The Issue The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“FHFC”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact FHFC and Affordable Housing Tax Credits FHFC is a public corporation that finances affordable housing in Florida by allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. See § 420.504(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that FHFC is “an entrepreneurial public corporation organized to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing and related facilities in this state.”); § 420.5099(2), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he corporation shall adopt allocation procedures that will ensure the maximum use of available tax credits in order to encourage development of low-income housing in the state, taking into consideration the timeliness of the application, the location of the proposed housing project, the relative need in the area for low-income housing and the availability of such housing, the economic feasibility of the project, and the ability of the applicant to proceed to completion of the project in the calendar year for which the credit is sought.”). The tax credits allocated by FHFC encourage investment in affordable housing and are awarded through competitive solicitations to developers of qualifying rental housing. 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. In contrast, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Not surprisingly, the demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. A successful applicant/developer normally sells the tax credits in order to raise capital for a housing development. That results in the developer being less reliant on debt financing. In exchange for the tax credits, a successful applicant/developer must offer affordable rents and covenant to keep those rents at affordable levels for 30 to 50 years. The Selection Process FHFC awards tax credits through competitive solicitations, and that process is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications (“RFA”). Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(2) provides that unsuccessful applicants for tax credits “may only protest the results of the competitive solicitation process pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 120.57(3), F.S., and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.” For purposes of section 120.57(3), an RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67.60.009(4), F.A.C. FHFC issued RFA 2015-111 on October 23, 2015, and responses from applicants were due on December 4, 2015. Through RFA 2015-111, FHFC seeks to award up to $5,901,631 of tax credits to qualified applicants that commit to preserve existing affordable multifamily housing developments for the demographic categories of “Families,” “the Elderly,” and “Persons with a Disability.” FHFC only considered an application eligible for funding from RFA 2015-111, if that particular application complied with certain content requirements. FHFC ranked all eligible applications pursuant to an “Application Sorting Order” set forth in RFA 2015-111. The first consideration was the applicants’ scores. Each application could potentially receive up to 23 points based on the developer’s experience and the proximity to services needed by the development’s tenants. Applicants demonstrating that their developments received funding from a U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Rural Development program known as RD 515 were entitled to a 3.0 point proximity score “boost.” That proximity score boost was important because RFA 2015-111 characterized counties as small, medium, or large. Applications associated with small counties had to achieve at least four proximity points to be considered eligible for funding. Applications associated with medium-sized counties and those associated with large counties had to achieve at least seven and 10.25 proximity points respectively in order to be considered eligible for funding. Because it is very common for several tax credit applicants in a particular RFA to receive identical scores, FHFC incorporated a series of “tie-breakers” into RFA 2015-111. The tie-breakers for RFA 2015-111, in order of applicability, were: First, by Age of Development, with developments built in 1985 or earlier receiving a preference over relatively newer developments. Second, if necessary, by a Rental Assistance (“RA”) preference. Applicants were to be assigned an RA level based on the percentage of units receiving rental assistance through either a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or USDA Rural Development program. Applicants with an RA level of 1, 2, or 3 (meaning at least 75 percent of the units received rental assistance) were to receive a preference. Third, by a Concrete Construction Funding Preference, with developments incorporating certain specified concrete or masonry structural elements receiving the preference. Fourth, by a Per Unit Construction Funding Preference, with applicants proposing at least $32,500 in Actual Construction Costs per unit receiving the preference. Fifth, by a Leveraging Classification favoring applicants requiring a lower amount in housing credits per unit than other applicants. Generally, the least expensive 80 percent of eligible applicants were to receive a preference over the most expensive 20 percent. Sixth, by an Applicant’s specific RA level, with Level 1 applicants receiving the most preference and Level 6 the least. Seventh, by a Florida Job Creation Preference, which estimated the number of jobs created per $1 million of housing credit equity investment the developments were to receive based on formulas contained in the RFA. Applicants achieving a Job Creation score of at least 4.0 were to receive the preference. Eighth, by lottery number, with the lowest (smallest) lottery number receiving the preference. Rental assistance from the USDA or HUD is provided to existing developments in order to make up for shortfalls in monthly rent paid by tenants. For example, if an apartment’s base rent is $500 per month and the tenant’s income limits him or her to paying only $250 towards rent, then the USDA or HUD rental assistance pays the other $250 so that the total rent received by the development is $500. As evident from the tie-breakers incorporated into RFA 2015-111, the amount of rental assistance, or “RA Level,” played a prominent role in distinguishing between RFA 2015-111 applicants having identical scores. RFA 2015-111 required that applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter containing the following information: (a) the development’s name; (b) the development’s address; (c) the year the development was built; (d) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC;/3 (e) the total number of units that would receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development were to be funded; (f) all HUD or RD financing program(s) originally and/or currently associated with the existing development; and (g) confirmation that the development had not received financing from HUD or RD after 1995 when the rehabilitation was at least $10,000 per unit in any year. In order to determine an applicant’s RA Level Classification, RFA 2015-111 further stated that Part of the criteria for a proposed Development that qualifies as a Limited Development Area (LDA) Development to be eligible for funding is based on meeting a minimum RA Level, as outlined in Section Four A.7.c of the RFA. The total number of units that will receive rental assistance (i.e., PBRA and/or ACC), as stated in the Development Category qualification letter provided as Attachment 7, will be considered to be the proposed Development’s RA units and will be the basis of the Applicant’s RA Level Classification. The Corporation will divide the RA units by the total units stated by the Applicant at question 5.e. of Exhibit A, resulting in a Percentage of Total Units that are RA units. Using the Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart below, the Corporation will determine the RA Level associated with both the Percentage of Total Units and the RA units. The best rating of these two (2) levels will be assigned as the Application’s RA Level Classification. RFA 2015-111 then outlined a Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart to delineate between the RA Levels. That chart described six possible RA Levels, with one being developments that have the most units receiving rental assistance and six pertaining to developments with the fewest units receiving rental assistance. A development with at least 100 rental assistance units and greater than 50 percent of the total units receiving rental assistance was to receive an RA Level of 1. FHFC also utilized a “Funding Test” to assist in the selection of applications for funding. The Funding Test required that the amount of unawarded housing credits be enough to satisfy any remaining applicant’s funding request. In other words, FHFC prohibited partial funding. In addition, RFA 2015-111 applied a “County Award Tally” designed to prevent a disproportionate concentration of funded developments in any one county. As a result, all other applicants from other counties had to receive an award before a second application from a particular county could be funded. After ranking of the eligible applicants, RFA 2015-111 set forth an order of funding selection based on county size, demographic category, and the receipt of RD 515 financing. The Order was: One RD 515 Development (in any demographic category) in a medium or small county; One Non-RD 515 Development in the Family Demographic Category (in any size county); The highest ranked Non-RD 515 application or applications with the demographic of Elderly or Persons with a Disability; and If funding remains after all eligible Non- RD 515 applicants are funded, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Elderly demographic (or, if none, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Family demographic). Draft versions of every RFA are posted on-line in order for stakeholders to provide FHFC with their comments. In addition, every RFA goes through at least one workshop prior to being finalized. FHFC often makes changes to RFAs based on stakeholder comments. No challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. A review committee consisting of FHFC staff members reviewed and scored all 24 applications associated with RFA 2015-111. During this process, FHFC staff determined that none of the RD-515 applicants satisfied all of the threshold eligibility requirements. On June 24, 2016, FHFC’s Board of Directors announced its intention to award funding to five applicants, subject to those applicants successfully completing the credit underwriting process. Pineda Village in Brevard County was the only successful applicant in the Non-RD 515 Family Demographic. The four remaining successful applicants were in the Non-RD 515 Elderly or Persons with Disability Demographic: Three Round Tower in Miami-Dade County; Cathedral Towers in Duval County; Isles of Pahokee in Palm Beach County; and Lummus Park in Miami- Dade County. The randomly-assigned lottery number tie-breaker played a role for the successful Non-RD 515 applicants with Three Round Tower having lottery number one, Cathedral Towers having lottery number nine, and Isles of Pahokee having lottery number 18. While Lummus Park had a lottery number of 12, the County Award Tally prevented it from being selected earlier because Three Round Tower had already been selected for funding in Miami-Dade County. However, after the first four applicants were funded, only $526,880 of credits remained, and Lummus Park was the only eligible applicant with a request small enough to be fully funded. All Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The Challenge by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns Woodcliff is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 34-unit development for elderly residents in Lake County.4/ Colonial is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 30-unit development for low-income families in Lake County.5/ St. Johns is seeking an award of tax credits to acquire and preserve a 48-unit development for elderly residents in Putnam County.6/ FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns to be ineligible because of a failure to demonstrate the existence or availability of a particular source of financing relied upon in their applications. Specifically, FHFC determined that the availability of USDA RD 515 financial assistance was not properly documented. For applicants claiming the existence of RD 515 financing, RFA 2015-111 stated: If the proposed Development will be assisted with funding under the United States Department of Agriculture RD 515 Program and/or RD 538 Program, the following information must be provided: Indicate the applicable RD Program(s) at question 11.b.(2) of Exhibit A. For a proposed Development that is assisted with funding from RD 515 and to qualify for the RD 515 Proximity Point Boost (outlined in Section Four A.6.b.(1)(b) of the RFA), the Applicant must: Include the funding amount at the USDA RD Financing line item on the Development Funding Pro Forma (Construction/Rehab Analysis and/or Permanent Analysis); and Provide a letter from RD, dated within six (6) months of the Application Deadline, as Attachment 17 to Exhibit A, which includes the following information for the proposed Preservation Development: Name of existing development; Name of proposed Development; Current RD 515 Loan balance; Acknowledgment that the property is applying for Housing Credits; and Acknowledgment that the property will remain in the USDA RD 515 loan portfolio. (emphasis added). FHFC was counting on the letter mentioned directly above to function as proof that: (a) there was RD 515 financing in place when the letter was issued; and that (b) the RD 515 financing would still be in place as of the application deadline for RFA 2015-111. FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns ineligible because their RD letters were not dated within six months of the December 4, 2015, deadline for RFA 2015-111 applications. The Woodcliff letter was dated May 15, 2015, the Colonial letter was dated May 15, 2015, and the St. Johns letter was dated May 5, 2015. FHCA had previously issued RFA 2015-104, which also proposed to award Housing Credit Financing for the Preservation of Existing Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments. The deadline for RFA 2015-104 was June 23, 2015, and Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns applied using the same USDA letter that they used in their RFA 2015-111 applications. Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns argued during the final hearing that FHFC should have accepted their letters because: (a) they gained no competitive advantage by using letters that were more than six months old; (b) waiving the six- month “shelf life” requirement would enable FHFC to satisfy one of its stated goals for RFA 2015-111, i.e., funding of an RD 515 development; and (c) other forms of financing (such as equity investment) have no “freshness” or “shelf life” requirement. However, it is undisputed that no party (including Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns) challenged any of the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. In addition, Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Programs) testified that there must be a point at which FHFC must ensure the viability of the information submitted by applicants. If the information is “too old,” then it may no longer be relevant to the current application process. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for FHFC to utilize a six-month shelf life for USDA letters.7/ Furthermore, Mr. Reecy testified that excusing Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns’ noncompliance could lead to FHFC excusing all deviations from all other date requirements in future RFAs. In other words, applicants could essentially rewrite those portions of the RFA, and that would be an unreasonable result. Excusing the noncompliance of Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns could lead to a “slippery slope” in which any shelf- life requirement has no meaning. The letters utilized by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns were slightly more than six months old. But, exactly when would a letter become too old to satisfy the “shelf life” requirement? If three weeks can be excused today, will four weeks be excused next year? St. Elizabeth’s and Marian Towers’ Challenge St. Elizabeth is seeking low-income housing tax credit financing in order to acquire and preserve a 151-unit development for elderly residents in Broward County, Florida. Marian Towers is an applicant for RFA 2015-111 funding seeking low-income housing tax credits to acquire and preserve a 220-unit development for elderly residents in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The same developer is associated with the St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers projects. In its scoring and ranking process, FHFC assigned St. Elizabeth an RA Level of two. RFA 2015-111 requires that Applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter from HUD or the USDA with specific information. That information is then used to establish an RA Level for the proposed development. As noted above, the RFA requires the letter to contain several pieces of information, including: (a) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC; and (b) the total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development is funded. RFA 2015-111 provided that a development with at least 100 rental units would receive an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth included with its application a letter from HUD’s Miami field office stating in pertinent part that: Total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC: 99 units. Total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed Development is funded: 100 units*. The asterisk in the preceding paragraph directed readers of St. Elizabeth’s HUD letter to a paragraph stating that: HUD is currently processing a request from the owner to increase the number of units subsidized under a HAP Contract to 100 by transferring budget authority for the one additional unit from another Catholic Housing Services Section 8 project under Section 8(bb) in accordance with Notice H-2015-03. Because of the foregoing statement from HUD, FHFC concluded that St. Elizabeth did not have 100 units receiving rental assistance as of the application deadline. Accordingly, FHFC used 99 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance when calculating St. Elizabeth’s RA Level, and that led to FHFC assigning an RA Level of two to St. Elizabeth’s application.8/ If St. Elizabeth had been deemed eligible and if FHFC had used 100 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance, then St. Elizabeth would have received an RA Level of one. Given the application sorting order and the selection process outlined in RFA 2015-111, St. Elizabeth (with a lottery number of six) would have been recommended for funding by FHFC, and that outcome would have resulted in Intervenors Isles of Pahokee and Lummus Park losing their funding. St. Elizabeth asserted during the final hearing that the 100th unit had obtained rental assistance financing since the application deadline on December 4, 2015. However, FHFC could only review, score, and calculate St. Elizabeth’s RA Level based on the information available as of the application deadline. While St. Elizabeth argues that the asterisk paragraph sets forth a “condition,” Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Housing) agreed during the final hearing that the asterisk paragraph was more akin to information that was not explicitly required by RFA 2015-111. FHFC did not use that additional information to declare St. Elizabeth’s application ineligible for funding. Despite being assigned an RA Level of two, St. Elizabeth’s application still could have been selected for funding because RFA 2015-111 merely established RA Level as a basis for breaking ties among competing applications. However, too many applicants for RFA 2015-111 had identical scores, and RFA 2015-111’s use of RA Level as a tiebreaker forced St. Elizabeth’s application out of the running. Under the circumstances, FHFC’s treatment of St. Elizabeth’s application was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As noted above, tie- breakers are very important, because there is often very little to distinguish one application for tax credits from another. Given that there was a degree of uncertainty about whether St. Elizabeth’s would have 100 qualifying units, FHFC acted reasonably by assigning St. Elizabeth’s application an RA Level of two for this tie-breaker rather than an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers argue that other applications contained language that indicated a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, those other applications received an RA Level of one. For example, FHFC assigned an RA Level of one to Three Round and Haley Sofge even though their HUD letters stated that both developments would be “subject to a Subsidy Layering Review to be conducted by HUD.” Marian Towers argued that if FHFC does not accept HUD or RD letters containing conditional language about the number of units that will be subsidized, then FHFC should have assigned an RA Level of six to Three Round and Haley Sofge. If Three Round and Haley Sofge had been assigned an RA Level of six, then Marian Towers (with a lottery number of five) would have been recommended for funding. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers cited another instance in which an application received an RA Level of one, even though its application contained a letter from the RD program stating that “USDA Rural Development will consent to the transfer if all regulatory requirements are met.” (emphasis added). However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate that the language cited above applied only to those particular applications rather than to all applications for tax credits. For example, if all applications are subject to a subsidy layering review and compliance with all regulatory requirements, then inclusion of such language in a HUD letter (in and of itself) should not prevent an applicant from being assigned an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers also cited a HUD Letter used in another recent RFA by an applicant that received an RA Level of one. The HUD letter in question contained an asterisk followed by the following statement: “It is HUD’s understanding that two separate applications are being submitted – one for each tower comprising St. Andrew Towers. If funded, HUD will consider a request from the owner to bifurcate the St. Andrew Towers HAP contract in order to facilitate the separate financing of each tower.” However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate why the language quoted directly above should have resulted in the applicant in question being awarded an RA Level less than one. There is no indication that the total number of units receiving rental assistance would change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order awarding funding to Three Round Tower A, LLC; Cathedral Towers, Ltd; Isles of Pahokee Phase II, LLC; SP Manor, LLC; and Pineda Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G.W. CHISENHALL 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 18th day of October, 2016.
Findings Of Fact During the audit period in question, i.e., December 1, 1975 through March 31, 1979, Petitioner Ormond Hotel Corporation operated the Ormond Hotel, Ormond Beach, Florida. It was licensed during the audit period by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business Regulation, and classified as a retirement establishment. (Interrogatories) The Ormond Hotel is an old wooden structure containing 350 rooms with 258 rooms available for rental. The remaining rooms are not in proper condition for rental. Most of the hotel guests are over 65 years of age and reside there either permanently or on a seasonal basis, usually from December through March of each year. A few married couples have accommodations at the hotel, but most of the residents are single individuals occupying one room. Prior to 1978, Petitioner advertised the hotel in a national magazine called "Retirement Living" and conducted advertising on billboards, brochures, and in the classified section of the local telephone book under the hearing "Retirement Homes." The latter advertisement states that the facility is "a residential hotel," but also includes the words "DAY-WK-MO-YR." Similarly, the hotel's brochure recites that accommodations are available by day, month, or year. All units are available for rental to permanent tenants, but short-term occupancy is accepted if there are available rooms. The hotel does not have a swimming pool, but does have restaurant facilities and recreation areas. The hotel does not primarily cater to transient guests. (Testimony of Salveson, interrogatories) Respondent's auditor conducted an audit of Petitioner's business operations for the period December 1, 1975, through March 31, 1979. In arriving at whether or not the Ormond Hotel was subject to tax imposed by Section 212.03, Florida Statutes, on its rentals, he examined the Petitioner's books to ascertain the number of total available rental units and the status of tenants at the hotel during the months of April, May, and June of each year. If he found that 50 percent or more of the total units had been rented to persons residing there continuously for the specific three-month period, those tenants were considered to be permanent rather than transient tenants and the hotel was deemed exempt from tax pursuant to Rule 12A-1.61(1), F.A.C. In arriving at his determination of exempt status, the auditor did not deduct unoccupied rooms from the total number of units in arriving at his "fifty percent" determination. Although the auditor analyzed the advertising brochures of Petitioner, and was aware that the hotel was listed in the telephone directory under retirement homes, and concluded that such advertising was directed primarily to the acquisition of permanent guests, he predicted his audit findings solely on the "fifty percent" test concerning occupancy of total units. In this manner, he determined that Petitioner was exempt from taxation in 1975 based on the fact that for the April through June period for that year, 135 of the 264 total units had been occupied continuously by "permanent" tenants. In a similar manner he found that the hotel did not qualify for exemption during the succeeding years of the audit period. In this respect, he found that for 1976, there were only 119 such guests during the three-month period out of the 263 total units, which was less than 50 percent. In 1977, there were 102 such tenants out of 261 total units, which was less than 50 percent. In 1978, there were 98 such tenants and 259 total units, which was less than 50 percent. The auditor's worksheet reflects that there were 124 vacant rooms during the three-month period in 1975, 140 in 1976, 153 in 1977, and 153 in 1978. He concedes that if he had applied the "fifty percent" rule by comparing the number of three-month or "permanent" tenants with the number of occupied rooms for the three-month period each year, the number of rooms occupied by "permanent" guests would have been over fifty percent for each year of the audit period. (Testimony of Boerner, Exhibits 1-2, 4) Based on the audit, Respondent issued two separate "Second Revised Notices of Proposed Assessment" on January 15, 1980. The first assessment covered the period December 1, 1975 through November 30, 1978. It asserted tax due on room rentals in the amount of $21, 362.91 plus a delinquent penalty, and interest through January 15, 1980, for a total sum of $28,062.45. The assessment also asserted tax, penalty and interest for purchases unrelated to room rentals in the amount of $984.92, for a total assessment of $29,047.37. The assessment reflected that a partial payment had been made on October 2, 1979, in the amount of $2,590.62, leaving a balance due of $26,456.75. The other assessment showed tax on room rentals in the amount of $6,001.75, plus delinquent penalty of $300.10, and interest through January 15, 1980 in the amount of $611.76 for a total of $6,913.61. It also asserted tax, penalty, and interest on purchases in the amount of $23.39 for a total assessment of $6,937.00. This assessment also showed partial payment on October 2, 1979, in the amount of $132.08, leaving a balance due of $6,804.92. In a letter transmitting the assessments, dated January 16, 1980, Respondent advised Petitioner that the hotel did not qualify as an exempt facility under Rule 12A- 1.61(1)(a), F.A.C., during the audit period, because less than fifty percent of the facility's units were occupied by guests who had resided there three or more months as of July 1 each year. The letter further stated that "an analysis" of the rental of units submitted by Petitioner as to its exempt status did not conform to the requirements of the rule because the facility advertised to guests on a daily, weekly and monthly basis in addition to long-term leasing, the analysis used an annual rather than a three-month period prior to July as a basis, and the number of tenants at the facility rather than total units. (Exhibit 2) Petitioner's accountant prepared an analysis of the room status at the Ormond Hotel during the period July 1, 1977 to June 30, 1978. It reflects that 165 rooms, or 64.5 percent of the total of 256 units rented during the year, were occupied by tenants for a continuous period of over three months. On March 31 of that year, 157 rooms, or 61 percent of the total of 258 room available for occupancy, were occupied by guests for more than three months. Sixty-nine of the rooms were occupied by transient tenants or those with less than three- months occupancy (17 percent) and 32 rooms were unoccupied (12 percent). As of June 30, 1978, the hotel had 110 guests who had resided there for more than three months, and 18 guests with residency of less than three months. (Testimony of Salveson, Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the proposed tax assessments against Petitioner Ormond Hotel Corporation arising out of the rental of living accommodations at the Ormond Hotel during the period December 1, 1975 through March 1, 1979, be vacated, and that the remainder of the proposed assessments be enforced. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, 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 10th day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Lester Kaney, Esquire Post Office Box 191 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Linda C. Procta, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits in Miami-Dade County through Request for Applications 2013-003 to HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd., is contrary to governing statutes, the corporation’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Overview FHFC is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, FHFC 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 by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to housing developers in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Developers then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax credit property can offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of 10 years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. These are tax credits and 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. However, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Developers that are awarded tax credits can use them directly. However, most sell them to raise equity capital for their projects.2/ Developers sell these credits for up-front cash. A developer typically sets up a limited partnership or limited liability company to own the apartment complex. The developer maintains a small interest but is responsible for building the project and managing (or arranging for the management) of the project. The investors have the largest ownership interest but are typically passive investors with regard to development and management.3/ Because the tax credits can be used by the investors that provide the equity for 10 years, they are very valuable. When sold to the investors, they provide equity which reduces the debt associated with the project. With lower debt, the affordable housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rent. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply. FHFC has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule chapter 67-60, to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 was newly enacted on August 20, 2013. It replaced prior procedures used by FHFC for the competitive process for allocating tax credits. FHFC has now adopted the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, as its process for allocating tax credits.4/ The Competitive Application Process Tax credits are made available annually. FHFC begins the competitive application process through the issuance of a Request for Applications.5/ In this case, that document is Request for Applications 2013-003. A copy of the RFA, including its Questions & Answers, is Joint Exhibit 1. The RFA was issued September 19, 2013 and responses were due November 12, 2013. According to the RFA, FHFC expected to award up to approximately $10,052,825 in tax credits for qualified affordable housing projects in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Knowing that there would be far more applications than available credits, FHFC established an order for funding in the three counties: The Applications will be considered for funding in the following funding order: first the highest scoring eligible Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Broward County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Palm Beach County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test and then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Broward County regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this last Broward County Application, the Application will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. No further Applications will be considered for funding and any remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. RFA at page 36. Applications were scored using a 27-point scale based on criteria in the RFA. RFA at page 37. This process was described in the RFA as follows: The highest scoring Applications will be determined by first sorting all eligible Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated first by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.c.(1)(a) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.9.e. of the RFA, (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications to [sic] do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application’s Leveraging Classification (applying the multipliers outlined in Exhibit C below and having the Classification of A be the top priority), then by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Preference which is outlined in Exhibit C below (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), and then by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. RFA at page 36 (emphasis added). The way this process works in reality is that the developers know that they must first submit a project that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors.6/ Developers also strive to submit projects structured to receive all 27 points. The tiebreaker is then the luck-of-the-draw. At the time each application is filed, it is randomly assigned a lottery number7/ used to break the ties. The role of the lottery numbers is demonstrated by the following facts. One hundred and nineteen applications were filed in response to the RFA. All but six received the maximum score of 27 points. Seventy of the 119 were deemed eligible. Of those 70, 69 received the maximum score of 27 points. A copy of the RFA Sorting Order is Joint Exhibit 2.8/ As such, the lottery numbers are a big factor in deciding the winners and, concomitantly, the challengers are (1) the projects with high lottery numbers that were deemed ineligible; and (2) those with lottery numbers outside the funding range that are trying to displace those with lower lottery numbers. A copy of the final Review Committee Recommendations is Joint Exhibit 3. This document shows the developers selected, the county and the lottery number. The two Miami-Dade projects selected for funding are: HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC d/b/a Wagner Creek - lottery number 3 Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd. - lottery number 6 The Petitioners/Intervenors in these consolidated proceedings are: Town Center Phase Two, LLC - lottery number 7 Pinnacle Rio, LLC - lottery number 9 APC Four Forty Four, Ltd. - deemed ineligible and with a lottery number of 10 The protests here center upon whether various applicants were correctly deemed eligible or ineligible. Applications are competitively reviewed, and so determinations as to one applicant affect other applicants’ positions. Each application, and the allegations against it, will be considered in turn. HTG’s Application APC argues that HTG should be found ineligible for allocation of tax credits because HTG failed to disclose its principals and those of its developer, as required by the RFA. The RFA at Section Four A.2.d. provides, in part, that each applicant will submit an application that identifies: d. Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer. All Applicants must provide a list, as Attachment 3 to Exhibit A, identifying the Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer, as follows: * * * (2) For a Limited Liability Company, provide a list identifying the following: (i) the Principals of the Applicant as of the Application Deadline and (ii) the Principals for each Developer as of the Application Deadline. This list must include warrant holders and/or option holders of the proposed Development. * * * This eligibility requirement may be met by providing a copy of the list of Principals that was reviewed and approved by the Corporation during the advance-review process. To assist the Applicant in compiling the listing, the Corporation has included additional information at Item 3 of Exhibit C. RFA at page 5. The RFA goes on to provide in Exhibit C 3.: 3. Principal Disclosures for Applicants and Each Developer The Corporation is providing the following charts and examples to assist the Applicant in providing the required list identifying the Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer. The term Principals is defined in Section 67-48.002, F.A.C. a. Charts: (1) For the Applicant: * * * (b) If the Applicant is a Limited Liability Company: Identify All Managers and Identify All Members and For each Manager that is a Limited Partnership: For each Manager that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Manager that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder and For each Member that is a Limited Partnership: For each Member that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Member that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder For any Manager and/or Member that is a natural person (i.e., Samuel S. Smith), no further disclosure is required. RFA at page 61. The RFA at Section Three F.3. Provides: 3. Requirements. Proposed Developments funded with Housing Credits will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the credit underwriting and HC Program requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. RFA at page 3. The term “principal” is defined by rule 67-48.002(89)9/, as follows: (89) “Principal” means: (a) Any general partner of an Applicant or Developer, any limited partner of an Applicant or Developer, any manager or member of an Applicant or Developer, any officer, director or shareholder of an Applicant or Developer, * * * (c) Any officer, director, shareholder, manager, member, general partner or limited partner of any manager or member of an Applicant or Developer, and . . . . HTG received an “advance review” approval of its designation of principals on October 8, 2013. HTG submitted this stamped and approved list of principals with its application. Applicant HTG is a limited liability company, as is its developer, HTG Miami-Dade 5 Developer, LLC. In its submission of principals, HTG disclosed the names of the manager and member of the applicant and the manager and member of the developer, all of which were also LLCs. HTG also disclosed the names of the managers and members of these component LLCs. HTG did not disclose any officers of the applicant, the developer, or any of the component LLCs. Other documents submitted as part of the application indicate that Mr. Matthew Rieger is a Vice President of the applicant, HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and that the component LLCs also have officers. APC contends that the rule’s definition of principal requires HTG to disclose not only the managers and members of the applicant and developer, and those of their component LLCs, but also the officers of any of these entities, if they also have officers. FHFC asserts that such disclosure is not required, arguing that the term “officer” as found in the rule’s definition of “principal” only applies to corporations. FHFC argues that there is no inconsistency between the rule and the charts of the RFA with respect to disclosure of principals. FHFC contends that the charts in the RFA, read in conjunction with the rule, indicate that officers must be disclosed only when the entity is a corporation, and that members and managers must be disclosed when the entity is a LLC. FHFC interprets rule 67-48.002(89) in a manner consistent with the charts. It does not interpret the rule to require that an LLC disclose its officers, even if it has them, but only that an LLC disclose its managers and members. Both Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Thorp testified to that effect. The examples provided in the RFA are also consistent with this interpretation. The rule certainly might have been drafted with more precision to expressly indicate that a principal is any officer, director, or shareholder if the entity is a corporation; any manager or member if the entity is an LLC; and any general partner or limited partner if the entity is a Limited Partnership. It cannot be said, however, that the Corporation’s interpretation of the RFA and its rule is impermissible. ATA’s Application Mr. Kenneth Reecy, Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that FHFC revised the “Universal Application Cycle” process that had been conducted in the past. Under the old universal cycle, most of the criteria were incorporated into the rule, and then there was a “cure” process that provided an opportunity to correct errors that didn’t necessarily have a bearing on whether a project was good enough to be funded. Under the newer process, several issues were moved out of the eligibility and scoring phase and into the credit underwriting phase.10/ Specifically relevant here, site plan issues and the availability of infrastructure, such as sewer service, were no longer examined as part of the eligibility and scoring phase set forth in the RFA. Mr. Reecy testified that these issues were complex and had been intentionally pushed to the “rigorous review” that takes place during the credit underwriting phase. In signing and submitting Exhibit A of the RFA, each applicant acknowledges and certifies that certain information will be provided to FHFC by various dates in the future. RFA at page 46. Section Four 10.b.(2)(b) provides in part that the following will be provided: Within 21 Calendar Days of the date of the invitation to enter credit underwriting: Certification of the status of site plan approval as of Application Deadline and certification that as of Application Deadline the site is appropriately zoned for the proposed Development, as outlined in Item 13 of Exhibit C of the RFA; Certification confirming the availability of the following for the entire Development site, including confirmation that these items were in place as of the Application Deadline: electricity, water, sewer service, and roads for the proposed Development, as outlined in Item 13 of Exhibit C of the RFA; Item 13 of Exhibit C goes on to provide: 13. Certification of Ability to Proceed: Within 21 Calendar Days of the date of the invitation to enter credit underwriting, the following information must be provided to the Corporation: a. Submission of the completed and executed 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan approval for Multifamily Developments form. * * * c. Evidence from the Local Government or service provider, as applicable, of the availability of infrastructure as of Application Deadline, as follows: * * * Sewer: Submission of the completed and executed 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure — Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form or a letter from the service provider which is dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline, is Development specific, and specifically states that sewer service is available to the proposed Development as of the Application Deadline. The 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments Form (Site Plan Approval Form) and the 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure — Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank Form (Certification of Sewer Capacity Form) are incorporated by reference in the RFA. The Site Plan Approval Form requires (in the case of Miami-Dade County which does not have a preliminary or conceptual site plan approval process) that the local government confirm that the site plan was reviewed as of the application deadline. Pinnacle and APC assert that the site plan that ATA submitted to the City of Miami for review included a strip of land that is not legally owned by the current owner and will not be conveyed to ATA under the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As a result, they contend, the site plan review which was required on or before the application deadline did not occur. Pinnacle argues that ATA’s certification in its application was incorrect, that this was a mandatory requirement that was not met, and that it will be impossible for ATA to provide the Site Plan Approval Form in credit underwriting. TC similarly maintains that ATA could not “acknowledge and certify” as part of its application that it would later certify that it had “ability to proceed” because the RFA (at Section Four 10.b.