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: The Respondent, Ocean Dunes Development Corporation, is the developer of a residential condominium known as Ocean Dunes, located in Highland Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Count One The first closing on a unit in Ocean Dunes occurred on April 30, 1982. The Respondent controlled the operation of the condominium association from the incorporation of the association up to February 4, 1986, when unit owners other than the developer elected a majority of the members of the board of administration of the condominium association. Pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation of the condominium association, the board of directors is composed of three members. According to the by-laws of the association, unit owners other than the developer are entitled to elect at least one-third of the members of the board when they own fifteen per cent of the units in the condominium. The by-laws further provide that within sixty days after unit owners other than the developer are entitled to elect a member of the board, the association shall call and give not less than thirty days notice of a meeting of the unit owners for this purpose. on July 15, 1982, unit owners other than the developer owned fifteen per cent of the total number of units in the condominium. The first association unit owner meeting after July 15, 1982, occurred in April of 1983. Present at the meeting were several unit owners and Mr. Philip Connor, president of both the association and the developer corporation. According to the association by-laws, a quorum is achieved by a majority of the votes of the entire membership. In April of 1983 there were 48 units in the condominium, 17 units were owned by someone other than the developer. Therefore, the developer's unit votes were absolutely necessary to achieve a quorum. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Connor, the president of the developer corporation, stated that he was not authorized to utilize the developer's unit votes through proxy or otherwise. Mr. Connor stated: First item, obviously is to determine whether we have a quorum in order to properly conduct business. I am not voting on behalf of the developing company this evening. Mr. Hubert (the general counsel of the developer) as far as I know we do not have a quorum. Therefore, the meeting is officially adjourned. But, Mr. Connor went on to add: However, I would like to spend some time with you this evening to go over and formulate any questions or problems, et cetra. Unit owners other than the developer did not elect a member of the board of administration of the association until April 17, 1984. Count Two While operating the condominium association, the Respondent used condominium association common funds to pay for certain carpentry expenses in the amount of $1,836. The carpentry expenses were the responsibility of the Respondent as developer. During the initial phases of the investigation of this case by the Department of Business Regulation, the Respondent agreed that the carpentry expenses were the developer's responsibility and reimbursed $1,836 to the association on August 29, 1984. Count Three An "election period" is a mechanism by which the developer, as the owner of units, is excused from the payments of assessments against those units for a certain period of time. See Section 718.116(8)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. During an election period, the developer does not pay assessments on developer-owned units, but instead pays the difference between the common expenses of the association and monies received from other unit owners in the form of assessments during that period of time. In other words, if assessments collected from other unit owners are insufficient to meet common expenses, the developer is required to pay the deficiency. The election period must terminate no later than the first day of the fourth calendar month following the month in which the first closing of a unit in a condominium occurs. See Section 718.116(8)(a)(1), Florida Statutes. The first closing on the first unit in Ocean Dunes Condominium occurred on April 30, 1982. During the election period, the developer periodically funded the association and made available to it funds to pay required bills on a current, "as-due" basis. Thus, the Respondent attempted to satisfy its election period payment requirements on a cash accounting basis. The developer did not perform an election period calculation on the condominium's books and records to determine the difference between expenses incurred during the election period and assessments collected form other unit owners. Mr. Larsen, a certified public accountant and the Petitioner's expert witness, reviewed the condominium's financial records and calculated an election period deficit of $45,077.88. Mr. Larsen arrived at the figure of $45,077.88 by calculating that assessment revenues from non-developer unit owners amounted to $5,393.92 and that common expenses during the period amounted to $50,471.40, the difference being $45,077.88. The $45,077.88 figure arrived at by Larsen was composed in part of unfunded reserves during the election period, certain association bills which were left unpaid during the election period but had balances which came due later and certain prepaid assessments from other unit owners paid in advance, but which would have come due after the expiration of the election period. In arriving at the election period deficit of $45,077.88, Larsen completed a review or compilation of the financial records of the association using generally accepted principles of accounting for a review or compilation of financial statements. Count Four Unit owners other than the developer remitted their assessments on a quarterly basis. In contrast, the Respondent developer provided some funds to the association on a monthly, "as-needed" basis. Typically, when the association funds became inadequate to pay outstanding bills, the developer would contribute its assessments. At the end of each calendar year, the developer calculated an outstanding assessment liability on its inventory units and recognized that liability on the association's books. The Declaration of Condominium at Article 6.2, provided that assessments not paid on a timely basis would bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date when due until paid. Although unit owners were paying their assessments on a quarterly basis, neither the Declaration of Condominium nor the by-laws established a date when assessments were due. Count Five The percentage of ownership interest of each individual unit owner in the common elements of Ocean Dunes Condominium is set forth in Exhibit B to the Declaration of Condominium. The percentage of common elements per unit ranged from a minimum of .01959 to a maximum of .02170. The quarterly assessments to unit owners were not based on the percentages of their ownership of the common elements as outlined in the recorded Declaration. Prior to the formal hearing, the Respondent acknowledged that the proper percentages were not being assessed, and adjustments were made for all unit owners' assessments. Count Six A condominium association's annual budget must include a reserve account (unless specifically waived by the association) for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. The reserve account of the association is set aside for long term items such as roof replacement, building painting and pavement resurfacing. See Section 718.112(2)(f), Florida Statutes. Ocean Dunes Condominium Association established a budgeted annual reserve figure of $6,000 per year (reserves were not waived). On December 31, 1984, the reserve account, if fully funded, would have contained $16,569.86. While in control of the condominium association, the Respondent did not maintain a separate, funded reserve account. Rather, the Respondent showed the reserve account as a liability in its accounting statements. The listing of a reserve account as a liability on a financial statement would not violate, nor be contrary to, generally accepted principles of accounting. The Respondent believed in good faith that it was allowed to carry reserves as liability in the association's financial books. Count Seven The Respondent employed the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand to handle the financial books and records of the condominium association. Coopers and Lybrand has offices in both Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Although the Respondent maintained the corporate books and records of the association at the Royal Palm Beach Bank in Palm Beach County, portions of the accounting records were routinely transferred between Coopers and Lybrand's offices in Palm Beach and Broward Counties. Count Eight On February 4, 1986, unit owners other than the developer assumed control of the condominium association. After turnover, the Respondent provided the association with the annual audits performed by the accounting firm of Coopers and Lybrand. The annual audits did not cover the election period and the period early in 1986 which the audit for the year 1985 did not cover. After turnover of counsel of the association, the annual audits were the only review of the association's financial records provided to the association by the developer. After turnover, the association at all times made the corporate books and records available to the developer. Upon turnover, the Respondent offered to the association 9 pages of separate plans and specifications utilized in the construction of the condominium. Although the plans contained the certificate of a surveyor, only one of the nine plans contained a signed affidavit that the plans were authentic.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is. RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Requiring the Respondent pay to the association $45,077.88 (representing the deficit which existed during the developer election period) no later than 45 days from the date of the Final Order; Requiring that Respondent obtain, and provide to the association, no later than 60 days from the date of the Final Order, a turnover review of the financial records of the association prepared in strict compliance with Section 718.301(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 7D-23.03, Florida Administrative Code; Requiring that Respondent obtain and deliver to the association no later than 60 days from the date of the Final order, a copy of the construction plans of the condominium with a certificate in affidavit form prepared in strict compliance with Section 318.301(4)(f), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a civil penalty of $5,000. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Philip R. Connor, Jr., President Ocean Dunes Development Corporation Suite 205 2929 East Commercial Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Thomas A. Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Coats, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: Addressed in Procedural Background section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5 and 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6, 7 and 8. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as misleading as stated, but adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 18. Rejected as misleading as stated, but adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. The last sentence of Paragraph 19 is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 22. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 23. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Matters note contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 32. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 34. Matters not contained therein are rejected as argument and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 33. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 35. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Matters not contained therein are rejected as Subordinate and/or a recitation of testimony. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remainder of the paragraph is adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. Matters contained in Paragraph 3 which are inconsistent with the Findings of Fact previously mentioned are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or subordinate. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22 and 23. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 24, 25, 26 and 27. Matters not contained therein are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence and/or a recitation of testimony.
Findings Of Fact For purposes of the Motions to Dismiss filed by Agrico and the Department, the following findings of fact are based upon the pleadings in this case, matters to which the parties have stipulated, and DOAH Case Number 86-3618, as well as final agency action resulting therefrom: On or about August 26, 1986, Petitioners filed with the Department a petition for formal administrative proceeding which challenged the dredge and fill permit that the Department intended to issue to Agrico. The Department transmitted this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing, and it was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer as DOAH Case Number 86- 3618. Petitioners relied upon Sections 120.57(1) and 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, to "initiate" DOAH Case Number 86-3618 as is clearly set forth in paragraph 20 of their Petition filed in that case. In their Motion for Fees and Costs at paragraph 3, Petitioners further allege, and thereby concede, that they "initiated the above styled proceeding (DOAH Case Number 86-3618)." A final hearing was scheduled to begin on April 28, 1987 in DOAH Case Number 86-3618. However by letter to the Department dated March 2, 1987, Agrico voluntarily withdrew its application for a dredge and fill permit which was the subject of that case. Thereafter, a telephone conference call was held on March 17, 1987, following which an Order Closing File was filed in DOAH Case Number 86-3618 on that same date, and jurisdiction was relinquished to the Department. The Final Order in Case Number 86-3618 was entered by the Department on May 18, 1987 which states: Upon consideration, it is ORDERED that the withdrawal of permit application number 53-1093999 is GRANTED with prejudice to further Department consideration of the application, but without prejudice to the future submission of another dredge and fill application covering the same tract of land covered by application number 53-1093999. The withdrawal of permit application number 53-1093999 divests the Department of jurisdiction to proceed with consideration of (Booker Creek and Manasota's) petition. Humana of Florida, Inc., v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 500 So.2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the above-captioned case (DOAH Case Number 86-3618) is DISMISSED as moot. On July 16, 1987, Petitioners timely filed their Motion for Fees and Costs which was assigned to the undersigned Hearing Officer and given DOAH Case Number 87-3007F. Petitioners are each incorporated as not-for-profit corporations within the State of Florida, with principal off ices in Florida, and each having less than twenty-five full time employees, as well as a net worth of not more than two million dollars.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Community Development Board (Board) to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2017-07012 filed by Gulfview Lodging, LLP (Gulfview), cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departs from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The 0.59-acre project site is located at the northeast corner of South Gulfview Boulevard and Fifth Street and wraps around the McDonald’s parking lot and Frenchy’s Beach Café (Frenchy’s) to the west. The project site includes two parcels owned by Gulfview, and 2,195.09 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way, which will need to be vacated by the City. Gulfview’s proposal is to demolish all structures currently on the project site and build a seven-floor hotel with 150 units per acre, which would be 88 rooms if the City vacates the 2,195.09 feet of right-of-way. Gulfview’s application for development approval was filed with the City on July 28, 2017, including design plans. The subject property is zoned Tourist (T) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) category of Resort Facilities High (RFH). The subject site is located in the Beach Walk district of Beach by Design.2/ The maximum permitted density for the site pursuant to Beach by Design is 150 units per acre. The application contemplates a subsequent vacation process for the 2,195.09 square feet of City right-of-way. On July 20, 2017, the City Council approved the allocation of up to 59 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design (Case No. HDA2017-04001) and adopted a resolution to the same effect (Res. No. 17-19). Preston’s attorney admitted that he attended the July 20, 2017, City Council hearing that resulted in the July 28, 2017, Hotel Density Reserve Development Agreement (Development Agreement) between Gulfview and the City. Preston’s attorney attended the July 20 City Council hearing on behalf of Frenchy’s, but conceded to the Board and at oral argument that Frenchy’s is located on the land owned by Preston, as trustee, and Preston is the sole shareholder of Frenchy’s. The Development Agreement was recorded in Book 19727, Page 2465-2503 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, on August 2, 2017. The Development Agreement includes Exhibit “B”-- the same set of design plans that were filed with Gulfview’s July 28, 2017, application for development approval. Section 6.2.4 of the Development Agreement specifically states: The overall number of proposed units density provided for by this Agreement (88 units) is contingent upon the proposed vacation of the 2,195.09 square feet of South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way within the Beach Walk district. The City shall process a right-of- way vacation ordinance to vacate the 2,195.09 square feet of South Gulfview Blvd. right of way within the Beach Walk district conditioned upon submission of a complete set of building plans for construction of the improvements shown on Exhibit “B”. Regardless of whether or not the vacation is granted the maximum permitted density of the property may not exceed 150 units per acre. Gulfview’s application requires a Level Two approval. Under Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code, a Level Two approval requires mailing of a notice of application to owners of properties “within a 200-foot radius of the perimeter boundaries of the subject property.” The notice mailed by the City identifies both the north parcel and the south parcel by address and parcel number. The notice also describes the quasi-judicial public hearing process before the Board and ends with an invitation “to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan” with the assigned planner. The City Clerk mailed notice of Gulfview’s application to owners of parcels located within 200 feet of the two parcels identified in the notice, including Preston. Preston does not dispute receiving the notice. Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code also requires the posting of a sign on the “parcel proposed for development.” Preston does not dispute that the sign was posted. Preston objected that the mailed and posted notices did not reference the proposal to vacate 2,195.09 square feet of right-of-way. He argued that if he had known more than “a few days ago” when he received the Staff Report ahead of the October 17, 2017, Board meeting that the right-of-way was proposed to be vacated, he would have had expert witnesses at the hearing to give “an equal presentation” in response to Gulfview’s presentation. Preston requested a continuance citing lack of proper notice and insufficient time to prepare for the public hearing. Preston did not introduce any testimony or other evidence regarding the application. Preston’s primary objection to the project was vacation of the right-of-way and he wanted the opportunity to present witnesses regarding that issue. Vacating the right-of-way is a separate process and the hearing before the Board is not the proceeding in which the right-of-way vacation is decided. However, the substantial competent record evidence shows that Preston had actual notice as early as July 20, 2017, that the proposed project contemplated vacating 2,195.09 square feet of right-of-way. Preston’s other objection was that Gulfview’s design plans did not meet the requirements of Beach by Design’s Beach Walk District overlay. Preston argued to the Board that the hotel’s proposed design did not meet the redevelopment goals for addition of facilities and amenities generally described as areas for outdoor dining, outside cafes, and other seaside amenities.3/ However, although Preston had actual notice of the hotel design plans as early as July 20, 2017, he did not introduce any expert testimony or other evidence to support those objections. The Staff Report states that Beach by Design proposed to create a great beach front, known as “Beach Walk,” by relocating South Gulfview Boulevard from the existing right of way. Beach by Design recognized that the redevelopment and revitalization of the properties that front on South Gulfview were and, to a certain extent, still are generally constrained by several factors including small parcel sizes and the Coastal Construction Control Line. As a result, most of the motels and hotels which existed along the east side of South Gulfview would have limited opportunities for redevelopment even if Clearwater Beach were repositioned in the tourism market place. Beach by Design proposed to relocate South Gulfview to the west of its current alignment in order to achieve multiple purposes. First, it would create a drive with a real view of the Beach and the Gulf of Mexico. Second, it would allow the City to vacate the east 35 feet of the existing right of way in favor of the properties along the eastern frontage of existing South Gulfview as an incentive for appropriate redevelopment. Many of those existing properties would substantially benefit from an additional 35 feet of depth which could be used for the addition of facilities and amenities such as safe and comfortable areas for outdoor dining. The creation of Beach Walk and the realignment of South Gulfview Boulevard have all been realized. Several segments of the South Gulfview Boulevard have already been vacated and many of the properties along South Gulfview Boulevard have, in the years since the initial adoption of Beach by Design, been redeveloped with hotels. As noted, this proposal also includes a vacation of a portion of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way which will facilitate the redevelopment of the subject site with a new hotel playing an important role in the ongoing renewal and revitalization of the Beach. Specifically, the vacation will allow for the location of an outdoor seating area providing a strong link between Beach Walk and the proposed hotel as supported by Beach by Design. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this provision. (Emphasis added). The Staff Report concluded that the proposed project is consistent with applicable provisions of the Community Development Code, applicable components of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Beach Walk District of Beach by Design, and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. Mark Parry, Senior Planner with the City, testified that “the proposed number of units, 88, is contingent on vacation of that right-of- way,” and if the right-of-way is not later vacated, it “would knock out about eight units.” Mr. Parry also testified that the proposed project provides amenities and an outdoor seating area as specified by Beach by Design. Preston only conducted a very short cross-examination of Mr. Parry, despite having party status to do so. Sue Ann Murphy, an experienced land use planner, also testified that the proposed development complied with all applicable Community Development Code, Comprehensive Plan and Beach by Design requirements. The project architect, Istvan Peteranecz, AIA, was accepted by the Board as an expert. Mr. Peteranecz answered questions from Board members regarding the design of the proposed hotel’s main entrance, including the porte cochere and public seating area adjacent to the Beach Walk and immediately south of Frenchy’s. Preston did not cross- examine Ms. Murphy or Mr. Peteranecz, despite having party status to do so. Substantial competent evidence in the record supports the conclusion that the proposed project is consistent with applicable provisions of the Community Development Code, applicable components of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Beach Walk District of Beach by Design, and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board acknowledged Preston’s pending request for continuance and proceeded with discussion. After extensive discussion among the Board members, a motion was made and seconded for the Board “to approve case number FLD2017-07012 based on the evidence, the testimony presented, and the application, the staff report, and at today’s hearing, and to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated in the staff report with all of the conditions of approval, as listed.” The motion carried. On October 19, 2017, the City entered a Development Order memorializing the Board’s decision. The Development Order includes a Finding of Fact that “[t]he total lot area includes 2,195 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way which would need to be vacated by the City,” and includes a Condition of Approval that “application for a building permit be submitted no later than October 17, 2019, unless time extensions are granted.” The City represented at oral argument that if the proposed development is not consistent with the Development Order (e.g., if the approximately 2,195 square feet of the South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way is not vacated), Gulfview will not be able to get a building permit without going through a minor amendment process for a less intense project.
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 resolution in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Notice to Show Cause: Failure to deliver to the association a review of financial records for the required period. Section 718.301(4)(c) F.S. (1981). Failure to fund reserves. Section 718.112(2)(k) F.S. (1981). Failure to turn over converter reserves. Section 718.301(4)(d) F.S. (1981). Charging the association $10,000 for management services without documentation of the contract for the services. Section 718.115(1) F.5. (1981). If it is determined that violations occurred, the remaining issue is what corrective action and civil penalties are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated to the following facts: Batura Enterprises, Inc. (Batura) is the developer, as defined in Section 718.103(13) F.S., of a residential conversion condominium known as English Park, in Melbourne, Florida. The condominium association for English Park was incorporated on December 2, 1980. The declaration of condominium for English Park was recorded in the public records on January 22, 1981. Turnover of control of the condominium association from control by the developer to control by unit owners other than the developer pursuant to Section 718.301 F.S., occurred on May 31, 1982. (Joint exhibit #1.) A review of financial statements dated January 19, 1983, was delivered to the condominium association. The review covers a ten-month period commencing August 1, 1981, and ending May 31, 1982. (Joint Exhibit #4.) A supplemental turnover review, performed during the course of this litigation and signed on February 7, 1987, covers the period from incorporation of the condominium association on December 2, 1980, through July 31, 1981. (Joint exhibit #6.) The function of the review is to provide an accounting during the time that the developer is responsible for the association, and to insure that assessments are charged and collected. (Testimony of Eric Larsen, C.P.A., qualified without objection as an expert in condominium accounting.) The proposed operating budget included $15,248.00 for an annual reserve account ($1,270 per month). (Joint exhibit *5, p. 83.) Based on this, the reserve account from the creation of the condominium, January 22, 1981, until the date of turnover, May 31, 1982 should have been $20,688.71 (sixteen months and nine days). The "election period" provided in Section 718.116(8)(a) F.S. (1979) is addressed in the Condominium documents, p. 31: F. Common Expenses payable by the Developer. Until the sale of the first Unit in the Condominium, Developer shall be solely responsible for all expenses of the Condominium. Following the first closing, the Unit Owner in whom title shall have been vested shall be responsible for his proportionate share of Common Expenses, based upon his percentage interest in the Common Elements. The Developer shall be excused from payment of the share of the Common Expenses and Assessments relating to the unsold units after the recording of this Declaration for a period of time which shall terminate on the first day of the fourth calendar month following the month in which the closing of the sale of the first unit occurs. The Developer shall pay the portion of expenses incurred during that period which exceeds the amount assessed against other Unit Owners. (Joint Exhibit #5.) The first units were sold in April 1981. (Joint Exhibit #2, p. 2). Therefore, the "election period" ended on August 1, 1981. The turnover review does not reflect the existence of the $20,688.71 reserve fund at the time of turnover on May 31, 1982. Instead, it reflects a certificate of deposit in the amount of $18,795.00 that was created as a "reserve for transition operations". This was derived from initial payments made by the owners to the association to provide working capital for the start- up phase. (Joint Exhibit #4., testimony of Philip Batura.) These "initial assessments" are addressed in the condominium documents: G. Initial Assessments. When the initial Board, elected or designated pursuant to these By-laws, takes office, it shall determine the budget as defined in this Section for the period cornencing 30 days after their election or designation and ending on the last day of the fiscal year in which their election or designation occurs. Assessment shall be levied against the Unit Owners during said period as provided in this Article. The Board will levy an "initial assessment" against the initial purchaser at the time he settles on his purchase contract. Such initial assessment shall be in an amount equal to two months regular assessments, and shall be utilized for commencing the business of the Association and providing the necessary working fund for it. In addition, the initial purchaser shall pay the pro-rated portions of the monthly assessments for the remaining balance of the month in which closing takes place. The initial assessment and other assessments herein provided shall be paid by each subsequent purchaser of a Unit; no Unit Owner shall be entitled to reimbursement from the Association for payment of the initial assessment. Developer shall not be liable to pay any initial assessment. (Emphasis added) (Joint Exhibit #5, p. 31.) Based on the above, it is apparent that none of the $18,975.00 was contributed by the developer. Between April 1, 1981, and August 1, 1981, 60 percent of the units were sold. (Testimony of Philip Batura. Joint exhibit #4, attachment C.) Therefore at any given point in time between those dates, at least 40 percent of the units were in the hands of the developer. Between August 1, 1981 and turnover at the end of May 1982, an additional 30 percent of the units were sold, for a total of 90 percent. (Testimony of Philip Batura.) This means a minimum of 10 percent of the units were in the hands of the developer at any point between those dates. While Philip Batura claims that reserves were waived by a majority of members pursuant to Section 718.1l2(2)(k), F.S. (1981), he produced no evidence of that. He admitted that the action is not reflected in association minutes. (Joint Exhibit #1.) Reserves are included in the proposed budget filed with the condominium documents. (Joint Exhibit #5.) Reserves are noted in the supplemental financial review provided by the developer: ENGLISH PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) (SEE ACCOUNTANT'S REVIEW REPORT) JULY 31, 1981. NOTE 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES RESERVES - The Association's policy is to currently fund all expected replacements and major repairs of commonly owned assets. Should restricted funds available to meet future replacements and major repairs prove to be insufficient, the Association's Declaration provides that special assessments may be made against the unit owners. * * * (Joint Exhibit #6.) The purpose for a reserve account is to insure that funds are available in the future for replacements and deferred maintenance on the common elements. (Testimony of Eric Larsen) In addition to the statutorily-required reserves for exterior painting, roof replacement and repaving, the English Park proposed budget includes reserves for the swimming pool and "townhome hot water tanks". According to Philip Batura the budget was not amended prior to turnover. A separate reserve was required at the time of turnover because this was a condominium converted from apartments. (Testimony of Philip Batura) The only converter reserve applicable was a reserve for roofing in the amount of $6,114.00. (Joint exhibit #2, p. 2 of 11.) The Respondent has admitted its failure to turn over this reserve, but claims the obligation is offset by $10,000 in management fees which it asserts the association owes. (Joint Exhibit #1, p. 2 of 6.) Philip Batura is President of Batura Enterprises, Inc. He was elected or designated to the association board of directors at some point prior to turnover and remained on the board at turnover as he still owned some units. He mostly ran the association until the turnover in May 1982. (Testimony of Philip Batura.) Batura claims that there was an oral agreement for management services for $1,000.00 per month, commencing on August 1, 1981, between the association and Batura Enterprises, Inc. He said this was never paid by the association as there was not enough income to cover the costs of operation. The financial review covering the period August 1, 1981 to May 30, 1982, addresses the accrual of a management fee of $10,000, "...per the proposed operating budget which was recorded in the original declaration." (Joint Exhibit #4.) It is unclear where this figure was derived, as the budget does not reflect a $1,000.00 per month expense line item for management services. Included in the condominium documents is a proposed contract between the association and Eussel G. Hurren for management services. Both the fee and the term of the contract are left blank. The contract form that was filed is not signed, nor was a contract with this individual ever signed. (Testimony of Philip Batura.) The Declaration of Condominium permits a contract with a professional managing agent, including the developer. (Joint - Exhibit #5, p. 25.) No competent evidence was adduced by either party that this provision was ever fulfilled.
