or substance abuse problems, requiring supportive services provided by Boley staff. These supportive services include mental health counseling, case management intervention, and transportation assistance--functions for which Boley will assume responsibility operating the proposed development. The narrative also describes Boley's property management personnel: seven housing staff who handle leasing, income certifications, and other leasing matters; eight maintenance staff to handle property repairs; three drivers who provide transportation; and four accounting staff for property management functions. Osprey does not articulate a specific reason why Duval Park's management company experience narrative should not be entitled to ten points, or why Osprey believes its narrative was qualitatively or quantitatively better than Duval Park's, except to the extent of Osprey's criticisms of the developer experience narratives. Yet Osprey's narrative for manager experience arguably should not fare as well as its narrative for developer experience, given the many more years of management experience demonstrated by Boley and the comparatively few years of management experience by the Crossroads management entity created by Carrfour in 2007. Nonetheless, Mr. Aldinger credited the Osprey application with the maximum points based on Crossroads' management experience since 2007. No credible evidence was presented to support the contention that Duval Park's management experience narrative was not entitled to at least the same number of points as Osprey's management experience narrative. As repeatedly acknowledged by all parties throughout the hearing, Florida Housing was fortunate to have received two excellent proposals by Osprey and Duval Park that were head and shoulders above the other responses. Florida Housing then was faced with the difficult task of deciding which, between two excellent choices, should receive the funding nod, if only one of the two could be funded. Based on the evidence and the findings above, Mr. Aldinger's assignment of the same number of points for developer experience (24 points out of a possible 25 points) and for management company experience (the maximum of 10 points) to the two excellent proposals was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition. His conclusion that both applicants demonstrated nearly ideal development experience and ideal management company experience for their proposals was reasonable. The evidence established that Mr. Aldinger made the points assignments he did after evaluating all of the relevant information he was allowed to consider pursuant to the RFP instructions. His scoring of these two application sections was shown to be an honest, good faith exercise of his expert judgment applied to sort out the various pros and cons of the responses. Osprey did not identify any statute or rule that it contends was violated by the scoring of the Osprey and Duval Park developer and management experience narratives. Osprey argued, but did not prove, that the scoring of these two applications was contrary to the RFP specifications. Osprey argued that Mr. Aldinger's evaluation was contrary to the RFP because he considered differences between the two projects in assessing developer experience. Osprey characterized this as double- counting, because the same aspects of the projects were scored in other sections. Osprey also contended that considering the differences between the two proposed developments and the different approaches by the two applicants was tantamount to applying different standards in evaluating the two applications. Osprey's criticism was not borne out by the evidence. Instead, Mr. Aldinger described a reasonable process, consistent with the RFP terms explaining that developer experience would be assessed in the context of the attributes of the target population described in the first section of the application, and also in context with the roles and responsibilities described for the developer team members in carrying out the proposed development. The same RFP instructions and the same standards were applied to the evaluation of the two applications; it was the applications that were different, not the standards.4/ Although not actually raised as a distinct challenge, Osprey suggested an additional argument in its PRO, not articulated in its written protest or in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Osprey argued in its PRO that Florida Housing should have used two evaluators to score the developer and manager experience narratives, as a "check and balance" against arbitrary scoring. Osprey's new argument stands in stark contrast to the only challenge to the evaluation process articulated in Osprey's written protest and in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Before the hearing, Osprey challenged the evaluation procedure used for two application sections that were scored by two evaluators. Rather than providing any check-and-balance comfort, the two- evaluator process was viewed as defective by Osprey because the initial scores independently assigned by each evaluator were reconciled in a public discussion meeting at which differences in scores were harmonized, meaning that when the initial scores differed, the evaluators agreed to adjust their initial scores. Osprey has established only that for some application sections, a single evaluator was used, while for other application sections, two evaluators were used and their separate scores were reconciled. No credible evidence was offered to prove that use of two evaluators was better than using one evaluator (or vice versa, as Osprey initially argued).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decision to award funding for the Duval Park, Ltd., proposed development, and dismissing the formal written protests of Osprey Apartments, LLC, and Duval Park, Ltd. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this matter are those raised by an Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent charging the Respondent with violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In particular, these allegations pertain to services performed by the Respondent as a roofing contractor, for the benefit of one Dale Weich. These offenses are more completely described in the Conclusions of Law section to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this case, Respondent Rex Alaniz was a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC0042021 by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Within that time sequence, Alaniz also served as the qualifying agent for Rex Alaniz Roofing and Remodeling Co. On July 27, 1983, Respondent entered into a contract with Dale Weich to effect repairs to Weich's home. That residence was located in Jacksonville Beach, Florida. The substance of the repairs primarily dealt with leaks in a built- up flat room over the garage at the Weich residence, as it joined the house. The main part of the house had a pitch roof covered with terra-cotta tiles. Work was also to be done on the terra-cotta roof. The work on the garage area, where the flat roof was found, included the placement of tar and gravel and the replacement of certain timbers in the garage structure. The roof was leaking in four distinct locations. A copy of the contract may be found as Petitioner's exhibit number 7 admitted into evidence. That contract is in the amount of $860.00 which has been paid to the Respondent in exchange for the work. The work was warranted, per the contract, for a period of one year. On July 28, 1983, Respondent commenced work. When the Respondent showed up for work and began the process, he had not obtained a building permit from the City of Jacksonville Beach. A permit was obtained before the work was completed on July 28, 1983. In failing to obtain the permit initially, Respondent was knowingly or deliberately disregarding the requirements to obtain it, in that he had frequently done work at Jacksonville Beach and was aware of the need to pull the permit before commencing the work. Under the circumstances, the failure to obtain the permit before commencing the work is not found to be an oversight by Respondent. On the same date the work was done, it rained and the roof leaked in the same places it had leaked before repairs were made. There ensued a number of trips on the part of Respondent and his employee to attempt to correct the circumstance. This included adjusting the tiles on the roof to the main house; placing additional tar on the built-up roof over the garage; placing water on the roof by the use of a garden hose, at which time the roof did not leak, and plugging up a small opening at the edge of the roof. On one of the visits by the Respondent following the work of July 28, 1983, it was raining and the roof was leaking and these leaks were observed by the Respondent. Weich tried to contact the Respondent after the events described immediately above, in an effort to get the Respondent to correct the problems. He received no response from Alaniz. Sometime around September 1983, Weich saw the Respondent in a store and told the Respondent that the roof was still leaking and asked that the Respondent return to fix the leaks. Respondent agreed to return to the job, but has yet to honor that agreement. This discussion in the store was not one in which Weich agreed to pay the Respondent additional money to return to the job, as was testified to by the Respondent in the course of the final hearing. At the time of the final hearing, the roof still leaked in those places for which Respondent had contracted to complete repairs.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Riverside Village Partners, LTD. (Riverside or Petitioner), has, or had at the time of application, a present plan to convert its proposed development to any use other than affordable residential rental property; (2) whether Provincetown Village Partners, LTD. (Provincetown or Petitioner), has, or had at the time of application, a present plan to convert its proposed development to any use other than affordable residential rental property; (3) whether Riverside irrevocably committed to set aside units in its proposed development for a total of 50 years; and (4) whether Provincetown irrevocably committed to set aside units in its proposed development for a total of 50 years.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Provincetown Village Partners, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with its business address at 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, Florida 32751, and is in the business of providing affordable housing units. Petitioner, Riverside Village Partners, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with its business address at 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, Florida 32751, and is in the business of providing affordable housing units. Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Housing), is a public corporation that administers governmental programs relating to the financing and refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida pursuant to Section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2003). Florida Housing's Financing Mechanisms To encourage the development of affordable rental housing for low-income families, Florida Housing provides low-interest mortgage loans to developers of qualified multi-family housing projects. In exchange for an interest rate lower than conventional market rates, the developer agrees to "set-aside" a specific percentage of the rental units for low-income tenants. Through its Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (MMRB) program, Florida Housing funds these mortgage loans through the sale of tax-exempt and taxable bonds. Applicants then repay the loans from the revenues generated by their respective projects. Applicants who receive MMRB proceeds are required to execute a Land Use Restriction Agreement (LURA or Land Use Restriction Agreement), which is recorded in the official records of the county in which the applicant’s development is located. Through the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, Florida