(2)(b) quoted above) requires that “sewer service” be “in place” for ATA’s proposed development as of the application deadline. TC also asserts that the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form explicitly states (and that any service provider letter must, too) that no moratorium is applicable to a proposed development. ATA did not submit a Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. Miami-Dade County will not complete such forms. The “letter of availability” option was created to accommodate Miami-Dade County. The November 12, 2013, letter from Miami-Dade Water and Sewer regarding ATA’s development does not state that there is no applicable moratorium in effect. In fact, the letter affirmatively acknowledges that flow to the gravity system already connected to the property cannot be increased because there is a moratorium in effect as to the pumping station serving the abutting gravity sewer basin. The letter from the County states that, if the pumping station is still in Moratorium Status “at the time this project is ready for construction,” that a private pump station is acceptable. It is logical to conclude that this means sewer service would be available at that time and that sewer service was similarly available at the time of application deadline. The letter, therefore, implies, but does not specifically state, that “sewer service is available to the proposed development as of the application deadline.” The moratorium in effect at the application deadline was not a “general” moratorium. It applied only to the pump station serving the abutting gravity sewer basin, but it was applicable to the proposed development and precluded any increase in the flow to the gravity system connected to the property. A moratorium pertaining to sewer service applicable to ATA’s proposed development was in effect at the time that ATA’s application was submitted. Sewer capacity was otherwise available for the proposed development through use of a private pump station. ATA asserts, first, that ATA has not yet filed certification of ability to proceed or the required forms or letter, that it is not to do so until after it is invited to enter credit underwriting, that FHFC has consequently yet to make a determination as to ATA’s ability to proceed, and that therefore any issues as to site plan or sewer service are not yet ripe for consideration. As to the site plan, ATA further maintains that even if it had been required to provide evidence of ability to proceed as part of its application, the site plan submitted to the City of Miami did not represent that the alley was part of the ATA site. ATA, therefore, asserts that the site plan that was reviewed was the correct one, and that its application certification was correct. The plan of the site of ATA’s development project indicates that the site is bifurcated by a private alley, which is not dedicated as a street, avenue, or boulevard. The legal description of the development project, as submitted to the Department of Planning and Zoning of the City of Miami, included lots 2 through 7 and lots 19 and 20. It did not include the strip of land that lies between these lots (lots 2 through 7 lie to the West of the alley and lots 19 and 20 lie to the East of it.) As to sewer availability, ATA asserts that the 2011 Universal Cycle and the RFA are significantly different. ATA maintains that while the former provided that the existence of a moratorium pertaining to sewer service meant that infrastructure was unavailable, this language was removed from the RFA. ATA contends that a letter of availability need not “mimic” the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form and that the RFA allows a development to certify sewer availability by other means when a moratorium is in effect. Mr. Reecy testified that FHFC takes the certified application at face value, regardless of what other information the Corporation might have at hand. As to the site plan, he testified that even had site plan approval been a part of the scoring process, FHFC would not have found ATA’s application ineligible on that ground. He testified that the alley would not be a problem unless it was a “road” or something similar. He testified that it also could have been a problem if the measurement point to measure the distance to nearby amenities was not on the property, but he was not aware that that was the case in ATA’s application. As for sewer service, Mr. Reecy testified that a letter from the service provider does not have to say “exactly” what is on the form, but stated that it does have to give “the relevant information” to let FHFC know if sewer is “possible.” He testified that the only guidance as to what constituted sewer “availability” was contained in the criteria found on the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. One of the four numbered requirements on the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form is that there are no moratoriums pertaining to sewer service that are applicable to the proposed development. Under the RFA, the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form could not be completed for a proposed development for which a moratorium pertaining to sewer service was in effect at the time the application was submitted. The form could not be certified by the service provider even if it was possible for such a development to obtain sewer service by other means. The text on the 2013 form is substantively identical to that on the form used during the 2011 Universal Cycle, that wording was specifically drafted to require that any moratorium on sewer infrastructure would be a disqualifying criterion, and the 2013 Certification of Sewer Capacity Form still has that effect. No challenge to the use of the form in the RFA was filed. Even though the language of the 2011 Universal Cycle which paralleled the text on the form does not appear in the RFA, that criterion remains as part of the RFA because of the incorporated Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. In any event, the site plan and sewer availability issues must await at least initial resolution by FHFC during the credit underwriting phase. The testimony of Mr. Reecy clearly indicated that FHFC interprets the RFA specifications and its rules to move consideration of site plan issues and infrastructure availability to the credit underwriting phase. It has not been shown that this is an impermissible interpretation. Town Center’s Application Pinnacle alleges that TC’s application fails to demonstrate site control, because the applicant, Town Center Phase Two, LLC, is not the buyer of the site it intends to develop. The RFA requires at Section Four A.7. that an applicant must provide a copy of a contract, deed, or lease to demonstrate site control: 7. Site Control: The Applicant must demonstrate site control by providing, as Attachment 7 to Exhibit A, the documentation required in Items a., b., and/or c., as indicated below. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites. a. Eligible Contract - For purposes of the RFA . . . the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer's rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided . . . . RFA at page 23. The Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property submitted as Attachment 7 to TC’s application is signed by Mr. Milo, who is identified as Vice President. The Buyer on the signature page is incorrectly listed as RUDG, LLC. No other assignment, intermediate contract, agreement, option, or conveyance was included with TC’s application to indicate that TC otherwise had site control of the property. The applicant entity, Town Center Phase Two, LLC, is correctly listed in the opening paragraph of the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property as the “Buyer.” RUDG, LLC, is the 99.99 percent Member of Town Center Phase Two, LLC, and is also the sole Member and Manager of Town Center Phase Two Manager, LLC, which is the .01 percent Managing Member of Town Center Phase Two, LLC. Mr. Milo is a Vice President of RUDG, LLC, a Vice President of Town Center Phase Two Manager, LLC, and a Vice President of the applicant, Town Center Phase Two, LLC. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.008, provides that the Corporation may waive minor irregularities in an otherwise valid application. The term “Minor Irregularity” is defined by rule 67- 60.002(6), as follows: (6) “Minor Irregularity” means a variation in a term or condition of an Application pursuant to this rule chapter that does not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants, and does not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Mr. Reecy testified that FHFC interpreted the rule to mean that if information requested by the RFA is reasonably available within the Application, even if it was not provided exactly in the place where it was requested, the failure to have it in the particular place it was requested is a minor irregularity. Although the information on the signature page of the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property identifying the Buyer as RUDG, LLC, was a discrepancy in the application, the contract elsewhere identified Town Center Phase Two, LLC, as the Buyer, and Mr. Milo was, in fact, authorized to sign for the true Buyer. Ms. Amy Garmon’s deposition testimony indicated that because she was able to determine from other places in the application that the Buyer was the applicant, and that Mr. Milo was authorized to sign for the Buyer, she found this portion of TC’s application to be compliant, and she didn’t see that there was a “minor irregularity” that needed to be waived. However, it is determined that FHFC actually did finally determine that the error in identification constituted a minor irregularity that was waived, in accordance with Mr. Reecy’s testimony. Although it was Ms. Garmon who called attention to the irregularity, Mr. Reecy is in a position of higher authority within the FHFC and is better able to address the Corporation’s actions with respect to TC’s application. Pinnacle also asserts that TC’s finance documents fail, based upon the same signature issue. TC submitted equity proposals detailing its construction funding sources that were addressed to Mr. Milo and endorsed by him as “Vice President.” FHFC similarly concluded that Mr. Milo had authority to endorse the finance letters on behalf of TC. There is evidence to support FHFC’s findings that TC was the actual Buyer, that Mr. Milo had authority to sign the contract and the equity documents, and that the discrepancies in the documents were minor irregularities. Pinnacle’s Application The equity commitment letter from Wells Fargo Bank regarding Pinnacle’s development, as submitted to FHFC, contained only pages numbered one, two, and four of a four-page letter. It is clear that page three is actually missing and the letter was not simply incorrectly numbered, because of discontinuity in the text and in the numbering of portions of the letter. APC contends that Pinnacle’s application should have been deemed ineligible for award because of the missing page. Mr. Reecy testified that even though a page of Pinnacle’s equity commitment letter was missing, all of the RFA requirements were set forth in the remaining pages. He acknowledged that the missing page might have included unacceptable conditions for closing or information that was inconsistent with the other things in the application, but stated that FHFC determined that the missing page from Pinnacle’s equity letter was a minor irregularity. There is evidence to support FHFC’s finding that the missing page was a minor irregularity. APC’s Application The RFA provides at Section Four, A.3.c., at page 5: c. Experienced Developer(s) At least one Principal of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Developer Experience requirements in (1) and (2) below. (1) General Developer Experience: A Principal of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1991, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2001. At least one (1) of the three (3) completed developments must consist of a total number of units no less than 50 percent of the total number of units in the proposed Development. For purposes of this provision, completed for each of the three (3) developments means (i) that the temporary or final certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least one (1) unit in one of the residential apartment buildings within the development, or (ii) that at least one (1) IRS Form 8609 has been issued for one of the residential apartment buildings within the development. As used in this section, an affordable rental housing development, including a Housing Credit development that contains multiple buildings, is a single development regardless of the number of buildings within the development for which an IRS Form 8609 has been issued. If the experience of a Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity. (2) Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each 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. Each prior experience chart must include the following information: Prior General Development Experience Chart Name of Principal with the Required Experience Name of Developer Entity (for the proposed Development) for which the above Party is a Principal: ___ ___________ ___ Name of Development Location (City & State) Affordable Housing Program that Provided Financing Total Number Of Units Year Completed RFA at pages 5, 6. Exhibit A to the RFA, at 3.c., further provides: General Developer Experience For each experienced Developer entity, the Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4, a prior experience chart for at least one (1) experienced Principal of that entity. The prior experience chart for the Principal must reflect the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. RFA at page 41. Ms. O’Neill, a Senior Policy Analyst at FHFC and member of the Review Committee responsible for scoring the applications’ developer information section, testified at hearing. When FHFC first started scoring applications, Ms. O’Neill was not taking any action to confirm principal developer experience, but rather was taking the information provided by applicants at face value, as it had been submitted on the chart. A colleague of Ms. O’Neill’s, not serving on the Review Committee, called her attention to the fact that a development that was then going through credit underwriting (following an award during the 2011 funding cycle) had recently requested that FHFC approve a change to the developer entity. Ms. O’Neill testified that this request raised a question at FHFC as to whether Ms. Wong, listed by APC as the principal with the required experience, met the requirements. FHFC decided to confirm that Ms. Wong had the required experience for the developments listed in the RFA. Ms. O’Neill stated that she did not make any inquiry to Ms. Wong or to Atlantic Pacific