Recommendation Final hearing in the above-styled action was held on February 10, 1987, in Cocoa, Florida, before Mary Clark, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented as follows: For Petitioner: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 For Respondent: James S. Cheney, Esquire Post Office Drawer 10959 Melbourne, Florida 32902-1959
Findings Of Fact Respondent has a bachelor of science degree in accounting and a master of business administration with an emphasis in accounting. Both degrees are from Florida State University. However, Respondent is not a licensed certified public accountant. From 1982 to 1986, Respondent was employed by Deloitte Touche, one of the "big-six" accounting firms. He worked in Deloitte's Los Angeles office. After one year in audit, Respondent was assigned to the tax department of Deloitte. In 1986, Lorimar-Telepictures, Inc.--an entertainment industry conglomerate--hired Respondent as Director of Taxes. In this position, Respondent was responsible for tax planning and compliance issues for the parent and its affiliates. In 1989, Respondent returned to Florida to work with Rafor Management, Inc. (Rafor), which is owned primarily by Respondent's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Cicco. Mr. Cicco, Mrs. Cicco, and Respondent are the officers of Rafor. Rafor is a licensed real estate company. Mrs. Cicco is a licensed real estate broker and has placed her license with Rafor. Mr. Cicco is a licensed real estate sales person. Respondent is neither a licensed real estate broker nor a licensed sales person. Rafor manages real estate projects. The majority of these projects were constructed by an affiliated company. Mr. Cicco's expertise is in development, including construction and management, and he owns companies and partnerships that are involved with the projects that he has developed. Respondent has assumed the role of Chief Financial Officer of about 10- 15 entities, including Rafor, owned by his father. Respondent also provides tax planning and automated financial services for his father's companies and partnerships. Rafor is a small organization with few, if any, employees outside of three members of the Cicco family. The Shore Manor Condominium Association, Inc. is the first and last time that Rafor attempted to provide management services to an association of homeowners or condominium owners. The Board of Directors of Shore Manor, which consists of 54 units, invited Rafor to make a presentation in connection with their search for management assistance. At the time, the condominium residents were reluctant to serve as directors and sign association checks due to liability concerns. Representing Rafor, Mr. Cicco made a presentation to the Board of Directors and later negotiated the conditions of the agreement between Rafor and Shore Manor. Respondent played a relatively minor role in the presentation or the negotiations. A corporate resume submitted by Rafor to Shore Manor does not identify individuals involved with Rafor, but limits itself to corporate characteristics. However, the resume closes as follows: "If you have any questions, please call me at [telephone number omitted]. Thank you for your consideration." Beneath this statement is Respondent's signature over his typewritten name and title of Chief Financial Officer. After receiving proposals from several prospective management companies, Shore Manor selected Rafor in December 1991. Except for some year- end matters, Rafor began serving as the management company on January 1, 1992. The resulting management agreement, which is dated December 24, 1991, recites that Rafor is in the "business of providing management and supervision for the operation, conduct and management of condominium buildings." The agreement states that Rafor will "order and supervise" all labor and materials supplied in connection with the operation, management, and maintenance of the condominium project and pay all obligations of the condominium association. The agreement authorizes Rafor to collect all regular and special assessments from association members and foreclose assessment liens in the name of the condominium association. The management agreement provides that the association will assess the members the amount set forth in the annual budget, as adopted by the association through its Board of Directors "and any Manager or Management Company which may from time to time be employed by the of [sic] the Association to prepare such annual budget . . .." "Management Company" is defined in the management agreement to mean "Rafor." "Manager" is an undefined term. Other provisions of the management agreement authorize Rafor to supervise the bookkeeping records and order all work and materials needed for the day-to-day operation, maintenance, and repair of the condominium project. The management agreement requires that Rafor to provide an onsite "Manager" for at least two hours weekly and for attendance at monthly association meetings. Ensuing provisions of the management agreement identify Rafor or the "Manager" as the entity to be directed by the association in providing specific services. The term of the management agreement is three years. The association agrees to pay Rafor $16,000 annually, plus reimbursement of authorized expenditures made by Rafor on behalf of the condominium association. Respondent signed the agreement on behalf of Rafor, noting beside his name that he is the Chief Financial Officer of Rafor. The management agreement imperfectly reflects the practice of the parties, especially as to the role of the "Manager." No individual ever served as an onsite manager during the time in question. Rafor's duties regarding financial matters were carefully circumscribed. There are two main accounts (ignoring a relatively minor laundry account, whose receipts were handled exclusively by the association). The accounts are for regular assessments and reserve assessments. Residents paid these assessments by checks payable to Shore Manor and delivered directly to Rafor. Authorized signatories on the accounts into which these funds were deposited were Respondent, Mrs. Cicco, the association president, and the association treasurer. Although Respondent signed nearly all of the association checks, the president and treasurer of the association closely supervised Rafor during the term of the management agreement. Mr. Cicco first approved all invoices. Then, he or Respondent would convey the information to the president or treasurer, who would tell Respondent to write the check. There was daily contact between the president and treasurer, on the one hand, and Mr. Cicco and Respondent, on the other hand. Except during the summer months, when many residents were out of town, Rafor submitted the ledger and canceled checks to the entire Board of Directors monthly for their review and approval. Neither Respondent nor Rafor had much responsibility regarding budgets either. Respondent, on behalf of Rafor, entered all transactions on spreadsheets. Rafor ran the budget numbers from a preceding interval and, at prescribed intervals, proposed options to a special Budget Committee for their consideration. In one such report, dated November 23, 1991, Rafor described three options for a budget with brief discussions of each. Advising the president that final action was the responsibility of the Board, the letter concludes that "I would welcome the opportunity to review and discuss all aspects of our proposal with you." The letter is signed by Respondent as Chief Financial Officer. Respondent handled other Shore Manor financial matters for which Rafor was responsible. By letter to Shore Manor residents dated January 25, 1992, Respondent, as Chief Financial Officer, outlined the adopted budget and advising that assessments were due. The letter concludes that if there are any questions or requests for help, residents should "feel free to call me at [telephone number omitted]." Respondent's remaining financial services for Shore Manor were limited to the preparation of tax or information returns for the association. In general, Respondent was less involved in maintenance matters than he was in financial matters, where his father has relatively little expertise. The most important maintenance issue that arose during the term of the management agreement involved substantial repairs to an existing seawall. Shore Manor is on the Gulf of Mexico and is protected by a seawall. One day, Respondent or Mr. Cicco learned that someone had fallen in a hole that had eroded behind the seawall protecting the condominium project. Rafor handled the seawall problem flawlessly. Its first response was to hire an engineer to prepare a written report on the condition of the seawall and available options. Mr. Cicco did not attempt to deal with this engineering problem himself. After the engineer completed his report recommending elaborate repairs, Rafor contacted another engineer who orally agreed with the findings of the first engineer. The first report cost about $300. When Respondent or Mr. Cicco relayed the oral findings of the second report, coupled with the second engineer's offer to prepare a written report for a fee, the Board of Directors told them not to bother obtaining another written report. There was considerable discussion among residents as to the best course to take. There is evidence that the Shore Manor residents resisted actions that resulted in the increase of regular or special assessments upon them. For instance, some residents opposed Rafor's sensible proposal that Shore Manor substantially increase its reserves to the amount maintained by a nearby, substantially similar condominium. Rafor took the position that, once the deterioration of the seawall had been documented, Rafor had a fiduciary duty to the association to recommend the repairs identified by the engineer. However, several residents remained strongly opposed to the repairs. At one point, by letter dated April 8, 1993, Respondent, as Chief Financial Officer of Rafor, asked for an opinion letter from an attorney concerning the individual and corporate liability that would arise from failing to repair the seawall. The opinion letter, which was addressed to Respondent, as Chief Financial Officer, warned of potential liabilities. The seawall issue demanded considerable time from Rafor in the persons of Respondent and Mr. Cicco. At one point, they submitted a detailed invoice showing that they had expended $42,900 in time with an actual invoice of $2500, which was the figure on which the president and Mr. Cicco had agreed. For the first nine months of 1993, Mr. Cicco spent 319 hours and Respondent spent 110 hours on the seawall matter. Respondent and his father each attended several special meetings of the residents and Board of Directors devoted to the seawall issue. Eventually, the requisite number of residents approved the seawall repairs, and the Board of Directors authorized Rafor to solicit bids for the proposed repair project. As Rafor's Chief Financial Officer, Respondent signed letters in July 1993 soliciting bids and informing residents of the status of the bidding process. Rafor obtained four bids, and the Board selected a bid in the amount of $65,000. The contractor began the repairs in the fall of 1993 and completed the project at $5000 under budget. In early 1993, Mr. Cicco and Respondent discovered that Shore Manor had failed to register as a condominium and no one at Rafor had obtained the required license as a community association manager. On March 1, 1993, Respondent, as Chief Financial Officer of Rafor, submitted to Petitioner an information request form, evidently in connection with the registration of Shore Manor. On March 11, 1993. Mr. Cicco became licensed as a community association manager. Mr. Cicco and Respondent decided, based on the advice of counsel, that the law required only Mr. Cicco to obtain the license and not also Respondent. Eventually, residents opposed to the seawall project filed a complaint with Petitioner. Following an investigation, Petitioner commenced this case. The parties amicably terminated the management agreement in October 1994. In a related case, Petitioner prosecuted Mr. Cicco for providing services as a community association manager without a license. By Consent Order dated August 29, 1994, the parties settled the case with Mr. Cicco paying a fine of $1500. There is absolutely no evidence of fraud or mismanagement of Shore Manor matters by Rafor, Mr. Cicco, or Respondent. To the contrary, Rafor, and Respondent individually, appear to have provided wise counsel and valuable services to the association. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent individually noticed or conducted meetings of the association. Petitioner tried to prove that Respondent controlled or disbursed funds or prepared budgets or other financial documents for the association. This is a close issue. Respondent answered with proof that he worked under the direct supervision of his licensed father, but it is unlikely that, given the backgrounds and areas of expertise of the two men, Mr. Cicco supervised Respondent as to these matters. However, the president and treasurer of Shore Manor left Respondent no managerial discretion in the control or disbursement of association funds. They were in daily contact with Respondent, who signed checks as a convenience to them and other directors. The president and treasurer delegated no meaningful authority to Respondent or Rafor as to the control or disbursement of association funds and effectively reduced their services to those of a bookkeeper, who is willing to undergo the liability of a signatory on an association checking account. Respondent prepared alternative budgets, but there is no evidence that he presented them to the association with recommendations. Rather, he merely ran spreadsheets based on past costs with some input from various members of the Budget Committee on projected future costs for such items as cable television and utilities. Respondent then provided the output to the Budget Committee, so they could adopt a budget. Again, the services of Rafor and Respondent concerning budgets does not significantly exceed the services offered by a good bookkeeper. The supervision of Board members over Respondent likely was less direct when it came to the matter of preparing tax or information returns. However, Petitioner failed to prove exactly what Respondent prepared, and Respondent himself did not know. It is thus impossible to find that the financial document was a document of any more substance than, for instance, a change-of-address form. The question of coordinating maintenance is also close. Respondent's involvement with maintenance is less than his involvement with financial and budgetary matters, but the statute does not require as much activity in the area of maintenance as it does in financial and budgetary matters. Unlike the other statutory provisions, which speak in terms of "controlling," "disbursing," and "preparing," management regarding maintenance arises merely by "coordinating." Respondent's involvement with the seawall project rises to the level of coordination, unless his testimony is credited that he signed the various letters, such as to the prospective bidders, as a convenience to his father. The ultimate question is therefore whether Respondent performed only clerical or ministerial functions under the direct supervision and control of a licensed manager. Unlike the situation regarding finances, the backgrounds and areas of expertise of Respondent and his father militate in favor of close supervision and control when it comes to maintenance matters. The evidence discloses that Respondent has absolutely no background in construction, while his father has a substantial background in construction. Working on the seawall matter, Mr. Cicco spent nearly three hours for every one that Respondent spent. Moreover, most of Respondent's time was directed toward handling the complaints of dissatisfied association members, while a much greater percentage of Mr. Cicco's time went toward coordinating with the engineer in the design of the repaired seawall. The same relationship between father and son characterizes Respondent's involvement in other maintenance projects during the term of the management agreement. Of course, this defense is unavailable to Respondent during the period that Mr. Cicco was unlicensed from no later than January 1, 1992, through March 11, 1993. Petitioner did not plead a timeframe for the violations. Petitioner's main witness testified that she believed the timeframe extended past even the filing of the Notice to Show Cause. (Tr. p. 83.) Although Respondent might have legitimately claimed confusion on this point to preclude evidence concerning acts earlier than March 11, 1993, he candidly disclaimed such an interpretation when he stated that he thought that the covered period ran from December 1991 or January 1992 to March 11, 1993. (Tr. p. 84.) It is unnecessary to consider the timeframe that Petitioner intended to encompass in the Notice to Show Cause. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent coordinated maintenance for Shore Manor prior to the licensure of his father. Respondent prepared the letter to the attorneys and bid solicitation letters after Mr. Cicco was licensed. The record does not establish that Respondent coordinated maintenance of the seawall or anything else prior to that time.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause against Respondent. ENTERED on July 25, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this on July 25, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 1 (remainder): rejected as not finding of fact. 2-5 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5 (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that such an act, alone, satisfies the statutory criterion. Also, this finding is rejected if it implicitly precludes the finding that Respondent was under Mr. Cicco's supervision in coordinating maintenance. 6: adopted or adopted in substance. Also, this finding is rejected if it implicitly precludes the finding that Respondent was under Mr. Cicco's supervision in coordinating maintenance. 7: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 8: rejected as recitation of evidence. 9 (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (except last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 10 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 11(a)-(c): adopted or adopted in substance as subordinate facts. 12: rejected as subordinate and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: adopted in substance as to financial and budgetary matters, except as to implication that Respondent exercised discretion as to such matters. Rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence as to other matters. 20: rejected as recitation testimony and subordinate. 21: rejected as subordinate. 22-23: rejected as subordinate and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as irrelevant. 5-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the financial and budgetary services were not under the direct supervision of Mr. Cicco. 8: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: James Norred, Acting Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 1950 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Theresa Bender, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Robert A. Cicco, Jr. 9190 Oakhurst Road, Suite 2 Seminole, Florida 34646
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of the Florida Condominium Act (Chapter 718, Florida Statutes) and, if so, whether a cease and desist order and/or civil fine should be imposed. Petitioner contends that the allegations of the Notice to Show Cause have been established and that a cease and desist order and civil fine are appropriate. The Respondent contends that to the extent any violations of the Act have been established, they are only of a technical sort, and do not justify the imposition of any sanction.