Housing funds low-interest mortgage loans to developers from various sources of state revenue, which are generally secured by second mortgages on the property. Applicants who receive SAIL proceeds are required to execute and record a LURA in the county records as with MMRB's Land Use Restriction Agreements. Florida Housing also distributes federal income tax credits for the development of affordable rental housing for low-income tenants; those tax credits are referred to as "housing credits." Generally, applicants who utilize tax-exempt bond financing for at least 50 percent of the cost of their development are entitled to receive an award of housing credits on a non-competitive basis. These non-competitive housing credits are received by the qualified applicant each year for ten consecutive years. Typically, applicants sell this future stream of housing credits at the initiation of the development process in order to generate a portion of the funds necessary for the construction of the development. The Application, Scoring, and Ranking Process Because Florida Housing’s available pool of tax-exempt bond financing and SAIL funds is limited, qualified projects must compete for this funding. To determine which proposed projects will put the available funds to best use, Florida Housing has established a competitive application process to assess the relative merits of proposed projects. Florida Housing’s competitive application process for MMRB and SAIL financing is included with other financing programs within a single application process (the 2003 Universal Application) governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapters 67-21 and 67-48. The 2003 Universal Application form and accompanying instructions are incorporated as Form "UA1016" by reference into Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-21 and 67-48 and by Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.002(97), and 67-48.002(111), respectively. For the 2003 Universal Application cycle, each applicant who completed and submitted Form UA1016 with attachments was given a preliminary score by Florida Housing. Following the issuance of preliminary scores, applicants are provided an opportunity to challenge the scoring of any competing application through the filing of a Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE). Florida Housing considers each NOPSE filed and provides each applicant with notice of any resulting change in their preliminary scores (the NOPSE scores). Following the issuance of NOPSE scores, Florida Housing provides an opportunity for applicants to submit additional materials to "cure" any items for which the applicant received less than the maximum score or for which the application may have been rejected for failure to achieve "threshold." There are certain portions of the application which cannot be cured; the list of noncurable items appears in Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.003(14) (for MMRB applicants) and 67-48.004(14) (for SAIL applicants). Following the cure period, applicants may again contest the scoring of a competing application by filing a Notice of Alleged Deficiencies (NOAD), identifying deficiencies arising from the submitted cure materials. After considering the submitted NOADs, Florida Housing provides notice to applicants of any resulting scoring changes. The resulting scores are known as "pre-appeal" scores. Applicants may appeal and challenge, via formal or informal hearings, Florida Housing’s scoring of any item for which the applicant received less than the maximum score or for any item that resulted in the rejection of the application for failure to meet "threshold." Upon the conclusion of the informal hearings, and of formal hearings where appropriate, Florida Housing issues the final scores and ranking of applicants. Applicants are then awarded tentative MMRB and/or SAIL funding in order of rank; Florida Housing issues final orders allocating the tentative funding and inviting successful applicants in the credit underwriting process. If an applicant who requests a formal hearing ultimately obtains a final order that modifies its score and threshold determinations so that its application would have been in the funding range had the final order been entered prior to the date the final rankings were presented to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board), that applicant’s requested funding will be provided from the next available funding or allocation. The 2003 Application Process On or about April 8, 2003, Riverside, Provincetown, and others submitted applications for MMRB and SAIL financing in the 2003 Universal Application cycle. Riverside requested $3,205,000 in tax-exempt MMRB funding and $1.6 million in SAIL funding to help finance its proposed development, a 34-unit development in Pinellas County, Florida. In its application, Riverside committed to lease all or most of these units to house families earning 60 percent or less of the area median income (AMI). However, depending on which Florida Housing funding source(s) Riverside’s application was deemed eligible to receive, it would commit to lease at least 17 percent of the units to families earning 50 percent or less of AMI, or would commit to lease only a total of 85 percent of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. Provincetown requested $4.5 million in tax-exempt MMRB funding and $2.0 million in SAIL funding to help finance its proposed development, a 50-unit development in Gadsden County, Florida. In its application, Provincetown committed to lease all or most of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. However, depending on which Florida Housing program(s) Provincetown’s application was deemed eligible to receive, it would commit to lease at least 11 percent of the units to families earning 50 percent or less of AMI, or would commit to lease only a total of 85 percent of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. Florida Housing evaluated all applications and notified applicants of their preliminary scores on or before May 12, 