The Issue This is an appeal from Resolution No. P60-99 of the Monroe County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"), in which the Planning Commission approved the decision of the Monroe County Planning Department ("Planning Department") denying two applications for building permits submitted by the Appellants, Robert and Ruth Stoky ("the Stokys"). One application requested a building permit to reconstruct a screened porch and to build an elevated deck in the rear of the Señor Frijoles/Cactus Jack's restaurants, which are located at 103900 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, Florida; this application was assigned building permit number 99-3-857 ("permit number 99-3-857"). The second application requested a building permit to reconstruct a trellis as a separate structure associated with the Sundowner restaurant, also located at 103900 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, Florida; this application was assigned building permit number 99-3-858 ("permit number 99-3-858"). The instant appeal was forwarded by the Planning Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article XIV, Monroe County Code, the Hearing Officer Appellate Article, and Monroe County ("the County") has appeared as Appellee in this case. In their Initial Brief, the Stokys abandoned their appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Planning Department's denial of their application for permit number 99-3-858; therefore, the ultimate issue presented in this appeal is whether the Planning Commission's Resolution No. P60-99 should be affirmed, reversed, or modified with respect to the its decision approving the Planning Department's denial of the Stokys' application for permit number 99-3-857.
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 obtained 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. * Count Three of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner and, in any event, was not established by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Beason, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Carolyn Givens 8741 Free Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 APPENDIX Pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1983), the following is submitted in response to Petitioner's and Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph Ruling (general finding) Accepted; see paragraph 1, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 2, R.O. (DPR Case #0049083) Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4 & 11 Petitioner's proposed finding "the individual performing the electrical work was Respondent's employee and was being paid on an hourly basis" is rejected on the basis that the evidence presented on that issue consisted of uncorroborated hearsay which did not fit within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4, 7, 11 and 12, R.O. Petitioner's finding that "the plumbing work was performed by Respondent's employee" is rejected on the basis that the evidence presented on that issue consisted of uncorroborated hearsay. Accepted; see paragraphs 9 and 10, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 10, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. (DPR Case #0049788) Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 23, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 17 and 22, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraph 17, R.O. Facts not covered by paragraph 17are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraphs 18 and 19, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 21 and 23, R.O. Facts not covered therein are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 24, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 24, R.O. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Finding: Ruling: Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 4 and 5, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 13. Partially accepted; see paragraph 13. Findings not covered therein are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Respondents claim that the contract called for the construction of a dry-in addition and not a "room addition" is considered immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 26, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Rejected as a conclusion of law. ================================================================ =
The Issue Whether respondent should refund sales tax petitioners paid on account of their purchase of a manufactured home?
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1984, petitioners made a $160 down payment on a 75 x 150 foot lot in High Ridge Estates in Bay bounty by a check drawn in favor of Ed Franklin. They wanted the lot in order to put a manufactured home on it. After acquiescing to a request by personnel of the Bay County building department that they pay $21.00 for a mobile home permit, the Baileys improved the property in anticipation of placing a manufactured home on it. They put in a septic tank and poured a concrete pad. On November 21, 1984, the Baileys signed a form "FHMA SALES CONTRACT" as buyers. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2. Jack Lee signed as seller on behalf of "DD&L Joint Venture." Id. Petitioners gave Lee a down payment of $13,400; DD&L undertook to procure from Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc., a manufactured home to be placed on the High Ridge Estates lot. The form contract, which purported to obligate the Baileys for $53,000, describes the lot, but makes no mention of the manufactured home. In December of 1984, the manufactured home arrived at High Ridge Estates, borne by temporary axles and wheels, which were unbolted after its arrival, and left with the truck that had brought it. Statewide of Florida, Inc., placed it on its new foundation. With an exterior of wood siding and an asphalt-shingled roof, the 25.7 by 54 foot structure met VA and FHA materials requirements for standard housing. Carpet was laid over plywood subflooring. Wall joists stand 24 inches apart. The Baileys added a carport, a driveway, three decks and a separate storage shed. On March 13, 1985, Mr. and Mrs. Bailey borrowed money from Peoples First Financial Savings and Loan Association of Panama City (Peoples) to pay the balances they owed for the lot and home. Of the loan proceeds, $6,100.00 went to "C. Ed Franklin and wife, Frances P. Franklin," Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1, to pay for the lot on which the manufactured home stood; and $23,328.80 went to "ITT Comm. Finance." Id. To secure repayment of its loan to the Baileys, Peoples took a mortgage from the Baileys encumbering the lot and the manufactured home affixed to it. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 1. Apparently the payment to "ITT Comm. Finance" retired indebtedness the Baileys incurred in acquiring their 1985 Fleetwood Chadwick 3523D. Mrs. Bailey executed a retail buyer's order for their manufactured home in December of 1986, although the form, which showed Best Home Center, Inc., as the "DEALER," was dated March 22, 1985. Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. The form reflects a total price for the manufactured home of $29,045.87, the sum on which sales tax was computed at $1,452.53. The Baileys paid tax in this amount to Best Home Center, Inc., "upon the sales (sic) of tangible personal property." Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. Best Home Center, Inc., forwarded the taxes they collected from the Baileys, along with other taxes collected in March of 1985, to the Florida Department of Revenue. Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. At the time the Baileys purchased the manufactured home it had no license tag. It never had a license tag and, at the time they purchased it, had never been assessed as real property. Best Home Center, Inc., made a written assignment to the Baileys of its rights, if any, to recover the sales tax the Baileys paid.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioners' application for refund. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX The second sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1 and respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the first sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 1, it is not entirely clear who sold the Baileys the manufactured home. The documentation reflected a sale by Best Home Center, Inc., for $29,045. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 2, Ed Franklin and his wife conveyed the lot. The down payment was $160 and a $6,100 balance was paid in March. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, the Peoples Mortgage originated in March, with indebtedness secured by lot and home. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7, the Bay County Building Department required them to purchase a permit on September 20, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Charles Stutts, Esquire General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Mr. and Mrs. Bailey 22012 High Ridge Drive Lot 24 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 D. Alan Burns, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Tax Section, Capitol Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issue presented by the Motion and supplemental Motion to Dismiss is whether the Golden Gate Area Taxpayers Association (Association) has standing to maintain this challenge to the applications for consumptive use permits sought by Collier County (County) and the City of Naples (City) from the South Florida Water Management District (District).