Findings Of Fact Nautico Bay Club, Inc., is the developer of the Nautico Bay Condominium, located at 6937 Bay Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Samuel Weintraub was the president of Nautico Bay Club, Inc., and was primarily responsible for conducting its day-to-day business activities. The Nautico Bay Club Condominium includes 48 residential units. The first units were sold on December 1, 1980. The final closing on the 48 units occurred on December 31, 1980. The Respondent failed to call an annual meeting of the unit owners at Nautico Bay Condominium during 1981. The Respondent was having some difficulty communicating with some of the unit owners because they lived outside of the country. Nonetheless, the Respondent did not give written notice to unit owners of an annual meeting during 1981, did not post notice of an annual meeting during 1981 on the condominium property, did not send a notice of an annual meeting during 1981 by mail to each unit owner, and did not retain a post office certificate of mailing as proof of mailing of notice to unit owners. No annual meeting of unit owners was conducted during 1981. As the developer who maintained control over condominium activities during 1981, the Respondent was obliged to call and conduct an annual meeting of unit owners. The Respondent retained a private public accounting firm to prepare a financial statement for the Nautico Bay Club Condominium for the year ending December 31, 1981. The statement was completed on February 10, 1982. The Respondent remained in charge of the administration of the condominium association at that time. The Respondent made no effort to provide copies of the financial statement by mail or personal delivery to each unit owner. While some unit owners may have obtained copies of the financial statement within 60 days of December 31, 1981, most did not. At least one unit owner did not receive a copy of the financial statement until sometime in November, 1982. On or about September 17, 1982, the Respondent turned over operation of the condominium association to the Nautico Bay Club Condominium Association. The Respondent's president, Mr. Weintraub, offered to have the financial records reviewed by the independent certified public accounting firm that he had utilized in the past. The unit owners protested and asked instead that he pay to have the documents reviewed by a firm of their choosing. The Respondent did not have the financial records and statements reviewed by an independent accounting firm. He offered to have them reviewed by the firm he had utilized in the past, but the unit owners declined that offer. In the prospectus that the Respondent offered to potential unit purchasers, an estimated monthly operating budget and an estimated annual operating budget for the condominium, and an estimated monthly operating budget and an estimated annual operating budget per unit were set out. No other proposed budget was issued for 1981, nor does it appear that one was required, since the first persons who purchased units did not do so until December, 1980. No proposed annual budget of common expenses was prepared for the 1982 calendar year. Instead, the Respondent merely utilized the estimated budgets that had been set out in the prospectus. These were never, however, presented as a proposed annual budget for 1982. The Respondent did not provide as a part of its budgets for 1981 or 1982 for reserve accounts for capital expenditures and deferred maintenance. Accounts were not established to reserve funds for roof replacement, building painting, pavement resurfacing, and the like. The estimated replacement costs of such items were not a part of any budget prepared by Respondent. The funds were neither established nor funded by the Respondent. Mr. Weintraub testified that the reason the accounts were not established is that he had difficulty collecting assessments from unit owners. It does not appear, however, that the Respondent made any effort to collect assessments from unit owners, nor that the accounts were established with such funds as could have been collected.
The Issue The issues presented for determination are whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (FHFC) determinations regarding the applications responding to Request for Applications 2019-116 SAIL Financing of Affordable Multifamily Housing Development to Be Used In Conjunction With Tax-Exempt Bond Financing And Non-Competitive Housing Credits (the RFA), were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; and whether the award to Respondent Christian Manor Restoration, LLC (Christian Manor), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications of the RFA.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Parkwood is an applicant responding to the RFA. The Parkwood application, assigned number 2020-422BS, was deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Respondent Christian Manor is an applicant responding to the RFA. The Christian Manor application, assigned number 2020-405BS, was deemed eligible and was selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. FHFC is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. The purpose of FHFC is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. FHFC is tasked with allocating a portion of the certain Disaster Recovery funding allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development pursuant to the State of Florida Action Plan for Disaster Recovery. Waterview was an applicant responding to the RFA. The Waterview application, assigned number 2020-424BSN, was deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. FHFC is authorized to allocate housing credits and other funding by means of requests for proposals or other competitive solicitation. See § 420.507(48), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 67-60 (governing the competitive solicitation process). FHFC allocates its competitive funding pursuant to the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications (RA). An RA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA was issued on November 6, 2019. It was modified several times, and the final RFA was issued on December 20, 2019. The application deadline was December 30, 2019. Sixty-five applications were submitted in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to FHFC’s Board of Directors (the Board). The Review Committee found 57 applications eligible, seven applications ineligible, and one application withdrew from the selection process. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 13 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding, including Christian Manor. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On March 6, 2020, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee for the RFA. At 9:35 a.m. that same day, all RFA applicants received notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for funding consideration and that certain eligible applicants were preliminarily selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets on the FHFC website, www.floridahousing.org: (1) listing the Board-approved scoring results for the RFA, and (2) identifying the applications which FHFC proposed to fund. There is no dispute that Petitioner and Christian Manor received this notice. In the March 6, 2020, posting, FHFC announced its intention to award funding to 13 applications including Christian Manor. No challenges were made to the terms of the RFA. RANKING AND SELECTION PROCESS Through the RFA, FHFC seeks to award an estimated total of $71,360,000 in SAIL Financing, as well as tax-exempt bonds, to assist in financing the development of affordable rental housing for tenants who are either low-income or extremely low-income. The available SAIL financing was to be divided so that a certain amount was targeted both geographically, between Large, Medium, and Small Counties, and demographically, between applicants proposing housing for families and those proposing housing for the elderly. Applicants who are awarded tax-exempt bond financing are also entitled to an award of non-competitive federal low-income housing tax credits. FHFC made approximately $5,611,650 in National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) funding available to applicants committing to build either new construction or rehabilitation of family or elderly housing for “Persons with Special Needs.” Applications in this RFA are scored in two categories for a possible total of ten points. Five points each can be awarded for Submission of Pre- Approved Principal Disclosure Form and Local Government Contributions. Because so many applicants achieve a perfect score of ten, the RFA establishes a series of tiebreakers referred to as a “sorting order,” designed to rank order applications for funding selection. The RFA set the following sorting order, after listing applications from highest score to lowest score: By eligibility for Proximity Funding Preference; then By eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference; then By Leveraging Level number 1 through 5; then By eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Preference; then By randomly assigned lottery number. The RFA also established a series of funding goals. Those goals were: One New Construction Application in a Large County serving Elderly residents. Three New Construction Applications in a Large County serving Family residents, with a preference that at least two of such Applications being from “Self-Sourced” Applicants. One New Construction Application in a Medium County serving Elderly residents. Two New Construction Applications in a Medium County, with a preference that at least one such Application being from a self-sourced Applicant. The RFA designated each county in Florida as either Large, Medium, or Small. The RFA also allowed an applicant to designate itself as “Self- Sourced,” which requires applicants proposing new construction family projects to provide a portion of their development funding themselves, in an amount of at least half of its SAIL Request Amount (or $1 million, whichever is greater). The RFA provided that eligible applicants be assigned a Leveraging Level 1 through 5, with 1 being the best score, based on the total Corporation SAIL Funding amount relative to all other eligible applicants’ total Corporation SAIL Funding amount. The Leveraging Level is a comparative tool to rank applicants based on how much SAIL funding each applicant has requested per affordable housing unit (Set-Aside Unit) it proposes to construct. Calculation of the Leveraging Level includes adjusting the total amount of SAIL funds requested by an applicant based on a variety of factors, including development type, development location, construction method to be employed, and whether a Public Housing Authority is part of the applicant, then dividing that adjusted amount by the applicant’s proposed number of Set-Aside Units. For example, the SAIL Request per Set-Aside Unit is reduced by ten percent for applicants proposing a Mid-Rise Four-Story building, while applicants proposing Garden Apartments or Townhouses do not receive this adjustment, and applicants proposing Five-Story or Six-story Mid-Rises or High-Rises get a greater reduction. Applicants whose adjusted SAIL Request per Set-Aside Unit is among the lowest ten percent of all calculated SAIL Request amounts per Set-Aside Unit in this RFA are assigned Leveraging Level 1; the next 20 percent are Leveraging Level 2; the next 20 percent are Leveraging Level 3; the next 20 percent are Leveraging Level 4; and the highest 30 percent are Leveraging Level 5. The RFA employed a “funding test,” requiring that the full amount of an applicant’s SAIL request be available for award when that applicant is under consideration for funding; partial funding awards are not permitted. Sufficient SAIL funding must be available in both the county size group (Large, Medium, or Small), and the demographic category (elderly or family) for an applicant to be selected. Within the county size group, the RFA contains a pour-over provision for any unallocated Small County funding to be divided between the Medium and Large County funding availability; and any unallocated Medium County funding would be made available to Large County applicants. Further, in order to promote geographic distribution of funding awards, the RFA included a County Award Tally mechanism. If an applicant was selected in a particular county, a second applicant would not generally be selected from that same county if there was any eligible applicant available (even with a lower total application score) from any other county, from which an applicant had not already been selected for funding. The RFA set forth a very specific funding selection order, taking into consideration two specific counties (Miami-Dade and Broward), county size groups, development category (new construction or rehabilitation), demographic group (elderly or family), and self-sourced status. CHRISTIAN MANOR’S APPLICATION One of the criteria in the RFA for scoring and ranking applications involves proximity to certain services. The RFA provides in relevant part: e. Proximity The Application may earn proximity points based on the distance between the Development Location Point [(DLP)] and the Bus or Rail Transit Service (if Private Transportation is not selected at question 5.e.(2)(a) of Exhibit A) and the Community Services stated in Exhibit A. Proximity points are awarded according to the Transit and Community Service Scoring Charts outlined in Item 2 of Exhibit C. Proximity points will not be applied towards the total score. Proximity points will only be used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference, as outlined in the chart below. Requirements and Funding Preference Qualifications All Large County Applications must achieve a minimum number of Transit Service Points and achieve a minimum number of total proximity points to be eligible for funding ... All Applications that achieve a higher number of total proximity points may also qualify for the Proximity Funding Preference as outlined below. Community Services (Maximum 4 Points for each service, up to 3 services) Applicants may provide the location information and distances for three of the following four Community Services on which to base the Application’s Community Services Score. The Community Service Scoring Charts, which reflect the methodology for calculating the points awarded based on the distances, are outlined in Exhibit C. Location of coordinates for Community Services Coordinates must represent a point that is on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the building where the service is located. * * * Eligible Community Services Grocery Store - This service is defined in Exhibit B and may be selected by all Applicants. Public School - This service is defined in Exhibit B and may be selected only if the Applicant selected the Family Demographic Commitment. Medical Facility - This service is defined in Exhibit B and may be selected by all Applicants. Pharmacy - This service is defined in Exhibit B and may be selected by all Applicants. Scoring Proximity to Services (Transit and Community) (b) Bus and Rail Transit Services and Community Services Applicants that wish to receive proximity points for Transit Services other than Private Transportation or points for any community service must provide latitude and longitude coordinates for that service, stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place, and the distance between the [DLP] and the coordinates for the service. The distances between the DLP and the latitude and longitude coordinates for each service will be the basis for awarding proximity points. Failure to provide the distance for any service will result in zero points for that service. The Transit and Community Service Scoring Charts reflecting the methodology for calculating the points awarded based on the distances are in Exhibit C. (emphasis added). Applicants from a Large County, including Palm Beach County (where Christian Manor is located), must receive at least 10.5 Proximity Points (including at least 2.0 Transit Service points) to be eligible for consideration for funding, and at least 12.5 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. In its Application, Christian Manor selected three public bus stops for its Transit Services, at claimed distances of .04 miles, .03 miles, and .51 miles from its proposed DLP. It was awarded 5 points for Transit Services. The validity of Christian Manor’s claimed Transit Services is not disputed. For its Community Services, Christian Manor identified the following services: Grocery Store - Aldi Food Market, 2481 Okeechobee Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, at a distance of 0.73 miles Medical Facility - MD Now Urgent Care, 2007 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33409, at a distance of 0.82 miles Pharmacy - Target (CVS Pharmacy), 1760 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, at a distance of 0.70 miles. The Aldi Food Market meets the definition of a Grocery Store in the RFA. The MD Now Urgent Care meets the definition of a Medical Facility in the RFA. Christian Manor identified each service by latitude and longitude coordinates and by distance. These coordinates, however, did not accurately reflect the doorway threshold of either the Aldi Food Market or the MD Now Urgent Care Center. The latitude and longitude coordinates provided for the Grocery Store were erroneous. The listed coordinates identify a point over 0.9 miles away from the doorway threshold of the Aldi Food Market. The latitude and longitude coordinates provided for the Medical Facility identify a point over 0.8 miles away from the doorway threshold of the MD Now Urgent Care Center. The actual distance between the Aldi Food Market and the DLP is .73 miles. The actual distance between the street address of the MD Now Urgent Care Center and the DLP is .82 miles. Based on these identified services, Christian Manor was awarded 3 points for the Grocery Store, 3 points for the Pharmacy, and 2.5 points for the Medical Facility. The points awarded for the Pharmacy are not disputed. Parkwood argues that Christian Manor should be awarded no proximity points for its identified Grocery Store or Medical Facility. Parkwood does not argue that the Aldi Food Market is not a Grocery Store as defined by the RFA, nor does it argue that the MD Now Urgent Care is not a Medical Facility as defined by the RFA. Parkwood does not question the identified addresses for the Community Services or contest that the distances between the identified Aldi Food Market and the MD Now Urgent Care and the DLP are .73 miles and .82 miles respectively. Rather, Parkwood’s argument is narrowly focused on the fact the erroneous longitude and latitude coordinates for the grocery and medical services are not at the doorway threshold. Parkwood would have