Communities as to whether Ms. Wong was, in fact, a principal of St. Luke’s Development, LLC, developer of St. Luke’s Life Center, because “we’re not really supposed to do that.” Ms. O’Neill instead looked at portions of a credit underwriting report on the St. Luke’s Life Center project that were researched and shown to her by a colleague. Ms. O’Neill did not see Ms. Wong listed in that report as a principal. She did find information in FHFC files that Ms. Wong was a principal on the other two listed developments. Ms. Thorp testified that she researched several documents in FHFC’s possession and found no information indicating that Ms. Wong was a principal for the St. Luke’s development. She testified that Ms. Wong or another representative of APC was not contacted about the issue because that would have given them an unfair advantage over other applicants. Based upon the information in its files, FHFC determined that Ms. Wong did not meet the requirements for principal developer experience. FHFC then similarly reviewed the files of other applicants who had listed in-state developments as their experience, but was unable to review out-of-state experience, so out-of-state experience continued to be accepted at face value. Ms. Wong was not originally a principal in the St. Luke’s development. However, it was demonstrated at hearing through documentary evidence that Ms. Wong was later appointed an officer of St. Luke’s Development, LLC, effective March 2007. That change was submitted to the credit underwriter, and Ms. Wong was a principal for the developer entity before it completed credit underwriting. Both Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Thorp testified that if the documents provided at hearing by APC had been in FHFC’s possession at the time APC’s application was scored, FHFC would have found that Ms. Wong was a principal of the St. Luke’s development and that her experience met principal developer experience requirements. In light of the evidence presented at hearing, it is clear that FHFC’s conclusion was wrong. The prior experience chart submitted by APC as part of its application provided all of the information requested by the RFA, and all of that information was accurate. The information available to FHFC in the application correctly indicated that Ms. Wong was a principle for the developer of the St. Luke’s Life Center development. APC’s application met all requirements of the RFA with respect to prior developer experience. The Corporation’s preliminary determinations that Ms. Wong was not a principal in the St. Luke’s development, and that the APC application did not, therefore, meet principal experience requirements to the contrary, made in good faith based upon incomplete information contained in its files, was clearly erroneous. FHFC’s contention that APC should have submitted explanations or further documentation of Ms. Wong’s developer experience at the time it submitted its application is untenable. APC submitted all of information requested of it. FHFC asked for a chart to be completed, which APC did, completely and accurately. An applicant cannot be found ineligible for failing to do more than was required by the RFA. Credit Underwriting A comparison of the RFA and rules with the 2011 Universal Cycle process shows that the Corporation has moved many requirements formerly required as part of the eligibility and scoring phase into a second review in the credit underwriting phase, as noted earlier. Rule 67-48.0072 provides in part: Credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding, including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for Housing Credits. The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team’s experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. The rule goes on to provide that this de novo review in the credit underwriting phase includes not only economic feasibility, but other factors statutorily required for allocation of tax credits, such as evidence of need for affordable housing and ability to proceed. These factors might cause an application to fail and never receive funding, even though it was nominally “awarded” the credits earlier. In that event, the RFA provides: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed to the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in the same county as the Development that returned the funding regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this Application, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If an applicant nominally “awarded” funding in the eligibility and scoring phase fails credit underwriting, the next applicant in the queue of eligible applicants may still be granted funding, and so, is substantially affected by FHFC’s decisions in the credit underwriting phase.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order finding that APC Four Forty Four, Ltd., is eligible for funding, adjusting the Sorting Order accordingly, and otherwise dismissing the formal written protests of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 4th day of June, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Having considered the pleadings and the record as reconstructed by the parties, as well as oral argument on the issues, the following pertinent facts are found: For the years previous to 1973 and for the years subsequent to 1973, petitioner has been granted a partial charitable exemption from ad valorem taxation, pursuant to F.S. 196.012(6). Petitioner's secretary, who was the only full-time salaried employee and officer of petitioner's organization, had the responsibility of reviewing and answering all correspondence addressed to petitioner. Due to the secretary's illness and subsequent demise, an application for ad valorem tax exemption for 1973 was not timely filed, and the property appraiser thus denied the exemption. For the tax year 1973, a charitable exemption would have been granted petitioner had it timely filed its application and return by April 1, 1973. Upon appeal by petitioner to the Broward County BTA on the stated grounds of "change of officers," the BTA granted the exemption upon the recommendation of the tax assessor. The BTA notified the respondent of the change in the assessor's action. The staff recommendation of the respondent was to invalidate said change on the ground that petitioner failed to demonstrate that it came within an exception to the waiver rule of Section 196.011 and therefore the change by the BTA lacked legal sufficiency and/or the evidence presented was insufficient to overcome the assessor's presumption of correctness. Petitioner requested a hearing to review the staff recommendation, the Executive Director of the respondent requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing, and the undersigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the action of the Broward County Board of Tax Adjustment granting the exemption be invalidated. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of February, 1976. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Carlton Building, Room 530 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 NOTE: Text within the *-* is unreadable on the document on file with the Division. Therefore, the complete text is not available in this ACCESS document. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. J. Ed Straughn Executive Director Department of Revenue The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32304 Mr. Thomas M. Coker, Jr. 328 Bayview Building 1040 Bayview Drive Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304 Mr. Stephen E. Mitchell Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32304 Mr. Gaylord A. Wood 603 Courthouse Square Building 200 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether use tax is due on the cost price of mobile homes, which were initially purchased to be resold to an ultimate consumer, but were subsequently rented to individuals for residential purposes.1
Findings Of Fact The Department is the agency of state government authorized to administer the tax laws of the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 213.05, Florida Statutes. The Department is authorized to prescribe the records to be maintained by all persons subject to taxes under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. Such persons have a duty to maintain and preserve their records, and the records are required to be open to examination by the Department or its authorized agents at all reasonable hours, pursuant to Section 212.12(6), Florida Statutes. The Department is authorized to conduct audits of taxpayers and to request information to ascertain the tax liability of the taxpayers, if any, pursuant to Section 213.34, Florida Statutes. Victoria Estates is a partnership and is headquartered in Buffalo, New York. During the period of January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002, Victoria Estates' activity in Florida included the ownership and operation of a 200-site mobile home park (Park), located in the city of Port Charlotte, Florida. The Park site included a golf course and a restaurant. Victoria Estates also owned two commercial strip malls--one in Bradenton, Florida and the other one in Holmes Beach, Florida. Only the tax consequence of the Park activity is at issue in the instant case. On February 20, 2003, the Department initiated an audit of Victoria Estates to determine whether Victoria Estates was properly collecting and remitting sales and use tax to the Department. The audit covered the period of January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002 (Audit Period). Victoria Estates' University Park operation was classified as a "mobile home park," as defined in Section 513.01(4), Florida Statutes. Victoria Estates’ mobile home Park was regularly inspected by the Charlotte County Department of Health, pursuant to Chapter 513, Florida Statutes, and a yearly operating permit was granted by Charlotte County. The Park was acquired in 1995. At that time, there were 130 sold units, with land rented, and 70 sites available for land lease. Victoria Estates initially purchased mobile homes tax exempt by extending a resale certificate to the manufacturer. No sales tax is paid on this transaction because it is recognized as a sale for resale. Such tax-exempt mobile homes were delivered to the Park, where they were setup on a lot and connected to utilities in accordance with the manufacturer's home installation procedure and the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Charlotte County, Florida. The tax-exempt mobile homes were furnished, and each lot was landscaped. Approximately $28,000 in costs was incurred in preparing a mobile home and lot for sale and lease. Victoria Estates' business plan was to sell the tax- exempt mobile home outright to the consumer and to rent the lot on which it was placed. Until the mobile home was sold, Victoria Estates listed the mobile home as inventory on its books and records. Victoria Estates allowed no mobile homes in the Park other than those it sold. Victoria Estates leased the unsold mobile homes in order to offset operating costs of the Park. Through September 2001, nine sites, with mobile home units, were leased over six months; 11 were leased for periods of less than six months; and 35 were available for sale/lease. Through March 2002, 15 sites, with mobile home units, were leased for periods over six months; 23 units were leased for periods less than six months; and 15 units were available for sale/lease. When a mobile home was rented, Victoria Estates would remove it as inventory from its books and records and would record the mobile home as a fixed asset. Victoria Estates utilized a written lease agreement with its tenants. By a lease agreement with each tenant, Victoria Estates leased the mobile home and the land on which the mobile home was situated. No separate charge was stated in the lease agreement for the land or the mobile home. The lease agreement included several conditions. The use of the land was restricted to residential purposes only. A limitation was placed on overnight guests of the tenant. Services, such as water, electric, cable, and phone utilities, were already connected and in the name of Victoria Estates, which paid for the services, but Victoria Estates billed each tenant for their respective share of the expenses. Compliance with building, housing and health codes was the responsibility of Victoria Estates. Further, because the leased mobile home remained for sale, if a mobile home in which a tenant was residing was sold, the tenant was required to vacate the mobile home, but would be given the option to lease another mobile home, under the same terms and conditions, or have the lease declared null and void, with the return of the security deposit. Most of the rentals of the mobile homes were seasonal in nature, and most of the revenue was received during the winter months of January through April. Furthermore, most of the renters were from out-of-state and were repeat renters. Sales of the mobile homes were not doing well and operating costs continued. In order to stimulate and promote sales and to offset operating costs, Victoria Estates decided to rent the mobile homes. By renting a mobile home, Victoria Estates removed the mobile home from its inventory and classified the mobile home as a capital asset, thereby receiving an economic benefit for federal income tax purposes as a result of a depreciation deduction. The Department's Senior Tax Specialist testified that Victoria Estate's action of renting the mobile homes to stimulate and promote sales of the mobile homes in the Park was in excess of what was necessary to sell the mobile homes. His testimony is found to be credible. After their initial placement in the Park, no mobile homes were moved to another site during the Audit Period. On April 2, 2004, the Department forwarded to Victoria Estates the Notice of Intent to Make Audit Changes, with schedules, showing that Victoria Estates owed the Department additional sales and use tax and surtax in the amount of $77,854.22 and $2,363.12, respectively, with penalty in the amount of $39,927.14 on sales and use tax and $1,181.55 on surtax, and interest, through April 2, 2004, in the amount of $22,841.83 on sales and use tax and $646.63 on surtax, totaling an assessment in the amount of $143,814.49. A penalty compromise of $20,054.35 was applied to the total, reducing the total amount due to $123,760.14. The Department assessed sales tax on transient rentals, Schedule A01, and use tax on the cost price of the mobile homes, furniture, appliances, window treatment, and other furnishings, which were subsequently leased by Victoria Estates, as transient rentals in Schedule B010. Victoria Estates remitted $9,052.92 against this assessment. Also, as to transient rentals, Victoria Estates failed to collect the proper amount of tax on some of them. The Department identified those portions of the assessment in Schedule A01; and Victoria Estates did not contest those portions of the assessment and paid the tax and interest due thereon. Only the assessed amounts relating to the mobile home purchases are at issue in the instant case. On June 15, 2004, the Department issued its Notice of Proposed Assessment. Victoria Estates timely filed a written protest to the Department's proposed assessment. On July 21, 2005, the Department issued its NOD as to the protest of Victoria Estates. In the NOD, the Department sustained the assessment as originally issued. Victoria Estates filed for a reconsideration of the Department's decision. On January 2, 2007, the Department issued its NOR in which the Department sustained the assessment as originally issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order upholding the assessment for tax and interest against Victoria Estates, Ltd. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2008.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' proposed rates are justified pursuant to the requirements of Section 627.062, Florida Statutes, or whether the Department of Financial Services, Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) was correct in denying the requested rate increases.