Findings Of Fact The County filed its application number 08158A with the District for modification of consumptive use permit number 11-00249-W, on or about August 15, 1988. The City filed its application number 08137-H with the District for modification of consumptive use permit numbers 11-00017-W & 11-00018-W, on or about August 15, 1988. After review, the District staff issued its recommendation to grant the County and City's consumptive use permit applications, with limiting conditions, on or about January 24 and 25, 1989. The Association filed its Petition and Amended Petition herein on February 8, 1989, and March 6, 1989, respectively, challenging the issuance of these consumptive use permits. The Association did not allege any basis upon which standing could be established in its Petition or Amended Petition. There is no allegation in either document which describes the Association, alleges its purpose, scope or interest, the number of members in the Association and the number of its members adversely affected by the issuance of these permits, or the reason why the relief sought is appropriate for it to receive. Discovery was allowed to proceed in order to determine if there was a basis, notwithstanding these deficiencies in the Petition and Amended Petition, upon which the Association could establish its standing at final hearing. The District preserved its right to renew its objection to the Association's standing throughout this proceeding, and timely sought a determination thereon, after discovery had been concluded, but before the commencement of final hearing. This action is specifically maintained by the Association, and not by individual members thereof, or non-member property owners. However, the Association has not asserted that its substantial interests will be adversely affected by issuance of these permits. The Association is not an existing legal user of water in Collier County. The Association does not own, lease or otherwise control lands impacted by the permits sought by the County and City. The membership of the Association varies throughout the year as members pay their annual dues. The current membership of the Association totals 59, according to its Amended Second Response to First Interrogatories from Respondent Collier County filed on October 30, 1989, but it had reached a total membership of approximately 200 at times, according to the President of the Association, as dues are paid each year. The Association alleged in the motion hearing held on October 30, 1989, that 13 of its current members are adversely affected by the proposed issuance of these permits. However, in response to Interrogatories served by Hearing Officer Donnelly, the Association indicated that only 5 members were affected, and in response the District's Interrogatories the Association indicated that 6 of its members were affected. Thus, the Association's estimate of the number of its members who would be affected by issuance of these permits is uncertain, inconsistent, unreliable and lacks credibility. The nature of that adverse effect is stated to be damage to domestic wells, degradation of water quality, and a decline in water quantity, according to affidavits filed by the Association on October 13, 1989, in response to Interrogatories from Hearing Officer Donnelly. The only provision in the Association's by-laws upon which it relies in this proceeding to support its standing is found at Article V, Section 4, which states, "The corporation reserves the right to seek judicial relief in the furtherance of its aims and purpose." The only provision in its articles of incorporation which have been relied upon by the Association in this regard were cited during the motion hearing on October 30, 1989, and provide generally that the Association's purpose is to inform its members about the ongoing activities of government, particularly local government. It is clear that the Association is a taxpayer's association which has taken action in the past regarding tax assessments, and represented the views of its members in matters relating thereto. There is no other allegation or explanation of record regarding the purpose, scope, or interest of the Association, or factors which would support a finding that the relief sought herein is appropriate for the Association to receive on behalf of its members. The Association's exhibit list and amended exhibit list filed herein do not contain any exhibits which would clarify or explain its purpose, scope or interest in these matters, its total membership and number of adversely affected members, or how the relief which it seeks in this proceeding is appropriate for it to receive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition, as amended, which has been filed herein by the Association, based upon the Association's lack of standing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd of November, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd of November, 1989. APPENDIX (DOAH Case Number 89-2100) Ruling on the Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding 6 2-4. Adopted in Finding 9. 5. Adopted in Finding 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Grimm, Director Golden Gate Area Taxpayers Association 3093 52nd Street, S.W. Naples, FL 33999 Mark G. Lawson, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Collier County Courthouse 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building F Naples, FL 33962-4976 Elizabeth D. Ross, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 David W. Rynders, Esquire City of Naples 735 Eighth Street South Naples, FL 33940 John Wodraska Executive Director P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680
The Issue Whether the intended decision of Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Respondent/Florida Housing) to fund the application of West River Phase 2, LP (West River/Intervenor), based on the scoring of its application, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Intervenor is a Florida limited partnership based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Respondent is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. This has the effect of reducing the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150, while a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. Florida Housing allocates housing tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation as authorized by section 420.507(48). Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA at issue here is 2016-113, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. The RFA was issued on October 28, 2016, a modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 30, 2016. A challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA by parties not associated with the instant case, but that challenge was ultimately unsuccessful. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,669,052 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments. A review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviews and scores each application. These scores are presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation is presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (Board) for final agency action. On May 5, 2017, Petitioner and all other participants in RFA 2016-113 received notice that the Board had determined which applications were eligible for consideration for funding and that certain applications were selected for awards of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” and “ineligible” applications and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven developments, including Intervenor. Petitioner’s application was deemed eligible and scored the maximum number of points, but it was not selected for funding due to having a higher lottery number than Intervenor. If Intervenor’s application had been deemed ineligible, Petitioner’s would have been selected for funding. In this proceeding, Petitioner alleges that Intervenor’s application is ineligible for two reasons. First, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to include all “principals” for its designated developer entity as required by the RFA. Next, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish that its designated developer entity, and specifically the identified “principal” of the developer entity, had the requisite developer experience required by the RFA. Disclosure of the Principals of the Developer The RFA at section Four (A)(3)(d) requires the disclosure of information as follows: Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer. The Application must include a properly completed Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 08- 16) (“Principals Disclosure Form”) that was uploaded as outlined in Section Three above. The Principals Disclosure form must identify the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline and must include, for each applicable organizational structure, ONLY the types of Principals required by subsection 67-48.002(93), F.A.C. A Principals Disclosure Form that includes, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals, will not be accepted by the Corporation to meet the Mandatory requirement to provide the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form. The term “principal” is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93)(b) with respect to a developer, and provides as follows when the developer entity is a limited liability company: A limited liability company, at the first principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company, and, with respect to any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company that is: A corporation, at the second principal disclosure level, any officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, A limited partnership, at the second principal disclosure level, any general partner or limited partner of the limited partnership, or A limited liability company, at the second principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the limited liability company. Florida Housing offers a pre-approval of the principals disclosure form to all potential applicants. The pre-approval process verifies that the disclosure form has been completed properly as to form. However, its purpose is not to determine the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant. Intervenor utilized the pre-approval process and its principal disclosure forms were pre-approved. In response to this RFA and rule requirement, Intervenor identified WRDG Boulevard, LLC, as its developer. On the principal disclosure form included within its application, Intervenor further identified Banc of America Community Development Corporation (BOACDC) as the “managing member” and the Housing Authority of the City of Tampa as “member” of WRDG Boulevard, LLC. The principal disclosure form submitted by Intervenor for its developer entity lists approximately 62 individuals that are principals of BOACDC and identifies them as officers, directors, and shareholders. However, two officers who met the definition of principal were omitted from Intervenor’s principals disclosure form for the developer entity. The evidence establishes that the annual report filed by BOACDC with the Florida Secretary of State’s office on March 31, 2016, lists four officers and directors for BOACDC. The listed officers and directors include Mr. Jason Pritchard as senior vice president and Mr. Nathan Barth as secretary. Neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on the principals disclosure form submitted to Florida Housing by Intervenor. Intervenor concedes that the principals disclosure form is missing these two principals, but asserts that neither Mr. Barth nor Mr. Pritchard had actual authority to bind BOACDC or had any direct involvement with the proposed project. Intervenor further points out that neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on Respondent’s past due report dated April 5, 2017, which was the most recently published past due report prior to the RFA review committee meeting on April 25, 2017. Intervenor also asserts that there is no specific language in the RFA that prohibits waiving this admitted deviation. Accordingly, Intervenor alleges that the failure to include these two principals should be waived as a minor irregularity. The RFA requires that principals be listed and does not include qualifiers or exemptions to these requirements in instances where the omitted principal is either not on the latest arrears list or does not have the authority to bind the designated entity. Mr. Reecy testified that while Respondent has waived other failures to submit certain information, it did so only when the missing information could be found elsewhere in the application. In the present case, there is no other place in the application where a list of the principals of the developer could be found. The evidence establishes that the accurate and complete disclosure of principals is important in the RFA process for several reasons. First, Respondent uses the disclosure of principals to determine if any individuals associated with a proposed development are in arrears or indebted to Florida Housing in connection with other developments previously funded by Florida Housing. A Florida Housing staff member, during the review process, checks each principal listed for arrearages and reports back to the review committee accordingly. Second, Respondent uses the information to determine if any principal associated with a proposed development is ineligible to participate in any Florida Housing program due to prior illegal acts or misconduct. Mr. Reecy testified as to several recent instances where individuals have been subject to “timeouts” due to misrepresentations made to Florida Housing. Mr. Reecy credibly testified that Florida Housing must know who it is dealing with for each applicant and developer entity, and that to not know this information would harm the basic structure of the RFA application process, which resultantly would adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing and the public. Developer Experience Chart Section Four, 4(a)(3) of the RFA provides, in part, as follows: General Development experience (5 Points): To be eligible to be awarded 5 points for General Development Experience, the Prior General Development Experience chart must meet the requirements of (a) below. At least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Development Experience requirements in (i) and (ii) below. General Development Experience: A Principal, which must be a natural person, of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1996, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2006. If the experience of a natural person Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the natural person Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity as the term Principal was defined by the Corporation at that time. Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each natural person Principal intending to meet the minimum general development experience reflecting the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. The RFA requires that at least one principal of the designated developer entity have completed at least three affordable rental housing developments since January 1996. If the designated principal is using experience from a previous developer entity, the named principal must have been a principal of that entity as the term principal “was defined by the Corporation at that time.” Intervenor submitted a general development experience chart as part of its application in accordance with the RFA. This chart listed Eileen M. Pope as its principal with the required developer experience, and specified three developments for which Ms. Pope was identified as a principal of the developer. Based upon this chart, Intervenor was awarded five points by the scoring review committee. One of these developments was First Ward Place Phase I, which was listed as being completed in 1998. In 1998, Ms. Pope was employed as a regional property manager for the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA). She was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the CHA. The RFA in this case requires an applicant to state the name of each developer, including all co-developers. It is thus relatively easy for applications submitted to Florida Housing in 2017 to determine whether or not a particular entity is considered a “co-developer” of a project. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to make this determination with respect to developers of projects located in North Carolina in 1998. There is no evidence directly identifying CHA as a “co-developer” of First Ward Place Phase I. However, Ms. Pope identified it as such, and there is evidence in the record that the CHA was in partnership with NationsBank Community Development Corporation (NBCDC), and that NBCDC was the developer of the project. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the CHA should not be considered a co-developer of First Ward Place Phase I. Whether Ms. Pope should be considered a principal of a co-developer, however, is another matter. The evidence is uncontroverted that she was employed by the CHA as a regional property manager. The CHA was governed by a board of directors along with several officers (president, CEO, CFO), any of whom would have been considered a principal of the CHA. Ms. Pope was not a director, officer, or shareholder of the CHA; for the First Ward Place Phase I project, she “worked on the development team middle-to-back-end piece.” She considered herself a member of the “senior management” of the CHA and part of the “development team.” She testified that the CHA was, to some extent, a regulatory agency, and that part of her job was to oversee compliance issues and to track how certain funds were being spent. She testified that it was her understanding that a “principal” was “a person in authority” and, thus, she considered herself to be a “principal.” However, she also testified that she did not claim to be a principal: I disagree with your first part of the comment in that you said that I said I was a principal of the housing authority. I didn’t say I was a principal. I said there were no principals, and I was asked if I viewed myself as a principal, and I said I don’t understand what the definition of the principal would be, that a principal is somebody in authority. So, if you’re asking me that, yes, I would have viewed myself as a principal. I never claimed to be a principal of the housing authority. (Jt. Ex. 8, pg. 53) Mr. Reecy testified that Ms. Pope was “an employee, but not a principal in any way that Florida Housing has ever defined principal in any regard.” Mr. Reecy also testified that Florida Housing had never considered a person other than an officer, director, shareholder, or managing member to be a principal of either an applicant or a developer. In fact, Mr. Reecy compared Ms. Pope’s position with the CHA to his own position with Florida Housing, in that both had a high level of responsibility, and both were integral to the operation of the entity, but that neither could be considered a principal. As noted above, the RFA requires that in order to gain points for developer experience, the natural person principal must have also been a principal of that previous developer entity as the term principal was defined by the Florida Housing “at that time.” There is no dispute that Respondent’s rules in effect in 1998 did not explicitly define a principal of a developer. Both Florida Administrative Code Rules 9I-48.002(69) and 67-48.002(77) defined “principal” to include only officers, directors, shareholders or general partners, but these rules specifically applied only to applicants. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that it has been Respondent’s position and practice that a principal did not include all employees of an applicant or developer, even those in positions of authority, but instead, included only the officers, directors, shareholders, or general partners of an applicant or developer. The greater weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Pope had some degree of experience. As Mr. Reecy indicated, however, simply having experience is only part of the equation; Ms. Pope must also have been a principal. There is no evidence establishing that Ms. Pope was an officer, director, or shareholder of either NBCDC or the CHA in conjunction with the First Ward Place Phase I development. It is, therefore, found that Ms. Pope was not a principal of either entity, and the award to Intervenor of five points for its developer experience was clearly erroneous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Florida Housing’s initial scoring decision regarding the West River application was erroneous, concluding that the West River application is ineligible for funding, and awarding funding to Blue Broadway. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2017.
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 case are those promoted by the Administrative Complaint by Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent accusing him of violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, pertaining to work done for Mary Scott. This circumstance is more particularly discussed in findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a registered building contractor and a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license No. RB 0009302 and RC 0032535. Said licenses were in effect as of the date of the hearing in this matter. Both of Respondent's licenses had become delinquent in July 1981 and were not renewed until June 1983. On or about November 11, 1982, Mary Scott entered into a contract with Henry Hodge, doing business as "Direct Interiors," pursuant to which Hodge was to construct an addition to the Scott residence located at 1439 West 2nd Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The contract price was $6,848.00. On November 24, 1982, Respondent used his registered building contractor's license to help obtain building permit No. 10047 from the City of Jacksonville, Building and Zoning Department, for the construction of the addition to the Scott residence under her contract with Henry Hodge. At no time material hereto was Henry Hodge or "Direct Interiors" licensed to engage in the business of contracting in the State of Florida. At no time did the Respondent qualify "Direct Interiors" to engage in the business of contracting. Respondent helped obtain the permit at Hodge's request, as a favor to Hodge. Respondent has never been partners or otherwise done business with Hodge. Respondent became casually acquainted with Hodge when they both were working on the same construction site, unrelated to this case. Respondent helped Hodge obtain the permit as follows: Hodge approached Respondent and asked Respondent to obtain the permit for the Scott jot. Respondent told Hodge to bring Respondent a building permit application form. Hodge did this, and Respondent then signed the application while it was still blank. Hodge thereafter filled in the details, took the application in to the building department, and received the building permit. Respondent had no knowledge of the size or other details of the work on the Scott job, other that it was a room addition. At not time while Henry Hodge was working on the Scott job did Respondent visit the job site or in any way supervise the work. Henry Hodge, as "Direct Interiors," completed construction of the addition and received $5,924.00 in payment from Mary Scott. The contract between Hodge and Scott called for building a room addition and for reroofing certain portions of the roof of the existing structure. After Hodge completed the job, portions of the reroofed area which had not leaked before Hodge reroofed it, began to leak. Mary Scott was not able to obtain satisfactory performance from Hodge concerning this problem. She then contacted the building department and found that the building permit was obtained upon Respondent's license. Until that point, she was unaware of Respondent. Subsequently, Respondent corrected the work done by Hodge.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found, conclusions of law and matters in mitigation and aggravation, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a $500.00 fine for the violations found. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Mr. Gilbert Sykes 4862 Soutel Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32208 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, matters officially recognized, and the record in this case as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The property that was the subject of Monroe County Building Permit No. 9110002601 (hereinafter referred to as the "Property") is an 18.85-acre parcel located on No Name Key in unincorporated Monroe County within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. Since 1985, the Property has been owned by Florida Keys Investment Properties, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "FKIP"). The Property is the site of a borrow pit occupying 9.65 acres of the Property's surface area. Since the early 1970's, Petitioner, Rudolph Krause & Sons of Florida, Inc., (hereinafter also referred to as "Krause & Sons") has been operating the borrow pit and excavating fill from the Property for sale to the public pursuant to permits issued by the County. Both Krause & Sons and FKIP are owned by Rudolph Krause, his wife, Roseann Krause, and other members of the Krause family. Since 1975, Roseann Krause has assumed primary responsibility for obtaining from the County the permits necessary to perform the excavation work on the Property (hereinafter referred to as the "excavation permits"). Such excavation permits have been issued by the County each year from 1975 to 1991, with the exception of 1988. 1/ Each of these excavation permits contained language indicating that the permit was a renewal of at least one previously issued permit. No excavation permit other than the 1991 permit, Monroe County Building Permit No. 9110002601, has been appealed by the Department. Although the excavation work on the Property has been conducted with the approval, and to the apparent satisfaction, of the County, in 1985 the United States Army Corps of Engineers filed a complaint in federal district court against Mr. and Mrs. Krause, FKIP and Krause & Sons alleging that certain work had been done in the wetlands portion of the Property without the requisite dredge and fill permit and therefore in violation of federal law. Neither the County nor the Department were parties to this federal district court proceeding, although the County, at least, was aware of the proceeding. In September of 1985, the federal district court entered a final consent judgement, the first eight numbered paragraphs of which provided as follows: This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and of the parties thereto. The provisions of this Final Judgment shall be binding upon the Defendants; their successors and assigns; and all persons, firms and corporations in active concert or privity with the Defendants who have actual or constructive notice of this Judgment by personal service or otherwise. All references to geographical locations with respect to this dredge and fill/ restoration on No Name Key shall be directed to the attached sketch entitled "Florida Keys Investment Properties, Inc. Restoration Plan." (Exhibit A). Exhibit A is merely an enlarged view of a portion of Exhibit B, which is a jurisdictional determination by Curtis Kruer, dated June 3, 1983. Within 18 months of entry of this Final (Consent) Judgment, the Defendants shall remove all fill material located in the area indicated on Exhibit A (the south side and southern portion of east side of the existing borrow pit) down to the adjacent wetland elevation. All spoil material so removed will be placed on upland areas on site or at the Defendants' option, may be trucked off site. Spoil material may be stockpiled in areas designated as wetlands immediately adjacent to the areas of the borrow pit to be excavated. Defendants shall notify the Big Pine Key regulatory Field Office of the United States Army Corps of Engineers upon commencement and completion of this phase of the earthmoving work. Within three years of the entry of this Final (Consent) Judgment, the Defendants shall be allowed to enlarge the existing borrow pit as shown on Exhibit A to a maximum depth of -60 feet MSL. Within 120 days from completion of the excavation work described in paragraph 5 above or within 40 months after entry of this decree, whichever date comes first, the Defendants, shall complete the creation of the wetland shelf area on the eastern and western sides of the borrow pit (excluding that portion of the pit to be excavated in the uplands, i.e. Section "C" on Exhibit B) by grading the area down to the adjacent natural wetland elevations as shown on Exhibit A. All spoil material will be placed on an upland site or, at Defendants' option, may be temporarily stored on site, and then trucked off site within the period set forth in the first sentence of this paragraph. Defendants agree to conduct the above- described restoration measures in an environmentally-sensitive manner and shall use their best efforts to avoid damage to adjacent wetlands or water areas (other than the borrow pit) during this process. In addition, a low fill berm 6-feet wide and 2- feet high shall be constructed and remain around the immediate edge of the pit as shown in Exhibit A at all times during excavation of the pit. This berm shall be extended around the immediate edge of the pit's final configuration. This allows Defendants to continue excavation of the pit in a northerly direction into the existing uplands shown as "C" on Exhibit B. Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from conducting any further dredging, filling or construction activities at No Name Key, adjacent to Big Spanish Channel in any wetland or water area, above or below the mean high water line, without the prior issuance of a Department of Army permit. The only exception to this provision is the work described herein. Only that portion of Defendants' property depicted as Section "C" on attached "Sketch of Jurisdictional Determination" (Exhibit "B" hereto) is agreed to be uplands, not subject to Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Mrs. Krause had submitted an application for a renewal excavation permit in February of 1985, prior to the entry of the federal district court's final consent judgment. The application, as originally submitted, did not specify the total amount of fill Krause & Sons expected to excavate during the year. In a letter dated March 12, 1985, that she sent to the County's Building Director, Mrs. Krause acknowledged that she did not include this information in the application. The body of the letter read as follows: I applied for renewal of our excavation (borrow pit on No Name) permit in February. I wish to keep current this permit but at the present time I cannot supply you with any additional information since it is in litigation with the Corps of Engineers. As soon as this litigation is resolved, I will supply you with the needed information as to width, length and depth to be dug as well as total amount of cubic yards. I do not wish this permit to lapse in any way and therefore request that you issue a renewal based upon this information at this time. If you have any questions regarding this information, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I certainly appreciate your understanding. The following month, Mrs. Krause supplemented the application she had submitted in February by providing the County with two sketches of the Property which were similar, but not identical, to the one appended to the final consent judgment and identified as Exhibit B. On one of these sketches, she had made the following handwritten notations: "proposed 25,000 yds. 25'x750'x35,'" which notation appeared next to the southwestern edge of the borrow pit; and "uplands to be dug," which notation appeared in the same area on the northerly portion of the Property that is depicted in the final consent judgment's Exhibit B as Section "C" (hereinafter referred to as the "Uplands"). It is apparent from a review of the two sketches that the "proposed 25,000 yds" were to come from an area on the western side of the pit and not from the Uplands. On April 29, 1985, the County issued the excavation permit (Building Permit No. 13289A) for which Mrs. Krause had applied on behalf of Krause & Sons. In issuing this permit, the County used a printed building permit form which contained the following language: THIS PERMIT SHALL ALLOW WORK (AS DEFINED UNDER WORK