2003. Applicants were then given an opportunity to file NOPSEs on or before May 20, 2003. After considering all NOPSEs, Florida Housing notified applicants by overnight mail on or about June 9, 2003, of any resulting changes in the scoring of their applications. Applicants were then allowed to submit, on or before June 19, 2003, cure materials to correct any alleged deficiencies in their applications previously identified by Florida Housing. Applicants were also allowed to file NOADs on competing applications on or before June 27, 2003. After considering the submitted NOADs, Florida Housing issued notice to Provincetown, Riverside, and others of their adjusted scores on or about July 21, 2003. Commitment to Affordability Period Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006, entitled "Development Requirements," lists certain minimum requirements that a development shall meet or that an applicant shall be able to certify that such requirements shall be met. One of these requirements is "The Applicant shall have no present plan to convert the Development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property." Part III.E.3 of the Application provides a line for an applicant to commit to an "affordability period" for its application. This subsection of the application form reads in its entirety: 3. Affordability Period for MMRB, SAIL, HOME, and HC Application: Applicant irrevocably commits to set aside units in the proposed Development for a total of years. Both Provincetown and Riverside filled in the number "50" on the blank line in this subsection of their respective applications. An applicant’s score on its application is determined in part by the length of its affordability period commitment. An applicant who commits to an affordability period commitment of 50 or more years received 5 points; 45 to 49 years, 4 points; 40 to 44 years, 3 points; 35 to 39 years, 2 points; 31 to 34 years, 1 point; and 30 years or less, 0 points. Scoring of Provincetown and Riverside Applications In its preliminary scoring of the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing awarded each applicant the full 5 points on Part III.E.3 of his or her application for the 50-year affordability period commitment. Also, in the preliminary scoring of the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing did not find any threshold failure regarding an alleged present plan to convert the development to a use other than affordable residential rental property. In its preliminary scoring of the Provincetown application, Florida Housing identified an alleged threshold failure related to the validity of the contract for purchase of the site of the proposed development. A subsequent cure submitted by Provincetown regarding the contract for purchase of the site has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer takes the position that the Provincetown application fails threshold for any reason related to site control. In its preliminary scoring of the Riverside application, Florida Housing identified a threshold failure related to documentation of the status of site plan approval, or plat approval, for the proposed development. A subsequent cure submitted by Riverside regarding the status of site plan approval has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer takes the position that the Riverside application fails threshold for any reason related to site plan approval, or plat approval. During the scoring process, Florida Housing received NOPSEs on both the Provincetown and Riverside applications, which asserted that these applicants were proposing transactions that were not financially feasible and would not pass subsequent credit underwriting requirements. The NOPSEs also alleged that the Riverside and Provincetown applications were for townhouses designed with an intent to eventually convert to home ownership in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6). According to that rule, the applicant shall have no present plan to convert the development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property. After reviewing these NOPSEs, but before issuing revised NOPSE scores, Florida Housing determined that it was inappropriate to apply subsequent credit underwriting requirements during the scoring of these applications, and therefore, disagreed with the allegations of the NOPSEs on those grounds. Accordingly, Florida Housing's scoring summaries for Riverside and Provincetown issued, after receipt of the NOPSEs, raised no issues concerning financial feasibility, and it was not placed at issue in this proceeding. Following the filing of NOPSEs, Florida Housing released NOPSE scores for all applicants, including Riverside and Provincetown. The NOPSE scores are reflected on a NOPSE Scoring Summary dated June 9, 2003. For both Provincetown and Riverside, the NOPSE Scoring Summary contained the following statement regarding alleged threshold failure, identifying two separate reasons for the alleged threshold failure: The proposed Development does not satisfy the minimum Development requirements stated in Rule 67-21.006, F.A.C. The Development is not a multifamily residential rental property comprised of buildings or structures each containing four or more dwelling units. Further, the Applicant has a present plan to convert the Development to a use other than as an affordable residential rental property. The first threshold failure noted in the preceding paragraph relates to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(2), which requires that there be four or more residential units per building for projects financed with MMRB. A subsequent cure regarding the design of the proposed developments has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer contends that these applications, as cured, exhibit a threshold failure related to the number of residential units per building. The second threshold failure noted in the NOPSE Scoring Summary and quoted in paragraph 30 above, relates to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6), which requires that applicants "shall