Findings Of Fact The Hartford companies are property and casualty insurers transacting insurance in the State of Florida pursuant to valid certificates of authority and the Florida Insurance Code. Two types of personal lines insurance filings submitted by Hartford to the OIR are at issue in this proceeding: two filings for homeowners insurance (Case Nos. 07-5185 and 07-5186) and two filings for dwelling fire insurance (Case Nos. 07-5187 and 07- 5188). Hartford's substantial interests are affected by the notices disapproving the filings in this case. Homeowners insurance includes coverage for a variety of perils in and around a home, is usually purchased by a homeowner, and covers both the structure and the contents of a home. Dwelling/fire insurance is usually purchased by the owners of properties that are leased or rented to others, and provides coverage for the structure only. Both types of insurance cover damage caused by hurricanes. The New Legislation and its Requirements In a special session held in January 2007, the Florida Legislature enacted changes to the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (CAT Fund), as reflected in Chapter 2007-1, Laws of Florida. The special session was precipitated by a perceived crisis regarding the cost and availability of homeowners insurance after the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. As a result of the substantial number of claims incurred after multiple severe hurricanes each of these years, changes in the insurance marketplace resulted in some insurance companies withdrawing from the Florida market, others non-renewing policies, one company becoming insolvent, and the cost for reinsurance available to all insurers rising dramatically. One of the primary features of the legislation was an expansion of the CAT Fund. The CAT Fund was established in 1993 after Hurricane Andrew to provide reinsurance to insurers for property insurance written in Florida at a price significantly less than the private market. The CAT Fund is a non-profit entity and is tax exempt. Prior to the enactment of Chapter 2007-1, the CAT Fund had an industry-wide capacity of approximately $16 million. The purpose of the changes enacted by the Legislature was to reduce the cost of reinsurance and thereby reduce the cost of property insurance in the state. As a result of Chapter 2007-1, the industry-wide capacity of the CAT Fund was increased to $28 billion, and insurers were given an opportunity to purchase an additional layer of reinsurance, referred to as the TICL layer (temporary increase in coverage limit), from the CAT Fund. Section 3 of Chapter 2007-1 required insurers to submit a filing to the OIR for policies written after June 1, 2007, that took into account a "presumed factor" calculated by OIR and that purported to reflect savings created by the law. The new law delegated to the OIR the duty to specify by Order the date such filings, referred to as "presumed factor filings" had to be made. On February 19, 2007, the OIR issued Order No. 89321-07. The Order required insurers to make a filing by March 15, 2007, which either adopted presumed factors published by the OIR or used the presumed factors and reflected a rate decrease taking the presumed factors into account. The presumed factors were the amounts the OIR calculated as the average savings created by Chapter 2007-1, and insurers were required to reduce their rates by an amount equal to the impact of the presumed factors. The OIR published the presumed factors on March 1, 2007. In its March 15, 2007, filings, Hartford adopted the presumed factors published by OIR. As a result, Hartford reduced its rates, effective June 1, 2007, on the products at issue in these filings by the following percentages: Case No. 07-5185 homeowners product: 17.7% Case No. 07-5186 homeowners product: 21.9% Case No. 07-5187 dwelling/fire product: 8.7% Case No. 07-5188 dwelling/fire product: 6.2% The Order also required that insurers submit a "True-Up Filing" pursuant to Section 627.026(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes. The filing was to be a complete rate filing that included the company's actual reinsurance costs and programs. Hartford's filings at issue in these proceedings are its True-Up Filings. The True-Up Filings Hartford submitted its True-Up filings June 15, 2007. The rate filings were certified as required by Section 627.062(9), Florida Statutes. The filings were amended August 8, 2007. Hartford's True Up Filings, as amended, request the following increases in rates over those reflected in the March 15, 2007, presumed factor filings: Case No. 07-5185 homeowners product: 22.0% Case No. 07-5186 homeowners product: 31.6% Case No. 07-5187 dwelling and fire product: 69.0% Case No. 07-5188 dwelling and fire product: 35.9% The net effects of Hartford's proposed rate filings result in the following increases over the rates in place before the Presumed Factor Filings: Case No. 07-5185 homeowners product: .4% Case No. 07-5186 homeowners product: 2.8% Case No. 07-5187 dwelling/fire product: 54.3% Case No. 07-5188 dwelling/fire product: 27.5% Case Nos. 07-5185 and 07-5186 (homeowners) affect approximately 92,000 insurance policies. Case Nos. 07-5187 and 07-5188 (dwelling/fire) affect approximately 2,550 policies. A public hearing was conducted on the filings August 16, 2007. Representatives from Hartford were not notified prior to the public hearing what concerns the OIR might have with the filings. Following the hearing, on August 20, 2007, Petitioners provided by letter and supporting documentation additional information related to the filings in an effort to address questions raised at the public hearing. The OIR did not issue clarification letters to Hartford concerning any of the information provided or any deficiencies in the filings before issuing its Notices of Intent to Disapprove the True-Up Filings. All four filings were reviewed on behalf of the OIR by Allan Schwartz. Mr. Schwartz reviewed only the True-Up Filings and did not review any previous filings submitted by Hartford with respect to the four product lines. On September 10, 2007, the OIR issued Notices of Intent to Disapprove each of the filings at issue in this case. The reasons give for disapproving the two homeowners filings are identical and are as follows: Having reviewed the information submitted, the Office finds that this filing does not provide sufficient documentation or justification to demonstrate that the proposed rate(s) comply with the standards of the appropriate statute(s) and rules(s) including demonstrating that the proposed rates are not excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory. The deficiencies include but are not limited to: The premium trends are too low and are not reflective of the historical pattern of premium trends. The loss trends are too high and are not reflective of the historical pattern of loss trends. The loss trends are based on an unexplained and undocumented method using "modeled" frequency and severity as opposed to actual frequency and severity. The loss trends are excessive and inconsistent compared to other sources of loss trends such as Fast Track data. The catastrophe hurricane losses, ALAE and ULAE amounts are excessive and not supported. The catastrophe non-hurricane losses, ALAE and ULAE amounts are excessive and not supported. The particular time period from 1992 to 2006 used to calculate these values has not been justified. There has been no explanation of why the extraordinarily high reported losses for 1992 and 1993 should be expected to occur in the future. The underwriting profit and contingency factors are excessive and not supported. Various components underlying the calculation of the underwriting profit and contingency factors, including but not limited to the return on surplus, premium to surplus ratio, investment income and tax rate are not supported or justified. The underwriting expenses and other expenses are excessive and not supported. The non-FHCF reinsurance costs are excessive and not supported. The FHCF reinsurance costs are excessive and not supported. The fact that no new business is being written has not been taken into account. No explanation has been provided as too [sic] Hartford believes it is reasonable to return such a low percentage of premium in the form of loss payments to policyholders. For example, for the building policy forms, only about 40% of the premium requested by Hartford is expected to be returned to policyholders in the form of loss payments. As a result of the deficiencies set forth above, the Office finds that the proposed rate(s) are not justified, and must be deemed excessive and therefore, the Office intends to disapprove the above-referenced filing. The Notices of Intent to Disapprove the two dwelling/fire filings each list nine deficiencies. Seven of the nine (numbers 1-6 and 8) are the same as deficiencies listed for the homeowners filings. The remaining deficiencies named for Case No. 07-5187 are as follows: 7. The credibility standard and credibility value are not supported. 9. No explanation has been provided as too (sic) why Hartford believes it needs such a large rate increase currently, when the cumulative rate change implemented by Hartford for this program from 2001 to 2006 was an increase of only about 10%. The deficiencies listed for Case No. 07-5188 are the same as those listed for Case No. 07-5187, with the exception that with respect to deficiency number 9, the rate change implemented for the program in Case No. 07-5188 from 2001 to 2006 was a decrease of about -3%. Documentation Required for the Filings Florida's regulatory framework, consistent with most states, requires that insurance rates not be inadequate, excessive, or unfairly discriminatory. In making a determination concerning whether a proposed rate complies with this standard, the OIR is charged with considering certain enumerated factors in accordance with generally accepted and reasonable actuarial techniques. Chapter 2007-1 also amended Section 627.062, Florida Statutes, to add a certification requirement. The amendment requires the chief executive officer or chief financial officer and chief actuary of a property insurer to certify under oath that they have reviewed the rate filing; that to their knowledge, the rate filing does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which the statements were made, not misleading; that based on their knowledge, the information in the filing fairly presents the basis of the rate filing for the period presented; and that the rate filing reflects all premium savings reasonably expected to result from legislative enactments and are in accordance with generally accepted and reasonable actuarial techniques. § 627.062(9)(a), Fla. Stat. (2007). Actuarial Standards of Practice 9 and 41 govern documentation by an actuary. Relevant sections of Standard of Practice 9 provide: Extent of documentation - . . . Appropriate records, worksheets, and other documentation of the actuary's work should be maintained by the actuary and retained for a reasonable length of time. Documentation should be sufficient for another actuary practicing in the same field to evaluate the work. The documentation should describe clearly the sources of data, material assumptions, and methods. Any material changes in sources of data, assumptions, or methods from the last analysis should be documented. The actuary should explain the reason(s) for and describe the impact of the changes. Prevention of misuse - . . . The actuary should take reasonable steps to ensure that an actuarial work product is presented fairly, that the presentation as a whole is clear in its actuarial aspects, and that the actuary is identified as the source of the actuarial aspects, and that the actuary is available to answer questions.. . . . * * * 5.5 Availability of documentation- Documentation should be available to the actuary's client or employer, and it should be made available to other persons when the client or employer so requests, assuming appropriate compensation, and provided such availability is not otherwise improper. . . . In determining the appropriate level of documentation for the proposed rate filings, Petitioner relied on its communications with OIR, as well as its understanding of what has been required in the past. This reliance is reasonable and is consistent with both the statutory and rule provisions governing the filings. Use of the RMS Catastrophic Loss Projection Model In order to estimate future losses in a rate filing, an insurer must estimate catastrophic and non-catastrophic losses. Hartford's projected catastrophic losses in the filings are based upon information provided from the Risk Management Solutions (RMS) catastrophic loss projection model, version 5.1a. Hartford's actuaries rely on this model, consistent with the standards governing actuarial practice, and their reliance is reasonable. Catastrophe loss projection models may be used in the preparation of insurance filings, if they have been considered by and accepted by the Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology (the Hurricane Commission). The Hurricane Commission determined that the RMS model, version 5.1a was acceptable for projecting hurricane loss costs for personal residential rate filings on May 17, 2006. In addition to approval by the Hurricane Commission, use of the model is appropriate "only if the office and the consumer advocate appointed pursuant to s. 627.0613 have access to all of the assumptions and factors that were used in developing the actuarial methods, principles, standards, models, or output ranges, and are not precluded from disclosing such information in a rate proceeding." §627.0628(3)(c), Fla. Stat. Both the Consumer Advocate and a staff person from the OIR are members of the Hurricane Commission. In that context, both have the ability to make on-site visits to the modeling companies, and to ask any questions they choose regarding the models. Both OIR's representative and the Consumer Advocate participated in the meetings and had the same opportunity as other commissioners to ask any question they wished about RMS 5.1a. The Hurricane Commission members, including the Consumer Advocate, clearly have access to the information identified in Section 627.0628(3)(c). However, there are restrictions on the Hurricane Commission members' ability to share the information received regarding trade secrets disclosed by the modeling companies. For that reason, the Commission's deliberations are not, standing alone, sufficient to determine that the Office of Insurance Regulation has access. In this case, credible evidence was submitted to show that RMS officials met with staff from the Office in July and October 2006 to discuss the model. RMS offered to provide any of its trade secret information to the OIR, subject to a non- disclosure agreement to protect its dissemination to competitors. RMS also opened an office in Tallahassee and invited OIR staff to examine any parts of the model they wished. In addition, both RMS and Hartford have answered extensive questionnaires prepared by OIR regarding the RMS model, and Hartford has offered to assist OIR in gathering any additional information it requires. Most of the questions posed by OIR involve the same areas reviewed by the Commission. RMS' representative also testified at hearing that RMS would not object to disclosure of the assumptions during the hearing itself if necessary. Finally, OIR Exhibit 1 is the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund 2007 Ratemaking Formula Report. The Executive Summary from the report explains how rates were recommended for the Florida Hurricane Catastrophic Fund (CAT Fund) for the 2007- 2008 contract year. The report stated that the RMS model, as well as three other models accepted by the Hurricane Commission, were used for determining expected aggregate losses to the CAT Fund reinsurance layer. Three models, including the RMS model, were also used for analysis of detailed allocation to type of business, territory, construction and deductible, as well as special coverage questions. The models were compared in detail and given equal weight. The report notes that these three models were also used in 1999-2006 ratemaking. The report is prepared by Paragon Strategic Solutions, Inc., an independent consultant selected by the State Board of Administration, in accordance with Section 215.555(5), Florida Statutes. While OIR did not prepare the report, they show no hesitation in accepting and relying on the report and the modeled information it contains in these proceedings. Indeed, one of OIR's criticisms is Hartford's failure to use the report with respect to CAT Fund loss recovery estimates. Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, it is found that the OIR and Consumer Advocate were provided access to the factors and assumptions used in the RMS model, as contemplated by Section 627.0628. The Alleged Deficiencies in the Homeowners Filings1/ A rate is an estimate of the expected value of future costs. It provides for all costs associated with the transfer of risk. A rate is reasonable and not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory if it is an actuarially sound estimate of the expected value of all future costs associated with an individual risk transfer. In preparing a filing, an actuary identifies the time period that its proposed rates are expected to be in effect. Because ratemaking is prospective, it involves determining the financial value of future contingent events. For the rate filings in question, actuaries for Hartford developed their rate indications by first considering trended premium, which reflects changes in premium revenue based on a variety of factors, including construction costs and the value of the buildings insured. Trended premium is the best estimate of the premium revenue that will be collected if the current rates remain in effect for the time period the filing is expected to be in place. Expenses associated with writing and servicing the business, the reinsurance costs to support the business and an allowance for profit are subtracted from the trended premium. The remainder is what would be available to pay losses. This approach to ratemaking, which is used by Hartford, is a standard actuarial approach to present the information for a rate indication. As part of the process, expected claims and the cost to service and settle those claims is also projected. These calculations show the amount of money that would be available to pay claims if no changes are made in the rates and how much increased premium is necessary to cover claims. The additional amount of premium reflects not only claims payments but also taxes, licenses and fees that are tied to the amount of premium. The first deficiency identified by OIR is that "the premium trends are too low and are not reflective of the historical pattern of premium trends." In determining the premium trend in each filing, Hartford used data from the previous five years and fit an exponential trend to the historical pattern, which is a standard actuarial technique. Hartford also looked at the factors affecting the more recent years, which were higher. For example, the peak in premium trend in 2006 was a result of the cost increases driven by the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes, and the peak in demand for labor and construction supplies not matched by supply. Costs were coming down going into 2007, and Hartford believed that 2006 was out of pattern from what they could anticipate seeing in the future. The premium trends reflected in Hartford's filings are reasonable, reflective of historical patterns, and based on standard actuarial techniques. The second identified deficiency with respect to the homeowner filings was that the loss trends are too high and are not reflective of the historical pattern of loss trends. A loss trend reflects the amount an insurance company expects the cost of claims to change. It consists of a frequency trend, which is the number of claims the insurance company expects to receive, and a severity trend, which is the average cost per claim. The loss trend compares historical data used in the filing with the future time period when the new rates are expected to be in effect. Hartford's loss trends were estimated using a generalized linear model, projecting frequency and severity separately. The model was based on 20 quarters of historical information. The more credible testimony presented indicates that the loss trends were actuarially appropriate. The third identified deficiency is that the loss trends are based on an unexplained and undocumented method using "modeled" frequency and severity as opposed to actual frequency and severity. As noted above, the generalized linear model uses actual, historical data. Sufficient documentation was provided in the filing, coupled with Hartford's August 20, 2007, letter. The method used to determine loss trends is reasonable and is consistent with standard actuarial practice. The fourth identified deficiency is that loss trends are excessive and inconsistent compared to other sources of loss trends, such as Fast Track data. Saying that the loss trends are excessive is a reiteration of the claim that they are too high, already addressed with respect to deficiency number two. Fast Track data is data provided by the Insurance Services Office. It uses unaudited information and is prepared on a "quick turnaround" basis. Fast Track data is based on paid claims rather than incurred claims data, and upon a broad number of companies with different claims settlement practices. Because it relies on paid claims, there is a time lag in the information provided. Hartford did not rely on Fast Track data, but instead relied upon its own data for calculating loss trends. Given the volume of business involved, Hartford had enough data to rely on for projecting future losses. Moreover, Respondents point to no statutory or rule requirement to use Fast Track data. The filings are not deficient on this basis. The fifth identified deficiency in the Notice of Intent to Disapprove is that catastrophe hurricane losses, ALAE and ULAE amounts are excessive and not supported. ALAE stands for "allocated loss adjustment expenses," and represents the costs the company incurs to settle a claim and that can be attributed to that particular claim, such as legal bills, court costs, experts and engineering reports. By contrast, ULAE stands for "unallocated loss adjustment expense" and represents the remainder of claims settlement costs that cannot be linked to a specific claim, such as office space, salaries and general overhead. Part of the OIR's objection with respect to this deficiency relates to the use of the RMS model. As stated above at paragraphs 25-33, the use of the RMS model is reasonable. With respect to ALAE, Hartford analyzed both nationwide data (4.4%) and Florida data (4.8%) and selected an ALAE load between the two (4.6%). This choice benefits Florida policyholders. It is reasonable to select between the national and Florida historical figures, given the amount of actual hurricane data available during the period used. With respect to ULAE, the factors used were based upon directions received from Ken Ritzenthaler, an actuary with OIR, in a previous filing. The prior discussions with Mr. Ritzenthaler are referenced in the exhibits to the filing. The more credible evidence demonstrates that the ALAE and ULAE expenses with respect to catastrophic hurricane losses are sufficiently documented in Hartford's filings and are based on reasonable actuarial judgment. The sixth identified deficiency is that the catastrophe non-hurricane losses, ALAE and ULAE amounts are excessive and not supported. According to OIR, the particular time period from 1992 to 2006 used to calculate these values has not been justified, and there has been no explanation of why the extraordinarily high reported losses for 1992 and 1993 should be expected to occur in the future. OIR's complaint with respect to non-hurricane losses is based upon the number of years of data included. While the RMS model was used for hurricane losses, there is no model for non- hurricane losses, so Hartford used its historical data. This becomes important because in both 1992 and 1993, there were unusual storms that caused significant losses. Hartford's data begins with 1992 and goes through 2006, which means approximately fifteen years worth of data is used. Hartford's explanation for choosing that time period is that hurricane models were first used in 1992, and it was at that time that non-hurricane losses had to be separated from hurricane losses. Thus, it was the first year that Hartford had the data in the right form and sufficient detail to use in a rate filing. Petitioners have submitted rate filings in the past that begin non-hurricane, ALAE and ULAE losses with 1992, increasing the number of years included in the data with each filing. Prior filings using this data have been approved by OIR. It is preferable to use thirty years of experience for this calculation. However, there was no testimony that such a time-frame is actuarially or statutorily required, and OIR's suggestion that these two high-loss years should be ignored is not based upon any identified actuarial standard. Hartford attempted to mitigate the effect of the severe losses in 1992 and 1993 by capping the losses for those years, as opposed to relying on the actual losses.2/ The methodology used by Hartford was reasonable and appropriate. No other basis was identified by the OIR to support this stated deficiency. The seventh identified deficiency is that the underwriting profit and contingency factors are excessive and not supported. The underwriting profit factor is the amount of income, expressed as a percentage of premium, that an insurance company needs from premium in excess of losses, settlement costs and other expenses in order to generate a fair rate of return on its capital necessary to support its Florida exposures for the applicable line of business. Hartford's proposed underwriting profit factor for its largest homeowners filing is 15.3%. Section 627.062(2)(b), Florida Statutes, contemplates the allowance of a reasonable rate of return, commensurate with the risk to which the insurance company exposes its capital and surplus. Section 627.062(2)(b)4., Florida Statutes, authorizes the adoption of rules to specify the manner in which insurers shall calculate investment income attributable to classes of insurance written in Florida, and the manner in which investment income shall be used in the calculation of insurance rates. The subsection specifically indicates that the manner in which investment income shall be used in the calculation of insurance rates shall contemplate allowances for an underwriting profit factor. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-170.003 is entitled "Calculation of Investment Income," and the stated purpose of this rule is as follows: (1) The purpose of this rule is to specify the manner in which insurers shall calculate investment income attributable to insurance policies in Florida and the manner in which such investment income is used in the calculation of insurance rates by the development of an underwriting profit and contingency factor compatible with a reasonable rate of return. (Emphasis supplied). Mr. Schwartz relied on the contents of this rule in determining that the underwriting profit factor in Hartford's filings was too high, in that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-170.003(6)(a) and (7) specifies that: (6)(a) . . . An underwriting profit and contingency factor greater than the quantity 5% is prima facie evidence of an excessive expected rate of return and unacceptable, unless supporting evidence is presented demonstrating that an underwriting profit and contingency factor included in the filing that is greater than this quantity is necessary for the insurer to earn a reasonable rate of return. In such case, the criteria presented as determined by criteria in subsection (7) shall be used by the Office of Insurance Regulation in evaluating this supporting evidence. * * * An underwriting profit and contingency factor calculated in accordance with this rule is considered to be compatible with a reasonable expected rate of return on net worth. If a determination must be made as to whether an expected rate of return is reasonable, the following criteria shall be used in that determination. An expected rate of return for Florida business is to be considered reasonable if, when sustained by the insurer for its business during the period for which the rates under scrutiny are in effect, it neither threatens the insurer's solvency nor makes the insurer more attractive to policyholders or investors from a corporate financial perspective than the same insurer would be had this rule not been implemented, all other variables being equal; or Alternatively, the expected rate of return for Florida business is to be considered reasonable if it is commensurate with the rate of return anticipated for other industries having corresponding risk and it is sufficient to assure confidence in the financial integrity of the insurer so as to maintain its credit and, if a stock insurer, to attract capital, or if a mutual or reciprocal insurer, to accumulate surplus reasonably necessary to support growth in Florida premium volume reasonably expected during the time the rates under scrutiny are in effect. Mr. Schwartz also testified that the last published underwriting profit and contingency factor published by OIR was 3.7%, well below what is identified in Hartford's filings. Hartford counters that reliance on the rule is a misapplication of the rule (with no explanation why), is inconsistent with OIR's treatment of the profit factors in their previous filings, and ignores the language of Section 627.062(2)(b)11., Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented to show whether the expected rate of return threatens Hartford's solvency or makes them more attractive to policyholders or investors from a corporate financial perspective than