FHFC ignore the actual addresses and distances because of the error in coordinates. Respondents argue the mistake in coordinates was a minor irregularity. The RFA specifically gives FHFC the right to waive minor irregularities. Rule 67-60.008 provides the criteria that FHFC is to consider when evaluating whether an error should be waived as a minor irregularity. Minor irregularities are those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Ms. Button testified that an evaluating FHFC Review Committee member does not use the latitude or longitude coordinates to confirm the accuracy of the distances provided. Rather, the inclusion of the requirement for such coordinates dates back to when measurements were done by surveyors, who would certify the distances on a special form. FHFC no longer requires the surveyor certification form. FHFC now requires an applicant to self-designate the community services and proximity requirements. FHFC considers the actual distances as the most relevant factors when evaluating points awarded for proximity from the DLP to a selected Community Service. Ms. Button also testified that listing the incorrect latitude and longitude coordinates could, in this particular case, be waived as a minor irregularity. She explained that because the proximity points are based on the distance between the DLP and the identified services, and because the distances claimed in Christian Manor’s application were correct, the proximity points awarded were also correct. Ms. Button opined that Christian Manor did not garner a competitive advantage from the coordinate errors in the application. The coordinates did not create any uncertainty in the application as to what Community Services were identified or how far they were from the DLP. Petitioner pointed to no evidence of any such advantage. Ms. Button also testified that the error in coordinates did not result in any harm to the public or to FHFC. Again, Petitioner provided no evidence of such harm. Rather, Petitioner relies on a different application in a different RA, where the scorer for FHFC had determined that an applicant should be found ineligible because that applicant had failed to list the proper coordinates for one of its listed Community Services. That applicant, however, never challenged FHFC’s finding, and therefore never presented evidence or argument contesting this finding of ineligibility. It is unclear whether the applicant in the other case was found ineligible for other reasons as well, where that applicant was ranked, and whether there were other circumstances that would have affected the scoring and ranking in that particular RA. Ms. Button testified that if the error in coordinates had been challenged, FHFC would then have examined the particular circumstances of the situation to determine whether or not the error should have been waived as a minor irregularity. There is no dispute that the Christian Manor application contained a similar error, and that if Christian Manor had not been able to demonstrate that the claimed distances to the grocery store and medical facility were accurate, that error would have resulted in the application being found ineligible. But there is insufficient evidence to determine whether Petitioner is comparing “apples to apples” when relying on this other situation. Any reference to this other applicant in the other RA is unreliable and unconvincing. Regardless, in this case, the undersigned examined the circumstances of Christian Manor’s application and finds based on the preponderance of the evidence (made up of the stipulated facts and Ms. Button’s unrefuted testimony) any inaccuracies in the longitude and latitude coordinates provided by Christian Manor constitute a minor irregularity that may be waived by FHFC. Based on the facts established, the award to Christian Manor is reasonable and neither erroneous, arbitrary, nor capricious. WATERVIEW’S APPLICATION One of the requirements of the RFA is that applicants demonstrate certain Ability to Proceed elements. One of those elements is as follows: Appropriate Zoning. Demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline the entire proposed Development site is appropriately zoned and consistent with local land use regulations regarding density and intended use or that the proposed Development site is legally non-conforming by providing, as Attachment 9 to Exhibit A, the applicable properly completed and executed verification form: The Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations form (Form Rev. 08-18) [(Zoning Form)]. As part of its application, Waterview submitted a Zoning Form executed by Elisabeth Dang, a City Public Official. The Zoning Form states, among other requirements: The undersigned service provider confirms that, as of the date that this form was signed, the above referenced Development’s proposed number of units, density, and intended use are consistent with current land use regulations and zoning designation or, if the Development consists of rehabilitation, the intended use is allowed as a legally non-conforming use. To the best of my knowledge, there are no hearings or approvals required to obtain the appropriate zoning classification. Assuming compliance with the applicable land use regulations, there are no known conditions that would preclude construction or rehabilitation of the referenced Development on the proposed site. Once it receives the Zoning Form, FHFC does not require that an applicant demonstrate in its application that it will be capable of constructing the proposed development, nor does FHFC attempt to independently verify that an applicant will be capable of constructing the proposed development during the application process. FHFC does not require an applicant to submit engineering drawings or final site plans during the application process, nor does the RFA contain any restrictions or requirements concerning the height of any proposed buildings. All of the details and verifications concerning the actual construction of the proposed project are evaluated during the credit underwriting process. Based partially on its identification of Development Type in its application to FHFC as “Mid-rise 4 stories,” Waterview’s adjusted SAIL request per affordable unit resulted in it being assigned Leveraging Level 4. If it had instead identified a Development Type of “Garden Apartments,” it would have received Leveraging Level 5. Petitioner argues that Waterview will be unable to construct the four- story mid-rise building identified in its application while also meeting a 40- foot height limitation in the local zoning code. As explained above, for the same reasons the undersigned sustained the objections to Petitioner’s exhibits relating to zoning issues and feasibility of constructing the proposed development, the undersigned finds at this stage (eligibility, scoring, and ranking), FHFC was not required to independently verify that the proposed development would comply with all building and zoning regulations.4 The evidence established that Waterview submitted the required Zoning Form executed by a person with authority from the City to execute such a form. There was no evidence presented that Waterview’s Zoning Form was improperly completed, or that it was obtained through fraud or illegality. Moreover, there was no convincing evidence that the Zoning Form was improperly completed. FHFC did not make an independent determination as to whether a proposed project would comply with all local zoning requirements, but instead relied on the representation of the local official who executed the Zoning Form. Petitioner also argues Waterview should be deemed ineligible because it presented different information to the City than it presented to FHFC in its application. Specifically, Petitioner challenges use of the term “garden apartment” by Waterview in materials it submitted to the City, but not submitted to FHFC; and the impact of Waterview’s proposed development on wetlands. The undersigned rejects these arguments for multiple reasons. 4 Had Waterview been awarded funds, but its proposed development could not be built due to zoning restrictions, that would be addressed during the credit underwriting process. First, Petitioner alleges that the presentation of additional information to the City somehow conflicts with the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form that applicants are required to sign which provides in relevant part: “In eliciting information from third parties required by and/or included in this Application, the Applicant has provided such parties information that accurately describes the Development as proposed in this Application.” Ms. Button, however, testified that providing more information to the local government than is presented to FHFC would not in itself conflict with this statement in this form. Second, Mr. Savino’s deposition testimony established he had a number of communications with the City regarding the proposed project and submitted numerous documents for the City to review. Mr. Savino testified he used the term “garden apartments” when discussing the project with the City to refer to apartment complexes, not to the FHFC definition of “garden apartments” as being three stories or less. There is no evidence rebutting Mr. Savino’s version of events, nor is there any indication what the City understood the term to mean. Third, Petitioner argues that Waterview’s proposed project might have impacted wetlands on the property, contrary to relevant regulations. However, Mr. Savino testified that Waterview could build the project without impacting wetlands. Waterview also included among the documents submitted to the City a Revised Preliminary Site Plan which indicated that the Waterview development would not impact wetlands. Regardless, even if it had been shown that the Waterview project would impact wetlands, this would only impact its ability to receive NHTF funds; it would not have any impact on whether FHFC deems an applicant eligible for funding under this RFA. Ms. Button testified that each applicant is required to check a box on the application indicating whether it is seeking this special funding, but none are required to take it. This special funding is not considered by FHFC when evaluating an applicant’s funding sources during the application review process, and FHFC does not even evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for the NHTF during the scoring process. Even if Petitioner could prove Waterview would not be able to qualify for the special funding, there would be no impact on the scoring of its application. Ultimately, Petitioner presented no evidence that the City had somehow been misled into signing the Zoning Form required by the RFA, or that it had not understood that the proposed project involved a four-story building. The fact that the Ms. Dang did sign the Zoning Form indicates that she believed the City had all the information it needed to do so. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, Waterview’s application is eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decisions: (1) finding the applications of Waterview Preserve, LLC, and Christian Manor Restoration, LLC, eligible for funding; (2) awarding the RFA funding to Christian Manor Restoration, LLC; and (3) dismissing the formal written protest of BDG Parkwood Lofts, LP. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley McMullen 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: THE PARTIES Berkeley is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,500,000 in CDBG Development funding; $2,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $844,699 in non-competitive housing credits. The Berkeley Application, assigned number 2020-017D, was preliminarily deemed ineligible for consideration for funding. Brisas is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $5,000,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,674,839 in non-competitive housing credits. The Brisas Application, assigned number 2020-056D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Northside is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,300,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,588,014 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (“MMRB”). The Northside Application, assigned number 2020-024D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Beacon Place is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,925,500 in CDBG Development funding; $4,320,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,764,203 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in MMRB. The Beacon Place Application, assigned number 2020-045DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bella Vista is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $8,000,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,450,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $609,629 in non-competitive housing credits; and $13,000,000 in MMRB. The Bella Vista Application, assigned number 2020-038DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Solaris is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,420,000 in CDBG Development funding; $4,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $937,232 in non-competitive housing credits. The Solaris Application, assigned number 2020-039D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Metro Grande is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,175,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,041,930 in non-competitive housing credits. The Metro Grande Application, assigned number 2020-041D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Sierra Bay is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,650,000 in CDBG Development funding; $3,300,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,074,173 in non-competitive housing credits; and $16,000,000 in MMRB. The Sierra Bay Application, assigned number 2020-040DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bembridge is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,800,000 in CDBG Development funding; $564,122 in non-competitive housing credits; and $10,100,000 in MMRB. The Bembridge Application, assigned number 2020-046DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. East Pointe is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $4,680,000 in CDBG Development funding and $690,979 in non-competitive housing credits. The East Pointe Application, assigned number 2020-053D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and, for purposes of these consolidated cases, is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is tasked with distributing a portion of the CDBG-DR funding allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), pursuant to the State of Florida Action Plan for Disaster Recovery. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS AND RFA 2019-102 Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits and other named funding by section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process. Rule 67-60.009(1) provides that parties wishing to protest any aspect of a Florida Housing competitive solicitation must do so pursuant to section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a request for applications. Rule 67-60.009(4) provides that a request for application is considered a “request for proposal” for purposes of section 120.57(3)(f). The RFA was issued on July 30, 2019, with responses due on August 27, 2019. The RFA was modified four times and the application deadline was extended to September 24, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms and specifications of the RFA. Section Five of the RFA included a list of 48 “eligibility items” that an applicant was required to satisfy to be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. Applications that met the eligibility standards would then be awarded points for satisfying RFA criteria, with the highest scoring applications being selected for funding. No total point items are in dispute. Proximity Point items are contested as to the Beacon Place, East Pointe, and Bembridge Applications. Applicants could select whether they would be evaluated as Priority I, II, or III applications. All of the parties to these consolidated cases identified themselves as Priority I applications. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award an estimated $76,000,000 of CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding to areas impacted by Hurricane Irma, and in areas that experienced a population influx because of migration from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricane Irma. Florida Housing will award up to $66,000,000 for CDBG Development funding and an additional $10,000,000 for CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Applicants were not required to request CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Forty-four applications were submitted in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible for funding. The Review Committee found 8 applications ineligible, including that of Berkeley. Two applications were withdrawn. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On December 13, 2019, the Board met and accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee. The Board preliminarily awarded funding to 12 applications, including those of Sierra Bay, Solaris, Metro Grande, East Pointe, and Bembridge. Petitioners Berkeley, Brisas, Northside, Beacon Place, and Bella Vista timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. THE BERKELEY APPLICATION As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to identify an Authorized Principal Representative. According to the RFA, the Authorized Principal Representative: must be a natural person Principal of the Applicant listed on the Principal Disclosure Form; must have signature authority to bind the Applicant entity; (c) must sign the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form submitted in this Application; (d) must sign the Site Control Certification form submitted in this Application; and (e) if funded, will be the recipient of all future documentation that requires a signature. As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to submit an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. As an eligibility item, the RFA also required applicants to submit a Site Control Certification form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. In section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A of the RFA, the applicant is directed to enter the contact information of its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley entered the name, organization, and contact information for Jennie D. Lagmay as its Authorized Principal Representative, in response to section 3.e.