DESCRIPTION BELOW AND AS SHOWN AND SPECIFIED ON PLANS SUBMITTED AND ON FILE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICES) TO BE PERFORMED ON THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY BY THE OWNER LISTED: Typed in under "WORK DESCRIPTION" on the form was the following: "Renewal of Excavation Permit, Supplement to 11332A, 10203A, 9543A, 7791A, 6498A, 4884A, 3492A." Recipients of permits issued on these printed building permit forms are also furnished "permit cards" that they are instructed to post in an appropriate location at the work site. Each "permit card" contains the following advisement: The person accepting this permit shall conform to the terms of the application on file in the office of the Zoning Department of Monroe County and construction shall conform to the requirements of the Monroe County Codes. In or around early 1986, Krause & Sons hired E.I. DuPont De Nemours (hereinafter referred to as "DuPont") to blast, as a preliminary step in the resource extraction process, portions of the Property that had not yet been excavated (hereinafter referred to as the "Unexcavated Areas"), including the entire uplands area referred to as Section "C" in the federal district court's final consent judgment. Thereafter, DuPont, on behalf of Krause & Sons, applied to the County for a permit authorizing such blasting. The requested permit (Building Permit No. 14835A) was issued on February 20, 1986. In issuing Building Permit No. 14835A, the County used the same printed building permit form that it had used in issuing the 1985 excavation permit referenced in paragraph 15 above. It also provided an appropriate "permit card" for posting. Typed in under "WORK DESCRIPTION" on Building Permit No. 14835A was simply the following: "Blasters and Users Permit." No further indication was given as to the nature or scope of the work authorized to be performed. Following the issuance of Building Permit No. 14835A on February 26, 1986, Dupont began its blasting of the Unexcavated Areas. The work was completed later that year. Mr. Krause was on site during the blasting and provided assistance to DuPont. In April of 1986, before the completion of the blasting, Mrs. Krause, on behalf of Krause & Sons, sought to renew Building Permit No. 13289A, the excavation permit she had obtained for the Property the previous year. The application she submitted indicated that Krause & Sons proposed to "[e]xcavate approx. 25,000 cu yds." Along with the application, she submitted a copy of the sketch of the Property containing her handwritten notations that she had sent to the County to supplement the previous year's application. The requested permit (Building Permit No. 15276A) was issued on April 30, 1986. In issuing Building Permit No. 15276A, the County used the same printed building permit form that it had used in issuing the blasting permit and the previous year's excavation permit. In addition, it provided an appropriate "permit card" for posting. Typed in under "WORK DESCRIPTION" on Building Permit No. 15276A was the following: "Renewal of Excavation Permit- Approximately 25,000 CY FILL Supplement to 13289A, 11332A, 10203A, 9543A, 7791A, 6498A, 4884A, 3492A." On September 15, 1986, after DuPont had completed its blasting, the County's current land development regulations (hereinafter referred to as the "Regulations") became effective. Section 9.5-231(a) of the Regulations provides that "[n]o structure or land in Monroe County shall hereafter be developed, used or occupied unless expressly authorized in a land use district in this division." Under the Regulations, the Property is in a "Native" or "NA" land use district. 2/ Section 9.5-239 of the Regulations lists the uses that are allowed in "NA" land use districts. "Resource extraction," which is defined in Section 9.5-4 of the Regulations as "the dredging, digging, extraction, mining and quarrying of limerock, sand, gravel or minerals for commercial purposes," is not among the uses listed. "Resource extraction" is permitted as a major conditional use in Industrial land use districts under Section 9.5-249(c)(2) of the Regulations, however. Sections 9.5-431, 9.5-432 and 9.5-433 of the Regulations specifically address the subject of resource extraction. They provide as follows: Section 9.5-431. General. All resource extraction activities in the county shall comply with the provision of this division in order to ensure that such activities do not adversely affect long-term ecological values in the county and that abandoned extraction sites will be restored. Section 9.5-432. Resource extraction standards. All resource extraction activities shall: Be designed so that no area of excavation, storage area for equipment or machinery or other structure or facility is closer than: Two hundred (200) feet to any property line; and Five hundred (500) feet to any residential nonresource extraction related commercial use in existence on the date the permit is issued; Be located on a parcel of at least twenty (20) acres; Be fenced or blocked so as to prevent unauthorized entry into the resource extraction operation through access roads; Will not involve excavation below sixty feet; Will not cause the introduction of saline aquifer waters into fresh water aquifers; Will involve restoration of disturbed areas at the completion of the resource extraction operation in accordance with section 9.5-433, and the implementation of the restoration plan is secured by a surety bond or other guarantee of performance approved by the county; and Operate solely between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Section 9.5-433. Restoration standards. All parcels of land which are used for resource extraction operations shall be restored as follows: Restoration shall be a continuous process, and each portion of the parcel shall be restored within two (2) years after resource extraction is completed for that portion; Topsoil shall be restored in approximately the same quality and quantity as existed at the time the resource extraction operation was initiated; Any body of water created by the resource extraction operation shall have a graded shoreline with a slope not to exceed one (1) foot vertical to five feet horizontal; All equipment, machinery and structures, except for structures that are usable for recreational purposes or any other use authorized in the area, shall be removed within six (6) months after the resource extraction operation is terminated and restoration is completed; and Reclamation shall to the maximum extent practical result in the reestablishment of the vegetation association which existed prior to the extraction activity. A "nonconforming use," as that term is used in the Regulations, is defined in Section 9.5-4 thereof as "any use lawfully being made of any land, buildings or structure, other than a sign, on the effective date of this chapter or any amendment thereto, rendering such use nonconforming, which does not comply with all of the regulations of this chapter, or any amendment thereto." Section 9.5-143(a) of the Regulations provides that "[n]onconforming uses of land or structures may continue in accordance with the provisions of this section." Among "the provisions of this section" are the following found in subsection (c) thereof: Extensions: Nonconforming uses shall not be extended. This prohibition shall be construed so as to prevent: Enlargement of nonconforming uses by additions to the structure in which the nonconforming uses are located; or Occupancy of additional lands. According to Section 9.5-141 of the Regulations, the purpose of the provisions relating to "nonconforming uses" is to regulate and limit the continued existence of uses and structures established prior to the enactment of this chapter. Many nonconformities may continue, but the provisions of this article are designed to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities and to bring about their eventual elimination in order to preserve the integrity of this chapter. Section 9.5-113 of the Regulations prescribes the procedure to be followed in the "[r]eview of building permit applications." Subsection (b) of this section provides as follows: If the application and the construction plans and environmental analysis demonstrates compliance with all environmental standards of this chapter and technical, health and safety requirements of the County Code, a site preparation permit shall be issued within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete application and upon receipt of an improvement guarantee, if a subdivision is involved, under the provisions of section 9.5-85 or a performance bond, in an amount acceptable to the director of planning to ensure completion of the development, if a subdivision is not involved. Section 9.5-115 of the Regulations is entitled "Expiration of building permit." Subsections (a) through (d) of this section provide as follows: A building permit shall automatically expire and become null and void if work authorized by such permit is not commenced within sixty (60) days from the effective date of the permit, or if such work, when commenced, is suspended or abandoned at any time for a period of one hundred twenty (120) consecutive days. The effective date of a building permit authorizing land clearing or which authorizes development as defined in chapter 380, Florida Statutes, shall be as provided in rule 9J-1.03, Florida Administrative Code, as long as the parcel is located within an area of critical state concern. If the work covered by the permit has not commenced or has commenced and been suspended or abandoned, the building official may extend such permit for a single period of sixty (60) days from the date of extension is [sic] made prior to the expiration date of the initial permit. If the work covered by the permit has commenced, is in progress, but has not been completed and in the opinion of the building official and the director of planning, is being carried on progressively in a substantial manner, the permit shall remain in effect until completion of the job. If work has commenced and the permit becomes null and void or expires because of lack of progress or abandonment, a new permit covering the proposed construction shall be obtained before proceeding with the work under regulations in effect at the time the new permit is issued. Section 9.5-115 of the Regulations makes no reference to "renewal" permits. The first excavation permit Krause & Sons received after the effective date of the Regulations (Building Permit No. 17487A) was issued on May 1, 1987. In issuing Building Permit No. 17487A, the County used the same printed building permit form that it had used in issuing the 1986 blasting permit and the 1985 and 1986 excavation permits. In addition, it provided an appropriate "permit card" for posting. Typed in under "WORK DESCRIPTION" on Building Permit No. 17487A was the following: "Excavation Pit- RENEWAL- Supplement to Permit #13289A, 11332A, 10203A, 9543A, 7791A, 6498A, 4884A, 3492A." Typed in under "REMARKS" on Building Permit No. 17487A was the following: APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR A BLASTING PERMIT IF THIS ACTIVITY IS REQUIRED Issued under the condition that restoration required from Army Corps be completed. Biologist recommends approval as per Monroe County Code. On April 26, 1988, Mrs. Krause, on behalf of Krause & Sons, filed an application to renew Building Permit No. 17487A. Accompanying the application was a sketch of the Property. On the sketch, Mrs. Krause had drawn an arrow pointing to the southern portion of the Uplands. Above the arrow she had written, "proposed to dig approx 19,444 cu yds," and in the area to which the arrow was pointing, she had written, "Approx. 19444 cu yds to be dug." There was a delay in the issuance of the requested permit. On April 4, 1989, the permit (Building Permit No. 8910000731) was finally issued. An application to renew Building Permit No. 8910000731 was filed on April 3, 1990. The requested permit (Building Permit No. 9010000645) was issued on June 21, 1990. The effective date of the permit was August 28, 1990. An application to renew Building Permit No. 9010000645 was filed on April 16, 1991. The requested permit (Building Permit No. 9110002601 and hereinafter also referred to as the "Permit") was issued on July 11, 1991. In the "Remarks" section of the Permit the following was typed: RENEWAL OF PERMIT 90-10000645, 89-10000731 AND 17487A. PLANNING APPROVAL 6-25-91 AG BIOLOGIST RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS PER MONROE COUNTY CODE. THIS PERMIT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE BLASTING. A SEPARATE PERMIT IS REQUIRED. Neither the application nor the Permit specified the amount of fill to be excavated or where on the Property the excavation was to occur. There was only one area of the Property however, where there was further excavation to be done. This area was the Uplands. Krause & Sons and FKIP had hoped, pursuant to the authorization provided by the permit, to merely remove the already blasted fill material that remained there. 3/ No further blasting was needed. A copy of the Permit was hand delivered to the Department's Key West field office (hereinafter referred to as the "field office") on July 12, 1991. In charge of the field office was Kenneth Metcalf, a Community Program Administrator with the Department. Under his supervision were two planners, a biologist and a secretary. The duties of the field office staff included, but was not limited to, reviewing and commenting upon proposed development activity within the office's territorial jurisdiction, which covered not only unincorporated Monroe County, but the municipalities of Key West, Key Colony Beach and Layton as well. Approximately 25 percent of the staff's time was devoted to the review of building permits issued by Monroe County and the cities of Key West, Key Colony Beach and Layton. The staff reviewed over 10,000 permits a year, of which about 30 to 40 were ultimately appealed by the Department. Given the 45-day time limit for filing an appeal, the staff had approximately four weeks from the date of issuance within which to review each permit and submit its written recommendation and report to Department headquarters in Tallahassee. In conducting its permit review, the staff examined the materials it received from the local government, which typically included the permit itself, the permit application and accompanying site plan, to ascertain if the development authorized by the permit complied with the local government's land development regulations. 4/ Because of time constraints, the staff did not make a practice of contacting applicants and asking them to supply missing information that the staff thought was necessary to demonstrate compliance, although there were occasions that it did request such information from the local government that had issued the permit. In the staff's opinion, the information that it had been provided in connection with Building Permit No. 9110002601 was insufficient to demonstrate that the Permit complied with Monroe County's land development regulations. Along with a copy of the Permit, the staff had an aerial photograph of the Property, taken in 1985, upon which to base its opinion regarding the Permit's compliance with the Regulations. That resource extraction activity had taken place on the Property was apparent from an examination of the photograph. The staff had not been furnished with the permit application, with a site plan of the Property, nor with copies of any other County issued-permits concerning the Property. It had requested these materials from the County, but the County had not provided them. Consistent with its standard operating procedure, the staff had made no effort to obtain any additional information from the Krauses or FKIP. Neither the Krauses nor FKIP provided, or offered to provide, the staff with additional information. As a result, at the time it completed its review of the Permit and rendered its opinion on the Permit's compliance with the Regulations, the staff was unaware of the existence of Building Permit No. 14835A, the "Blasters and Users Permit" that DuPont, on behalf of Krause & Sons, had obtained in February of 1986, and which authorized the blasting of the entire Uplands. Given the information that the staff had in its possession, which reflected that the Property was located in a land use district in which resource extraction activity was not allowed under the Regulations, the staff's conclusion that the Permit was not in compliance with the Regulations was a reasonable one. The Permit did not indicate on its face that the resource extraction activity it authorized qualified as a "nonconforming use" under the provisions of Section 9-5.143 of the Regulations, nor was it apparent from a reading of the Permit, in conjunction with an examination of the 1985 aerial photograph that the staff also had in its possession, that the permitted