have no present plan to convert the Development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property." In response to the NOPSE Scoring Summaries, both Provincetown and Riverside submitted cures to their respective applications. In the cures, Provincetown and Riverside presented their explanations of how they believed their applications, as submitted, demonstrated a 50-year affordability period commitment and included these applicants’ contentions that they had no present plan to convert the developments to a use other than affordable residential rental property. For Provincetown, an issue had also been raised by a NOPSE concerning whether the Provincetown application was entitled to certain "tie-breaker" points for the distance from the proposed development to a public transportation stop. The points awardable to Provincetown for tie-breaker purposes are not in dispute, and Provincetown, if its application is otherwise deemed to meet threshold requirements, would be entitled to 5.0 of a possible 7.5 tie-breaker points. If Riverside's application were deemed to meet threshold requirements and if the 5 points for the affordability period commitment were restored, Riverside would have been within the funding range for applicants within the 2003 Universal Application cycle at the time the Board took final action on the ranking of applications on October 9, 2003. If Provincetown's application were deemed to meet threshold requirements and if the five points for the affordability period commitment were restored, Provincetown would have been within the funding range for applicants within the 2003 Universal Application cycle at the time the Board took final action on the ranking of applications on October 9, 2003. The Sciarrino Letter and Cures After reviewing the NOPSEs filed against the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing received a letter dated June 2, 2003 (Sciarrino letter or letter), from Michael Sciarrino, president of the CED Companies, addressed to Orlando Cabrera, executive director of Florida Housing, with a copy to Kerey Carpenter, deputy development officer of Florida Housing. Michael Sciarrino is a manager of the sole general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 Y, LLC., a Florida limited liability company) of Provincetown. Mr. Sciarrino is also a Class B limited partner of the sole member of the general partner (CED Capital Holdings XVI, LTD., a Florida limited partnership). Michael Sciarrino is a manager of the sole general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 K, LLC., a Florida limited liability company) of Riverside. Mr. Sciarrino is also a Class B limited partner of the sole member of the general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 XVI, LTD., a Florida limited partnership). As manager of the sole general partner of Provincetown and Riverside, Mr. Sciarrino had supervisory authority and editorial control over the processing and preparation of the Provincetown and Riverside applications. The Sciarrino letter was drafted, in part, to respond to the allegations of the NOPSEs filed against Provincetown and Riverside applications and specifically addressed those issues pertaining to Provincetown and Riverside applications. Also, while the letter does not mention Petitioners by name, the description and location of the properties, as detailed in the letter, clearly refer to these applicants. The Sciarrino letter evinces a present plan on the part of Petitioners to convert the proposed developments to a use other than that of affordable residential rental housing. First, the letter describes in detail the economic motivations for the subsequent sale of the units of the proposed development within the 50-year extended affordability period stating that the "residual value potential" of such an arrangement "is the single biggest economic reason for our desire to develop these communities." Next, the letter describes in detail the means by which Petitioners would be relieved of the commitment to a 50-year affordability period as stated in their applications, that is, by seeking a waiver from Board after the 15-year period of tax credit recapture exposure had expired. Third, the letter plainly states that Petitioners had intended to request such relief from the 50-year affordability period in the future. Petitioners' present plan to convert the proposed developments for sale to homeowners during the 50-year extended affordability period is further evident by the fact that the concept of such a conversion existed prior to and at the time the applications were filed. Moreover, the Provincetown and Riverside developments were specially selected to test the concept. On or about June 19, 2003, Petitioners filed cures with Florida Housing addressing the issues raised in the NOPSEs. While the cures presented argument in favor of their respective applications and reiterated Petitioners' commitment to the 50-year extended affordability period for each proposed development, they did not deny that it was their intention to seek relief from this period in the future. Following review of the Sciarrino letter and the cures submitted by Petitioners, Florida Housing rejected both the Provincetown and Riverside applications for failing to meet the mandatory development requirement set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6). The applications also had five points deducted from their scores on the grounds that, under the circumstances, their commitment to an affordability period could not be determined.
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 that upholds the scoring of the applications of Riverside Village Partners, LTD., and Provincetown Village Partners, LTD.; that rejects the applications of Riverside Village Partners, LTD., and Provincetown Village Partners, LTD.; and that denies the relief requested in the Petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Orlando J. Cabrera, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wellington H. Meffert, II, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