(1). The name of Jennie D. Lagmay was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form required by the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form and the Site Control Certification form were executed by Jonathan L. Wolf, not Jennie D. Lagmay, the designated Authorized Principal Representative. On both forms, Mr. Wolf is identified as “Manager of Berkeley Landing GP, LLC; General Partner of Berkeley Landing, Ltd.” Jonathan L. Wolf is listed on the Principal Disclosure Form. Aside from section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, Jennie D. Lagmay’s name is not found in the Berkeley Application. Florida Housing determined that the Berkeley Application was ineligible for an award of funding for three reasons: 1) the Authorized Principal Representative listed was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form; 2) the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative; and 3) the Site Control Certification was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Two other applications for this RFA were found ineligible for identical reasons: Thornton Place, Application No. 2020-020D; and Berkshire Square, Application No. 2020-034D. In these, as in the Berkeley Application, Jennie D. Lagmay was named as the Authorized Principal Representative in section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, but Jonathan L. Wolf executed the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form and the Site Control Certification form as the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley concedes it made an error in placing the name of Ms. Lagmay in section 3.e.(1), but argues that this constituted a minor irregularity that should have been waived by Florida Housing. Berkeley contends that the entirety of its Application makes plain that Jonathan D. Wolf is in fact its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley argues that Florida Housing should waive the minor irregularity and determine that the Berkeley Application is eligible for funding. Berkeley points out that only two members of the Review Committee, Rachel Grice and Heather Strickland, scored the portions of the Berkeley Application that led to the ineligibility recommendation. Ms. Grice determined that the Authorized Principal Representative listed in the Berkeley Application was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form. Ms. Strickland determined that neither the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form nor the Site Control Certification form was executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Neither Ms. Grice nor Ms. Strickland conducted a minor irregularity analysis for the Berkeley Application. Rule 67-60.008, titled “Right to Waive Minor Irregularities,” provides as follows: Minor irregularities are those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Berkeley contends that because a minor irregularity analysis was not conducted by the Review Committee members, the Board was deprived of a necessary explanation for the preliminary recommendations of Ms. Grice and Ms. Strickland. Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations, agreed that the Review Committee members did not perform a minor irregularity analysis but testified that none was required given the nature of the discrepancy in the Berkeley Application. Ms. Button performed a minor irregularity analysis as Florida Housing’s corporate representative in this proceeding and concluded that the error could not be waived or corrected without providing an unfair competitive advantage to Berkeley. Ms. Button testified that the fact that the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms could not be considered a minor irregularity because the application demonstrated conflicting and contradictory information, creating uncertainty as to the applicant’s intentions. She stated that Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of the application. Ms. Button stated that Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to decide what the applicant intended when the information provided in the application is contradictory. Berkeley points to the fact that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form, signed by Mr. Wolf, includes the following language: “The undersigned is authorized to bind the Applicant entity to this certification and warranty of truthfulness and completeness of the Application.” Berkeley argues that it should have been clear to Florida Housing that Mr. Wolf is the person authorized to bind the company and that the inclusion of Ms. Lagmay’s name in section 3.e.(1) was in the nature of a typographical error. Florida Housing points out that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form also includes the following language below the signature line: “NOTE: Provide this form as Attachment 1 to the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Florida Housing notes that the Site Control Certification form includes similar language: “This form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Berkeley contends that Florida Housing was well aware that Jonathan L. Wolf has been the named Authorized Principal Representative on multiple applications filed under the umbrella of Wendover Housing Partners, the general developer behind Berkeley. In at least one of those previous applications, Ms. Lagmay, an employee of Wendover Housing Partners, was identified as the “contact person.” Ms. Button responded that Review Committee members are specifically prohibited from using personal knowledge of a general development entity in a specific application submitted by a single purpose entity. She further testified that if Florida Housing employees were to use their personal knowledge of an experienced developer to waive errors in a specific application, applicants who had not previously submitted applications would be at a competitive disadvantage. Ms. Button testified that Berkeley was established as a single purpose entity in accordance with the RFA’s requirements. She testified that she has known general developers to structure these single purpose entities in different ways, depending on the requirements of an RFA. An applicant might designate an employee, such as Ms. Lagmay, as a principal to give her experience as a developer. Again, Ms. Button emphasized that Florida Housing is not in a position to decide what the applicant “really meant” when there is a discrepancy in the information provided. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing has determined in prior RFAs that an applicant was ineligible because the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms. Florida Housing rightly concluded that there are only two possible ways to interpret the Berkeley Application. If Ms. Lagmay was the Authorized Principal Representative, then the application is nonresponsive because she was not listed on the Principal Disclosure form and she did not sign the required certification forms. If Ms. Lagmay was not the Authorized Principal Representative, the application is nonresponsive because no Authorized Principal Representative was identified. There is no way to tell from the four corners of the application which of these alternatives is the correct one. Florida Housing cannot step in and cure the defect in the application by making its own educated guess as to the intended identity of the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of ineligibility was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA, or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE SIERRA BAY APPLICATION The parties stipulated to the facts regarding the Sierra Bay Application, which are incorporated into this Recommended Order. Florida Housing deemed the Sierra Bay Application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Sierra Bay for funding. In order to demonstrate site control, the RFA required execution of the Site Control Certification form. Site control documentation had to be included in the application. One way to demonstrate site control was to include an “eligible contract.” The RFA required that certain conditions be met in order to be considered an “eligible contract.” One of those requirements was that the contract “must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance.” Sierra Bay acknowledged that the site control documentation included within its application did not meet the “eligible contract” requirement because it failed to include language regarding specific performance as a remedy for the seller’s default. Sierra Bay agreed that the omission of the specific performance language was not a minor irregularity and that Sierra Bay’s Application is ineligible for funding under the terms of the RFA. THE SOLARIS APPLICATION The RFA specified that a Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must hold 100 percent ownership in the land of any qualifying Priority I application. The RFA defined “Community Land Trust” as: A 501(c)(3) which acquires or develops parcels of land for the primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease which retains a preemptive option to purchase any such structural improvement at a price determined by a formula designed to ensure the improvement remains affordable in perpetuity. The RFA provided that if a Community Land Trust is the Land Owner, the Community Land Trust must provide the following documentation as Attachment 2 to the application to demonstrate that it qualifies as a Community Land Trust: The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier and that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is to provide or preserve affordable housing; and The Community Land Trust must provide a list that meets one of the following criteria to demonstrate experience of the Community Land Trust with owning property: (i) at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns; or (ii) one parcel of land that the Community Land Trust owns, consisting of a number of units that equals or exceeds at least 25 percent of the units in the proposed Development. The RFA required that the proposed development must be affordable in perpetuity. For purposes of the RFA, “perpetuity” means 99 years or more. Solaris identified Residential Options of Florida, Inc. (“Residential Options”), as the Community Land Trust owner in its Priority 1 Application. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included the Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Original Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on July 30, 2014. The purpose of the corporation as stated in the Original Articles was as follows: Said corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Amended Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on September 20, 2019. The Amended Articles retained the boilerplate statement of purpose of the Original Articles, but added the following paragraph: This shall include the purpose of empowering individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to successfully obtain and maintain affordable and inclusive housing of their choice and to provide affordable housing and preserve the affordability of housing for low- income or moderate income people, including people with disabilities, in perpetuity. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included the Articles of Incorporation of ROOF Housing Trust, Inc. (“ROOF Housing Trust”) filed with the Division of Corporations on July 17, 2017. The purpose of the corporation as stated in these Articles includes the following: “to acquire land to be held in perpetuity for the primary purpose of providing affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities.” Finally, Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included Articles of Merger, which were filed with the Division of Corporations on September 10, 2019. The Articles of Merger indicated that the Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust had merged, with Residential Options standing as the surviving corporation. The petitioners contesting the Solaris Application raise several issues. The first issue is whether the RFA requires only that the entity named as the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether the entity had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. The Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application, Residential Options, existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. The second issue is whether the June 28, 2018, date applies only to the existence of the Community Land Trust or whether the RFA requires that the Community Land Trust have been in existence and have had a stated purpose to provide or preserve affordable housing and have met the ownership experience criteria as of June 28, 2018. It is questionable whether Solaris would be eligible for funding if the RFA required the latter, because Residential Options did not have a stated purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing prior to its merger with ROOF Housing Trust, at least no such purpose as could be gleaned from the four corners of the Solaris Application. The third issue is whether the RFA’s definition of “Community Land Trust” requires the qualifying entity to have existing ground leases at the time of the application. Florida Housing and Solaris concede that Residential Options did not have operative ground leases at the time Solaris submitted its application. Hurricane Irma struck Puerto Rico and Florida in September 2017. Ms. Button testified that in creating this RFA, Florida Housing wanted to weed out opportunistic community land trusts created only for the purpose of obtaining this funding. Florida Housing initially proposed an RFA requirement that the community land trust have existed as of September 2017, but discovered through workshops with interested parties that the early date would exclude legitimate Community Land Trusts that had been established in response to the storm. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s intent was to make this RFA as inclusive as practicable. Florida Housing therefore selected June 28, 2018, as a date that would exclude opportunists without penalizing the genuine responders to the natural disaster. Both Florida Housing and Solaris point to the text of the RFA requirement to demonstrate that the date of June 28, 2018, should be read to apply only to whether the Community Land Trust existed as of that date. Solaris argues that the RFA states three independent criteria for eligibility: 1) that the Community Land Trust “has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier”; 2) that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is1 to provide or preserve affordable housing; and 3) the Community Land Trust must demonstrate its property ownership experience, one means of doing which is to name at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the first criterion by providing its Articles of Incorporation showing it has existed since July 30, 2014. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the second criterion by providing its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, which stated the purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the third criterion by identifying two properties in Immokalee, Independence Place, and Liberty Place as parcels that it currently owns. Florida Housing thus reached the conclusion that Residential Options met the definition of a Community Land Trust in the RFA as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing argues that, according to the definition in the RFA, a Community Land Trust must be a 501(c)(3) corporation, which Residential Options clearly is. It must acquire or develop parcels of land, which it has done. Finally, it must have the “primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s interpretation of the RFA’s Community Land Trust definition was that if Residential Options had the primary purpose of providing affordable housing in perpetuity through the use of long term ground leases, the definition has been met even if Residential Options had not actually entered into any ground leases at the 1 Both Florida Housing and Solaris emphasize that the second criterion is stated in the present tense, which suggests that it does not intend a backward look to June 28, 2018. time it submitted its application. This is not the only way to read the RFA’s definition, but it is not an unreasonable reading, particularly in light of Florida Housing’s stated intent to make the RFA as inclusive as possible in terms of the participation of legitimate community land trusts. Sheryl Soukup, the Executive Director of Residential Options, testified via deposition. Ms. Soukup testified that in 2017, Residential Options realized there was a need for housing for people with disabilities and decided to become a nonprofit housing developer of properties that would be kept affordable in perpetuity. To that end, ROOF Housing Trust was created to act as the community land trust for the properties developed by Residential Options. The two companies had identical Boards of Directors and Ms. Soukup served as Executive Director of both entities. In its application to the IRS for 501(c)(3) status, ROOF Housing Trust included the following: The organization does not own any property yet. ROOF Housing Trust intends to own vacant land, single family homes, and multi-family units. Some of the units will be provided as rental units. ROOF Housing Trust will sell some of the houses for homeownership, while retaining the land on which they are located. The land will be leased to homeowners at a nominal fee to make the purchase price affordable, using the community land trust model. Ground leases and warranty deeds not been developed yet [sic], but will be based on the sample documents provided by the Florida Community Land Trust Institute.