activity so qualified. Adopting the field staff's recommendation, the Department, on August 26, 1991, filed with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission written notice of its appeal of Building Permit No. 9110002601. The Department's notice of appeal was accompanied by a petition in which the Department alleged that the Permit had been issued contrary to the provisions of the County's land development regulations in that it authorized resource extraction activity in a land use district in which such activity, under the Regulations, was not allowed. According to the petition, "[t]here [were] no conditions under which [such activity could] be authorized consistent with the Monroe County land development regulations absent amending the land use district maps [to change the Property's land use designation from NA] to Industrial use and proceeding through the conditional use process," during which the applicability of the resource extraction and restoration standards of Sections 9.5-432 and 9.5-433 of the Regulations would need to be addressed. On November 27, 1991, approximately three months after the Department filed its appeal, the field office staff, in response to a second, post-appeal request it had made, received from the County's assistant building official six index cards reflecting historical permitting activity relating to the Property. None of these cards made reference to Building Permit No. 14835A, the February, 1986, "Blasters and Users Permit." The Department first learned about the existence of this "Blasters and Users Permit" during discussions with the Krauses sometime after it had filed its notice of appeal of Building Permit No. 9110002601 and the accompanying petition. 5/ On December 18, 1991, the Department's notice of appeal and petition were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer. A final evidentiary hearing on the Department's appeal was held on October 13, 1992. Three witnesses, Mr. Krause, Mrs. Krause, and Metcalf, testified at the hearing. The Krauses testified regarding the extent of the blasting activity authorized by Building Permit No. 14835A, a copy of which was offered and received into evidence. A total of 28 other exhibits were admitted into evidence. Following the conclusion of the hearing, the parties filed post- hearing submittals. In their post-hearing submittal, the Krauses did not dispute that resource extraction, the activity authorized by Building Permit No. 9110002601, is a use that, under the Regulations, that is not expressly allowed in the NA land use district in which the Property is located. They argued, however, that the resource extraction activity they were seeking to undertake pursuant to Building Permit No. 9110002601, to wit: the completion of the excavation of the Uplands, should be permitted as a "nonconforming use" under the provisions of Section 9-5.143 of the Regulations, regardless of whether such activity would be allowable under the Regulations' other provisions. The Hearing Officer, in his Recommended Order, agreed with the Krauses, reasoning as follows: A "nonconforming use" that may continue in accordance with the provisions of Section 9-5.143 is "any use lawfully being made of any land, buildings or structure, other than a sign, on the effective date of [Chapter 9.5 of the Monroe County Code], rendering such use nonconforming, which does not comply with all of the regulations of [Chapter 9.5]." September 15, 1986, was the effective date of the Regulations. By that date, the excavation of the Uplands had already begun. The entire area had been blasted as the first step in the excavation process that Respondents now desire to complete. The Department acknowledges in its proposed recommended order that such blasting occurred, but contends that it was not authorized by the blasting permit (Building Permit No. 14835A) that had been obtained prior to the blasting. According to the Department, the "blasting permit cannot be construed as authorizing that extent of blasting but is most reasonably viewed as authorizing blasting [only] of the wetlands on the eastern and western sides of the pit." Having carefully considered the evidence on the matter, including, most significantly, the copy of Building Permit No. 14835A and the accompanying "permit card" which were offered and received into evidence as Respondents' Exhibit 6, as well as the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Krause, the Hearing Officer has reached a contrary conclusion. The documents that comprise Respondents' Exhibit 6 do not indicate, on their face, that the blasting authorized by the County was to be restricted to any particular area of the Property, much less "the wetlands on the eastern and western sides of the pit;" however, they each contain language suggesting that the extent of the authorization given by the blasting permit may not be determined without reference to the permit application and any plans submitted in connection therewith. No such application materials or copies thereof were in the County's files at the time of hearing, nor were they otherwise readily available to Respondents, who had never been given copies of these application materials to keep for their records. Under such circumstances, it was permissible for Respondents to supplement Respondents' Exhibit 6 with parol evidence to establish the extent of the land area which was subject to the provisions of the blasting permit. See Nahmod v. Nelson, 3 So.2d 162, 164-65 (Fla. 1941)("[u]nquestionably secondary evidence is admissible to prove the contents of a lost writing where proper predicate is laid and where such evidence is otherwise competent and admissible"). The parol evidence offered by Respondents was the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Krause. The Krauses testified that permission was sought and obtained to blast the entire Uplands. Their testimony on this matter was unrebutted. While neither Mr. or Mrs. Krause actually prepared or submitted the application to gain such permission, given their respective positions with the entity for which the blasting work was done, it appears likely, and therefore the Hearing Officer has found in the absence of any persuasive evidence to the contrary, that their testimony was based upon firsthand knowledge and not speculation or what someone else had told them. In view of the foregoing, the Hearing Officer has credited the Krauses' testimony and taken it into consideration in determining that the blasting of the entire Uplands was authorized by Building Permit No. 14835A. The resource extraction activity that Building Permit No. 9110002601 authorizes, therefore, will not involve the use of any land that was not lawfully being used for that purpose at the time of the effective date of the Regulations. Such activity thus qualifies as a "nonconforming use," within the meaning of Section 9.5-143 of the Regulations, which the Commission should allow to continue, notwithstanding that the Property is in a land use district in which such activity, but for its qualification as a "nonconforming use," would be prohibited. The Hearing Officer noted that, "[i]n engaging in such continued activity, Respondents must comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 9.5-432 (resource extraction standards) and 9.5-433 (restoration standards) of the Regulations [both of which were referenced in the Department's appeal petition], but only to the extent that these provisions do not operate to effectively prevent them from excavating any land that, on the effective date of the Regulations, was being lawfully used for resource extraction activity." The Hearing Officer recommended that, "[i]n the interest of clarity and to avoid any uncertainty regarding the matter, the final order issued by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission . . . make specific reference to these requirements [the Krauses] must meet, notwithstanding that [they] would still be required to comply with these requirements even if, like Building Permit No. 9110002601, the order did not contain any such specific reference." On March 11, 1993, the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission issued a final order adopting the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. Petitioner was represented by counsel in the appeal proceeding that culminated in the issuance of this final order and it incurred attorney's fees and costs as a result of such representation that it is obligated to pay.