[2] Ms. Soukup described ROOF Housing Trust as “a vehicle by which Residential Options of Florida could act as a community land trust…. [I]t was always the intention of Residential Options of Florida to develop and put into 2 The ROOF Housing Trust 501(c)(3) application was not a part of the Solaris Application. It was included as an exhibit to Ms. Soukup’s deposition. a community land trust property so that it would remain affordable in perpetuity for use by people of intellectual and development [sic] disabilities.” Residential Options acquired the aforementioned Independence Place and Liberty Place properties but never conveyed ownership to ROOF Housing Trust. Residential Options acted as a de facto community land trust. No ground leases have yet been entered into because the properties are at present rented directly by Residential Options to persons with developmental disabilities. Ms. Soukup testified that at the time ROOF Housing Trust was created, the Board of Residential Options was undecided whether to create a separate entity to act as a community land trust or to incorporate that function into the existing entity. The decision to incorporate ROOF Housing Trust was based on the Board’s intuition that a separate corporation would “allow us the most flexibility in the future.” In any event, Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were functionally the same entity. Ms. Soukup testified that plans to merge the two companies emerged from a situation in which Collier County refused to allow Residential Options to convey its two properties to ROOF Housing Trust. The Board that controlled both companies decided that there was no point in maintaining separate legal entities if ROOF Housing Trust could not perform its main function. As noted above, Articles of Merger were filed on September 10, 2019. Northside points to minutes from Residential Options’s Board meetings in August and September 2019, as indicating that the Board itself did not believe that Residential Options was a community land trust prior to the merger with ROOF Housing Trust. Northside contends that the September 2019 merger was initiated and completed mainly because Residential Options had been approached about serving as the Community Land Trust for the applications of Solaris and Sierra Bay in this RFA. Northside points to the “frenzied activity” by Residential Options to create an entity meeting the definition of Community Land Trust in the days just before the September 24, 2019, application deadline. Northside argues that Residential Options is the very kind of opportunistic community land trust that the June 28, 2018, date of creation was intended to weed out. Northside’s argument is not persuasive of itself, but it does point the way to an ultimate finding as to the Solaris Application. Both Florida Housing and Solaris gave great emphasis to Ms. Soukup’s testimony to refute the suggestion that Residential Options acted opportunistically. Ms. Soukup was a credible witness. Her explanation of the process by which Residential Options first created then merged with ROOF Housing Trust dispelled any suggestion that Residential Options was a community land trust created solely to cash in on this RFA. The problem is that Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee when it evaluated the Solaris Application. The only information about Residential Options that the Review Committee possessed was Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application. The dates of the merger documents and Amended Articles certainly give some credence to the suspicions voiced by Northside. However, the undersigned is less persuaded by the implications as to the intentions of Residential Options than by the contradictions between Florida Housing’s statements of intent and its reading of the RFA in relation to the Solaris Application. The decision to find the Solaris Application eligible for funding founders on the first issue stated above: whether the RFA requires only that the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether it had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. Ms. Button testified that the June 28, 2018, date was settled upon as a way of including community land trusts created in the wake of Hurricane Irma, while excluding those created to cash in on this RFA. During cross- examination by counsel for Northside, Ms. Button broadened her statement to say that Florida Housing’s intention was to exclude entities that had not been involved in affordable housing at all prior to June 28, 2018. Nonetheless, the RFA language is limited to Community Land Trusts. The RFA states: “The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating that it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier…” The Solaris Application shows that Residential Options existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. Residential Options did not become a Community Land Trust until it completed its merger with ROOF Housing Trust and filed the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019. Ms. Button’s statement of intent is accepted as consistent with the plain language of the RFA: the date of June 28, 2018, excludes Community Land Trusts created subsequently. It is inconsistent for Florida Housing to also read the RFA language to say that the qualifying entity need not have existed as a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018. It would be arbitrary for Florida Housing to set a date for the creation of Community Land Trusts then turn around and find that the date does not apply to this particular Community Land Trust. Ms. Soukup’s testimony was that Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were effectively a single entity and that Residential Options was in fact operating as a community land trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger. However, Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee, which was limited to one means of ascertaining whether an entity was a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018: the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. Residential Options’s Original Articles included no language demonstrating that it was a Community Land Trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger with ROOF Housing Trust and the filing of the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019.3 As set forth in the discussion of the Berkley Application above, Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of an application. It was contrary to the provisions of the RFA for Florida Housing to find that Residential Options’s mere existence as a legal entity prior to June 28, 2018, satisfied the requirement that the Community Land Trust must demonstrate that it existed prior to June 28, 2018. Ms. Button’s own testimony demonstrated that Florida Housing intended to exclude Community Land Trusts created after June 28, 2018. ROOF Housing Trust existed as a Community Land Trust in 2017, but ROOF Housing Trust was not the Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application. Ms. Soukup’s explanation of the circumstances showed that Residential Options was well intentioned in its actions, but her explanation was not a part of the Solaris Application that was before Florida Housing’s Review Committee. THE METRO GRANDE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Metro Grande Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, the Metro Grande Application was preliminarily selected for funding. Petitioner Brisas contends that the Metro Grande Application should have been found ineligible for failure to include mandatory site control documentation. Metro Grande submitted a Priority I application that was not seeking Land Acquisition Program funding. The site control requirements for such applicants are as follows: 3 This finding also disposes of Solaris’s arguments regarding the legal effect of corporate mergers. The RFA provided one simple way of demonstrating whether an entity was a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing’s Review Committee could not be expected to delve into the complexities of corporate mergers to answer this uncomplicated question. The Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must already own the land as the sole grantee and, if funded, the land must be affordable into Perpetuity.[4] Applicants must demonstrate site control as of Application Deadline by providing the properly executed Site Control Certification form (Form Rev. 08-18). Attached to the form must be the following documents: A Deed or Certificate of Title. The deed or certificate of title (in the event the property was acquired through foreclosure) must be recorded in the applicable county and show the Land Owner as the sole Grantee. There are no restrictions on when the land was acquired; and A lease between the Land Owner and the Applicant entity. The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline. Metro Grande did not include a deed or certificate of title in its application. In fact, no deed or certificate of title for the Metro Grande site exists. Miami-Dade County owns the Metro Grande site. Miami-Dade County acquired ownership of the Metro Grande site by eminent domain. The eminent domain process culminated in the entry of four Final Judgments for individual parcels which collectively compose the Metro Grande site. The Final Judgments were not attached to Metro Grande’s Application. There was no requirement in the RFA that Metro Grande include these Final Judgments in its application. The Final Judgments were produced during discovery in this proceeding. In its application, Metro Grande included a Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement Form executed by Maurice L. Kemp, as the Deputy Mayor of Miami-Dade County, stating that the county holds or will hold 100 percent ownership of the land where Metro Grande’s proposed 4 The RFA defined “Perpetuity” as “at least 99 years from the loan closing.” development is located. Additionally, in its application, Metro Grande stated that Miami-Dade County owned the property. The RFA expressly states that Florida Housing “will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation.” Florida Housing reserves the right to rescind an award to any applicant whose site control documents are shown to be insufficient during the credit underwriting process. Thus, the fact that no deed or certificate of title was included with Metro Grande’s site control documents was not considered by Florida Housing during the scoring process. Ms. Button testified that while this was an error in the application, it should be waived as a minor irregularity. The purpose of the documentation requirements was to demonstrate ownership and control of the applicant’s proposed site. There was no question or ambiguity as to the fact that Miami- Dade County owned the Metro Grande site. Florida Housing was not required to resort to information extraneous to the Metro Grande Application to confirm ownership of the site. The Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement form, executed by the Deputy Mayor as the Authorized Land Owner Representative, confirmed ownership of the parcels. Metro Grande’s failure to include a deed or certificate of title, therefore, created no confusion as to who owned the property or whether Miami-Dade County had the authority to lease the property to the applicant. There was no evidence presented that the failure to include a deed or certificate of title resulted in the omission of any material information or provided a competitive advantage over other applicants. Brisas contends that the RFA was clear as to the documents that must be included to satisfy the site control requirements. Metro Grande failed to provide those documents or even an explanation why those documents were not provided. Florida Housing ignored the fact that no deed or certificate of title was provided, instead relying on information found elsewhere in the application. It is found that Metro Grande failed to comply with an eligibility item of the RFA, but that Florida Housing was correct to waive that failure as a minor irregularity that provided Metro Grande no competitive advantage, created no uncertainty as to whether the requirements of the RFA were met, and did not adversely affect the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Brisas has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEACON PLACE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Beacon Place Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Beacon Place was not preliminarily selected for funding. The RFA provides that an application may earn proximity points based on the distance between its Development Location Point and the selected Transit or Community Service. Proximity points are used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference. Beacon Place is a Large County Application that is not eligible for the “Public Housing Authority Proximity Point Boost.” As such, the Beacon Place Application was required to achieve a minimum Transit Point score of 2 to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must also achieve a total Proximity Point score of 10.5 in order to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must achieve a total Proximity Point score of 12.5 or more in order to receive the RFA’s Proximity Funding Preference. Based on the information in its Application, Beacon Place received a Total Proximity Point score of 18 and was deemed eligible for funding and for the Proximity Point Funding Preference. The Beacon Place Application listed a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as its Transit Service. Applying the Transit Service Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 6 Proximity Points for its Transit Service. The Beacon Place Application listed a Grocery Store, a Pharmacy, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart in order to obtain Proximity Points for Community Services. Using the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 4 Proximity Points for each service listed, for a total of 12 Proximity Points for Community Services. Beacon Place has stipulated, however, that the Public School listed in its application does not meet the definition of “Public School” in the RFA and Beacon Place should not receive the 4 Proximity Points for listing a public school. The RFA defines a “Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop” as: [a] fixed location at which passengers may access public transportation via bus. The Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one bus that travels at some point during the route in either a lane or corridor that is exclusively used by buses, and the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one route that has scheduled stops at the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop at least every 20 minutes during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year- round basis. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. The Beacon Place Application included Metrobus Route 38 (“Route 38”) as a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. Route 38 has scheduled stops at the location identified in the Beacon Place Application at the following times during the period of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. Monday through Friday: 7:01, 7:36, 7:56, 8:11, 8:26, 8:41, and 8:56. Brisas and Northside contend that Route 38 does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop because there is a gap of more than 20 minutes between the 7:01 a.m. bus and the 7:36 a.m. bus. Applicants are not required to include bus schedules in the application. Florida Housing does not attempt to determine whether an identified stop meets the RFA definitions during the scoring process. During discovery in this litigation, Florida Housing changed its position and now agrees that Route 38 does not satisfy the definition. Nonetheless, the standard of review set forth in section 120.57(3) is applicable to Florida Housing’s initial eligibility determination, not its revised position. All parties stipulated that Route 38 meets the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. If the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not also meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Beacon Place would not be entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and would be ineligible for funding. Beacon Place cannot contest the fact that there is a 35 minute gap between the 7:01 and the 7:36 buses. Beacon Place has attempted to salvage its situation by comparing the language used in the RFA definition of a Public Bus Stop with that used in the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevant part as [a] fixed location at which passengers may access one or two routes of public transportation via buses. The Public Bus Stop must service at least one bus route with scheduled stops at least hourly during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm and 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year round basis…. Florida Housing has interpreted the “hourly” requirement of the Public Bus Stop definition to mean that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and at least once between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Beacon Place suggests that Florida Housing should interpret the “every 20 minutes” requirement for a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop similarly, so that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 7:20 a.m., once between 7:20 a.m. and 7:40 a.m., and once between 7:40 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Florida Housing has rejected this interpretation, however, noting that the language in the two definitions is explicitly different. Ms. Button testified that if Florida Housing had intended these two distinct definitions to be interpreted similarly, it could easily have worded them differently. It could have required a Public Bus Stop to have stops “at least every 60 minutes,” rather than “hourly.” It could have required a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop to have “three stops per hour” rather than “every 20 minutes.” Ms. Button observed that the purpose of the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop definition is to award points for serving the potential residents with frequent and regular stops. The idea was to be sure residents had access to the bus during the hours when most people are going to and from work. Florida Housing’s interpretation of “every 20 minutes” is consonant with the plain language of the phrase and reasonably serves the purpose of the definition. Florida Housing also rejected the idea that the failure of the identified stop to meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop in the RFA should be waived as a minor irregularity. Ms. Button testified that allowing one applicant to get points for a stop that did not meet the definition would give it a competitive advantage over other applicants, including some potential applicants who did not apply because they could not satisfy the terms of the definition. Because the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop, Beacon Place is not entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and is thus ineligible for funding. Brisas and Northside have demonstrated that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility for Beacon Place was contrary to the specifications of the RFA. Florida Housing’s original recommendation would have been contrary to the terms of the RFA. THE EAST POINTE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the East Pointe Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, East Pointe was preliminarily selected for funding. Bella Vista challenged Florida Housing’s action alleging that the Medical Facility selected by East Pointe did not meet the definition found in the RFA. East Pointe proposed a Development in Lee County, a Medium County according to the terms of the RFA. Applicants from Medium Counties are not required to attain a minimum number of Transit Service Points to be considered eligible for funding. However, such applicants must achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. The East Pointe Application identified three Public Bus Stops and was awarded 5.5 Proximity Points based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart in Exhibit C to the RFA. However, East Pointe has stipulated that Public Bus Stop 1 listed in its application does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Stop because it does not have the required scheduled stops. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, East Pointe should receive a total of 3.0 Proximity Points for Transit Services for Public Bus Stops 2 and 3. East Pointe listed a Grocery Store, a Medical Facility, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart. Based on the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C to the RFA, East Pointe received 1 Proximity Point for its Grocery Store, 4 Proximity Points for its Medical Facility, and 3 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 8 Proximity Points for Community Services. East Pointe listed Lee Memorial Health System at 3511 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida, as its Medical Facility. The RFA defines “Medical Facility” as follows: A medically licensed facility that (i) employs or has under contractual obligation at least one physician licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, F.S. available to treat patients by walk-in or by appointment; and (ii) provides general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person. Facilities that specialize in treating specific classes of medical conditions or specific classes of patients, including emergency rooms affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals and clinics affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals, will not be accepted. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. If East Pointe’s selected Medical Facility does not meet the definition of “Medical Facility” in the RFA, East Pointe will lose 4 Proximity Points, reducing its total Proximity Points to 7. The East Pointe Application would still be eligible but would not receive the Proximity Funding Preference and, therefore, would fall out of the funding range of the RFA. Bella Vista alleged that East Pointe should not have received Proximity Points for a Medical Facility because the Lee Community Healthcare location specified in its application “only serves adults and therefore only treats a specific group of patients.” Lee Community HealthCare operates nine locations in Lee County, including the “Dunbar” location that East Pointe named in its application. Lee Community Healthcare’s own promotional materials label the Dunbar location as “adults only.” Robert Johns, Executive Director for Lee Community Healthcare, testified by deposition. Mr. Johns testified that as of the RFA application date of September 24, 2019, the Dunbar office provided services primarily to adults 19 years of age or over, by walk-in or by appointment. A parent who walked into the Dunbar office with a sick or injured child could obtain treatment for that child. A parent seeking medical services for his or her child by appointment would be referred to a Lee Community HealthCare office that provided pediatric services. Mr. Johns testified that the Dunbar office would provide general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person who presented at the facility, including children. Children would not be seen by appointment at the Dunbar facility, but they would be treated on a walk-in basis. The RFA requires a Medical Facility to treat patients “by walk-in or by appointment.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing reads this requirement in the disjunctive. A Medical Facility is not required to see any and all patients by walk-in and to see any and all patients by appointment. Florida Housing finds it sufficient for the Medical Facility to see some or all patients by walk-in or by appointment. Ms. Button opined that the Dunbar office met the definition of a Medical Facility because it treated adults by walk-in or appointment and treated children on a walk-in basis. Florida Housing’s reading is consistent with the literal language of the RFA definition. While it would obviously be preferable for the Dunbar facility to see pediatric patients by appointment, the fact that it sees them on a walk-in basis satisfies the letter of the RFA provision. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEMBRIDGE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Bembridge Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Bembridge was preliminarily selected for funding. Bembridge proposed a development in Collier County, a Medium County in RFA terms. As an applicant from a Medium County, Bembridge was required to achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. Medium County applicants are allowed, but not required, to claim both Transit Service points and Community Service points. As to Community Services, the RFA provides that an applicant may receive a “maximum 4 Points for each service, up to 3 services.” The RFA goes on to state: Applicants may provide the location information and distances for three of the following four Community Services on which to base the Application’s Community Services Score.[5] The Community Service Scoring Charts, which reflect the methodology for calculating the points awarded based on the distances, are outlined in Exhibit C. In its Application, Bembridge listed four, not three, Community Services. Bembridge was one of six Applicants that mistakenly submitted four Community Services instead of three. The Review Committee scorer reviewing Community Services in the applications stated on her scoring sheet: “After removing points for the service with the least amount of points, all still met the eligibility requirement.” 5 The four listed Community Services were Grocery Store, Public School, Medical Facility, and Pharmacy. Florida Housing interpreted the RFA as not specifically prohibiting an applicant from listing four Community Services, but as providing that the applicant could receive points for no more than three of them. As to the six applicants who submitted four Community Services, Florida Housing awarded points only for the three Community Services that were nearest the proposed development.6 Bembridge received 3 Proximity points for its Grocery Store, 3.5 Proximity Points for its Pharmacy, and 4 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 10.5 Proximity Points for Community Services. Thus, as originally scored, Bembridge met the Proximity Funding Preference. Florida Housing did not score the Medical Facility listed by Bembridge, which was the farthest Community Service from the proposed development. Ms. Button testified that this fourth Community Service was treated as surplus information, and because it did not conflict with any other information in the application or cause uncertainty about any other information, it was simply not considered. Ms. Button likened this situation to prior RFAs in which applicants included pharmacies as Community Services even though they were not eligible in proposed family developments. Florida Housing disregarded the information as to pharmacies as surplus information. It did not consider disqualifying the applicants for providing extraneous information. Ms. Button also made it clear that if one of the three Community Services nearest the proposed development was found ineligible for some reason, the fourth Community Service submitted by the applicant would not be considered. The fourth Community Service was in all instances to be disregarded as surplusage in evaluating the application. 6 When queried as to whether the fourth Community Service was removed because it was worth the fewest points, as the reviewer’s notes stated, or because it was farthest away from the proposed development, Ms. Button replied that the distinction made no difference because the service that is farthest away is invariably the one that receives the fewest points. Florida Housing did not consider disqualifying Bembridge and the other five Applicants that mistakenly listed an extra Community Service in their applications. Ms. Button stated, “They provided in all of them, Bembridge and the others that were listed in this, they did provide three Community Services. And so I don’t think it is reasonable to throw out those applications for providing a fourth that we would just not consider nor give benefit to for those point values.” Bella Vista contends that Florida Housing should have rejected the Bembridge application rather than award points for the three nearest Community Services. Ms. Button testified that this was not a reasonable approach if only because there was nothing in the RFA stating that an application would be rejected if it identified more Community Services than were required. Ms. Button also noted that this was one of the first RFAs to allow applicants to select among four Community Services. She believed the novelty of this three-out-of-four selection process led to six applications incorrectly listing four Community Services. She implied that the Community Services language would have to be tweaked in future RFAs to prevent a recurrence of this situation, but she did not believe it fair to disqualify these six applicants for their harmless error. The Review Committee scorer did not perform a minor irregularity analysis relating to the fourth Community Service provided by Bembridge and the other applicants. Ms. Button opined that the addition of an extra Community Service amounts to no more than a minor irregularity because it provided no competitive advantage to the applicant and created no uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the RFA have been met. The RFA allows up to six proximity points for Transit Services. It specifically provides: Up to three Public Bus Stops may be selected with a maximum of 2 points awarded for each one. Each Public Bus Stop must meet the definition of Public Bus Stop as defined in Exhibit B, using at least one unique bus route. Up to two of the selected Public Bus Stops may be Sister Stops that serves the same route, as defined in Exhibit B. The RFA defines “Sister Stop” as: two bus stops that (i) individually, each meet the definition of Public Bus Stop, (ii) are separated by a street or intersection from each other, (iii) are within 0.2 miles of each other, (iv) serve at least one of the same bus routes, and (v) the buses travel in different directions. The Bembridge Application listed two Public Bus Stops, the definition of which is set forth at Finding of Fact 107 above. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, Bembridge received a total of 1.0 Proximity Point for Transit Services for its two Public Bus Stops. Numerous questions were asked at the hearing about whether Bembridge’s identified bus stops were “Sister Stops” as defined in the RFA, and the evidence on that point was not definitive. However, whether they are Sister Stops is irrelevant because each stop identified by Bembridge independently met the definition of “Public Bus Stop” in the RFA and was therefore eligible for Transit Proximity Points. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to RFA 2019-102 finding that: The Berkeley Application is ineligible for funding; The Sierra Bay Application is ineligible for funding; The Solaris Application is ineligible for funding; The Metro Grande Application is eligible for funding; The Beacon Place Application is ineligible for funding; The East Pointe Application is eligible for funding and entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference; and The Bembridge Application is eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this matter concern an Administrative Complaint/Notice to Show Cause, which has been brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent charging various violations of Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. Those accusations are more completely described in the conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact The parties in the person of their counsel entered into a written prehearing stipulation, by which certain facts were agreed to. Those facts are as follows: Stipulated Statement of Facts: The Petitioner herein is the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales and Condominiums. The Respondent in this matter is Sujac Enterprises, Inc., the developer of a residential condominium known as Ginger Park Condominium located in Jacksonville, Florida. Mr. Jackson M. Jobe is the president of the developer corporation. Transition from developer control of the condominium association occurred pursuant to Section 718.301, Florida Statutes, on November 1, 1983. Prior to this date, Respondent Sujac Enterprises, Inc., was in control of the condominium association. On April 18, 1983, The Division received a condominium complaint from unit owner, Cynthia A. Doallas, filed against Sujac Enterprises, developer of the Ginger Park Condominium. The Division investigation file was opened on April 20 and this investigation was assigned to Janice Snover, specialist and investigator. The Declaration of Condominium was recorded March 12, 1982. The condominium association was incorporated February 16, 1982. Section 8.4 of the declaration of condominium provides for an assessment guarantee for so long as the developer shall own any condominium units within the condominium. At the time of this stipulation, the developer still owns at least one condominium unit within the condominium. The developer controlled association failed to maintain the accounting records provided by Section 718.111(7)(a), (b), Florida Statutes, during the period beginning with the incorporation of the association through at least March 1983. Accounting records were assembled after March of 1983. Mr. Phillip DiStefano was elected to the board of administration in March of 1983 in accordance with Section 718.301(1) , which provides that when unit owners other than the developer own 15 percent or more of the units, the unit owners other than the developer shall be entitled to elect no less than one-third of the members of the board of administration. Mr. DiStefano was elected by unit owners other than the developer. The developer through its president instituted recall procedures pursuant to the procedure as outlined in Section 718.112(2)(g), Florida Statutes, against board member Phillip DiStefano, by circulating a form entitled "Removal of Director or Directors." Mr. Jobe solicited signatures for the agreement, and further, voted the developer corporation's unsold unit votes in favor of the recall. Mr. DiStefano was recalled, with a sufficient number of unit owners other than the developer voting in favor of recall to approve the recall. The developer controlled condominium association failed to provide to unit owners a financial statement of actual receipts and expenditures for the fiscal/calendar year ending December 21, 1982, within 60 days of the end of the year. This financial statement was, however, provided to unit owners approximately three months after the 60 day time period provided in Section 718.111(13), Florida Statutes, had elapsed. The following additional facts are found based upon the presentation made at the final hearing: At the point of the final hearing, the developer still owned a condominium unit within the condominium. The developer had allowed other persons to take charge of the accounting procedures of the condominium association from the inception of the association through March 1983. Those other persons operated on the basis of a checkbook in which check stubs were maintained and deposit slips kept. Some invoices were also maintained. These records, in addition to not being maintained by the developer when the developer was serving as the association in this period through March 1983, were not in accordance with good accounting practices. Moreover, they did not contain an account for each unit, designating the name and current mailing address for the unit owner, with the amount of each assessment, the dates and the amounts in which the assessments came due and the amount paid upon these individual accounts, with the balance due being reflected. As revealed by an audit which the developer had requested of an accountant which it hired, this audit dating from June 7, 1983, there was a deficit in the reserve account on that date. This discovery was made prior to the transfer of the accounting records from the developer to other condominium unit owners. In effect, on June 7, 1983, the reserve account for capital expenditures and maintenance was insufficiently funded. The exact amount of deficit was not shown in the course of the hearing. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the deficit of June 7, 1983, corresponds to the deficit in the reserve account in the amount of $1,186.18, effective December 31, 1983 as found by Petitioner's accountant. Respondent in its efforts to refute responsibility for the reserve deficit has failed to demonstrate, by way of defense, that charges incurred on behalf of other condominium unit owners should reduce the developer's deficit responsibility. This pertains to its reference to prepaid insurance, pest control and construction costs related to a fence. The reserve account for capital expenditures and maintenance is a common expense. The developer, pursuant to Section 8.4 of the declaration of condominium is responsible for the deficit in the reserve account as reflected on June 7, 1983, in keeping with the assessment guarantee set forth in that section. That guarantee continued until the account was tranferred to the other condominium unit owners. Features of the aforementioned guarantee related to responsibility to insure against additional assessments attributable to deficits other than those in the reserve account, i.e. for other forms of common expenses, developer's share, only would occur at the point of sale of the last condominium unit. That contingency had not occurred at the time of the conduct of the final hearing. The developer kept the accounting records from April 1983 until June 1983. Subsequently when the records were turned over to the other condominium unit owners as a part of the transition of association control, the developer failed to have a transitional review conducted by an independent accountant related to financial records of the association.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered which imposes a penalty in the amount of $2,500 for those violations established pertaining to Count I, IV and V and that Counts II and III be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of July 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 3rd day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry A. Funk, Esquire 1020 Atlantic Bank Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Land Sales and Condominiums The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