they would have been if Rule 69O- 170.003 was not implemented. Likewise, it was not demonstrated that the expected rate of return for Florida business is commensurate with the rate of return for other industries having corresponding risk and is necessary to assure confidence in the financial integrity of the insurer in order to maintain its credit and to attract capital. While the position taken by OIR with respect to Hartford's filings may be inconsistent with the position taken in past filings, that cannot be determined on this record. The prior filings, and the communications Hartford had with OIR with regard to those filings, are not included in the exhibits in this case. There is no way to determine whether Petitioners chose to present evidence in the context of prior filings consistent with the criteria in Rule 69O-170.003, or whether OIR approved the underwriting profit and contingency factor despite Rule 69O- 170.003. Having an underwriting profit factor that is considered excessive will result in a higher rate indication. Therefore, it is found that the seventh identified deficiency in the Notices of Intent to Disapprove for the homeowners filings and the second identified deficiency in the Notices of Intent to Disapprove for the dwelling/fire filings is sustained. The eighth identified deficiency is that various components underlying the calculation of the underwriting profit and contingency factors, including but not limited to the return on surplus, premium to surplus ratio, investment income and tax rate are not supported or justified. Return on surplus is the total net income that would result from the underwriting income and the investment income contributions relative to the amount of capital that is exposed. Surplus is necessary in addition to income expected from premium, to insure that claims will be paid should losses in a particular year exceed premium and income earned on premium. Hartford's expected return on surplus in these filings is 15%. The return on surplus is clearly tied to the underwriting profit factor, although the percentages are not necessarily the same. It follows, however, that if the underwriting income and contingency factor is excessive, then the return on surplus may also be too high. Hartford has not demonstrated that the return on surplus can stand, independent of a finding that the underwriting profit and contingency factor is excessive. Premium-to-surplus ratio is a measure of the number of dollars of premium Hartford writes relative to the amount of surplus that is supporting that exposure. Hartford's premium-to- surplus ratio in the AARP homeowners filing is 1.08, which means that if Hartford wrote $108 of premium, it would allocate $100 of surplus to support that premium.3/ The premium-to-surplus ratio is reasonable, given the amount of risk associated with homeowners insurance in Florida. The OIR's position regarding investment income and tax rates are related. The criticism is that the filing used a low- risk investment rate based on a LIBOR (London Interbank Offering Rate), which is a standard in the investment community for risk- free or low-risk yield calculations. The filing also used a full 35% income tax rate applied to the yield. Evidence was presented to show that, if the actual portfolio numbers and corresponding lower tax rate were used in the filings, the rate after taxes would be the same. The problem, however, is that Section 627.062(2)(b)4., Florida Statutes, requires the OIR to consider investment income reasonably expected by the insurer, "consistent with the insurer's investment practices," which assumes actual practices. While the evidence at hearing regarding Hartford's investments using its actual portfolio yield may result in a similar bottom line, the assumptions used in the filing are not based on Petitioner's actual investment practices. As a result, the tax rate identified in the filing is also not the actual tax rate that has been paid by Hartford. The greater weight of the evidence indicates the data used is not consistent with the requirements of Section 627.062(2)(b)4., Florida Statutes. Therefore, the eighth deficiency is sustained to the extent that the filing does not adequately support the return on surplus, investment income and tax rate. The ninth identified deficiency is that the underwriting expenses and other expenses are excessive and not supported. Hartford used the most recent three years of actual expense data, analyzed them and made expense selections based on actuarial judgment. The use of the three-year time frame was both reasonable and consistent with common ratemaking practices. Likewise, the commission rates reflected in the agency filings are also reasonable. The tenth identified deficiency is that the non-FHCF (or private) reinsurance costs are excessive and not supported. The criticism regarding private reinsurance purchases is three- fold: 1) that Hartford paid too much for their reinsurance coverage; 2) that Hartford purchases their reinsurance coverage on a nationwide basis as opposed to purchasing coverage for Florida only; and 3) that the percentage of the reinsurance coverage allocated to Florida is too high. Hartford buys private reinsurance in order to write business in areas that are exposed to catastrophes. It buys reinsurance from approximately 40 different reinsurers in a competitive, arm's-length process and does not buy reinsurance from corporate affiliates. Hartford used the "net cost" of insurance in its filings, an approach that is appropriate and consistent with standard actuarial practices. Hartford also used the RMS model to estimate the expected reinsurance recoveries, which are subtracted from the premium costs. Hartford buys private catastrophic reinsurance on a nationwide basis to protect against losses from hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorism, and allocates a portion of those costs to Florida. Testimony was presented, and is accepted as credible, that attempting to purchase reinsurance from private vendors for Florida alone would not be cost-effective. The cost of reinsurance, excluding a layer of reinsurance that covers only the Northeast region of the country and is not reflected in calculating costs for Florida, is approximately $113 million. Hartford retains the first $250 million in catastrophe risk for any single event, which means losses from an event must exceed that amount before the company recovers from any reinsurer. In 2006, Hartford raised its retention of losses from $175 million to $250 million in an effort to reduce the cost of reinsurance. Hartford purchases reinsurance in "layers," which cover losses based on the amount of total losses Hartford incurs in various events. Hartford allocates approximately 65% of the private reinsurance costs (excluding the Northeast layer) to Florida in the AARP homeowners filing. Only 6-7% of Hartford's homeowners policies are written in Florida. The amount Hartford paid for reinsurance from private vendors is reasonable, given the market climate in which the insurance was purchased. Hartford has demonstrated that the process by which the reinsurance was purchased resulted in a price that was clearly the result of an arms-length transaction with the aim of securing the best price possible. Likewise, the determination to purchase reinsurance on a nationwide basis as opposed to a state-by-state program allows Hartford to purchase reinsurance at a better rate, and is more cost-effective. Purchasing reinsurance in this manner, and then allocating an appropriate percentage to Florida, is a reasonable approach. With respect to the allocation of a percentage of reinsurance cost to Florida, OIR argues that, given that Florida represents only 6-7% of Hartford's homeowner insurance business, allocation of 65% of the reinsurance costs to Florida is per se unreasonable. However, the more logical approach is to examine what percentage of the overall catastrophic loss is attributable to Florida, and allocate reinsurance costs accordingly. After carefully examining both the testimony of all of the witnesses and the exhibits presented in this case, the undersigned cannot conclude that the allocation of 65% of the private reinsurance costs is reasonable, and will not result in an excessive rate.4/ The eleventh identified deficiency is that the FHCF (or CAT Fund) reinsurance costs are excessive and not supported. Hartford purchases both the traditional layer of CAT Fund coverage, which is addressed in a separate filing and not reflected in these filings, and the TICL layer made available pursuant to Chapter 2007-1, Laws of Florida. Hartford removed the costs of its previously purchased private reinsurance that overlapped with the TICL layer and those costs are not reflected in these filings and have not been passed on to Florida policyholders. In estimating the amount of premium Hartford would pay for the TICL coverage, it relied on information provided by Paragon, a consulting firm that calculates the rates for the CAT Fund. As noted in finding of fact number 31, the RMS model, along with three other models accepted by the Hurricane Commission, were used by Paragon for determining expected aggregate losses to the CAT Fund reinsurance layer, clearly a crucial factor in determining the rate for the CAT fund. Hartford did not use the loss recoveries calculated by Paragon, but instead estimated the total amount of premium it would pay for the TICL coverage and subtracted the expected loss recoveries based on the RMS model alone. The expected loss recoveries under the RMS model standing alone were 60% of the loss recovery estimate calculated by Paragon when using all four models. Hartford claimed that its use of the RMS model was necessary for consistency. However, it pointed to no actuarial standard that would support its position with respect to this particular issue. Moreover, given that the premium used as calculated by Paragon used all four models, it is actually inconsistent to use one number which was determined based on all four models (the Paragon-based premium estimate) for one half of this particular calculation and then subtract another number using only one model for the other half (the loss recoveries rate) in order to determine the net premium. To do so fails to take into account the unique nature of the CAT fund, in terms of its low expenses and tax-exempt status. Accordingly, it is found that the CAT-Fund reinsurance costs for the TICL layer are excessive. The twelfth identified deficiency is that Hartford did not consider in the filing that no new business is being written. OIR's explanation of this asserted deficiency is that the costs associated with writing new business are generally higher than that associated with writing renewals. Therefore, according to OIR, failure to make adjustments to their historical experience to reflect the current mix of business, means that the costs included in the filing would be excessive. Hartford began restricting the writing of new business for these filings in 2002. Ultimately, no new business for the AARP program was written after November 2006 and no new business was written for the agency program after June 2006. Credible evidence was presented to demonstrate that a very low percentage of new business has been written over the period of time used for demonstrating Hartford's historical losses. As a result, the effect of no longer writing new business is already reflected in the data used to determine expenses. No additional adjustment in the filing was necessary in this regard. The thirteenth identified deficiency is that no explanation has been provided as to why Hartford believes it is reasonable to return such a low percentage of premium in the form of loss payments to policyholders. For example, for the building policy forms, OIR states that only about 40% of the premium requested by Hartford is expected to be returned to policyholders in the form of loss payments. OIR pointed to no actuarial standard that would require a specific explanation regarding how much of the premium should be returned to policyholders. Nor was any statutory or rule reference supplied to support the contention that such an explanation was required. Finally, the more credible evidence presented indicates that the correct percentage is 44%. In any event, this criticism is not a basis for finding a deficiency in the filing. Alleged Deficiencies in the Dwelling/Fire Filings The seventh deficiency identified in the dwelling/fire filings, not reflected in the homeowner filings, is that the credibility standard and credibility values are not supported. Credibility is the concept of identifying how much weight to put on a particular set of information relative to other potential information. Credibility value is determined by applying the "square root rule" to the credibility value, a commonly used actuarial approach to credibility. Hartford used the credibility standard of 40,000 earned house years in these filings. This credibility standard has been the standard within the industry for personal property filings for over forty years and has been used in prior filings submitted to OIR. Mr. Schwartz testified that his criticism with respect to the credibility standard and credibility values is that Hartford did not explain why they used that particular standard. However, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-170.0135 discusses those items that must be included in the Actuarial Memorandum for a filing. With respect to credibility standards and values, Rule 69O-170.0135(2)(e)5., provides that the basis need only be explained when the standard has changed from the previous filing. Given that no change has been made in these filings with respect to the credibility standard, this criticism is not a valid basis for issuing a Notice of Intent to Disapprove. The ninth deficiency in the Notice relating to the dwelling/fire filing in Case No. 07-5187 provides: "No explanation has been provided as too (sic) why Hartford believes it needs such a large rate increase currently, when the cumulative rate change implemented by Hartford for this program from 2001 to 2006 was an increase of only about 10%." With respect to Case No. 07-5188, the deficiency is essentially the same, except the cumulative rate change identified for the same period of time is a decrease of about -3%. Testimony established that the dwelling/fire rate increases were larger than those identified for the homeowners filings because Hartford did not seek rate increases for these lines for several years. The decision not to seek increases was not based on the adequacy of current rates. Rather, the decision was based on an internal determination that, based on the relatively small number of policies involved in these two filings, the amount of increased premium reflected in a rate increase was not sufficient to incur the costs associated with preparing the filings. Mr. Schwartz pointed to no authority, either in statute, rule, or Actuarial Standard, that requires the explanation he desired. He acknowledged that he understood the basis of how Hartford reached the rate increase they are requesting. The failure to provide the explanation Mr. Schwartz was seeking is not a valid basis for a Notice of Intent to Disapprove.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered that disapproves the rate filings in Case Nos. 07-5185 and 07-5186 based upon the deficiencies numbered 7,8,10 and 11 in the Notices of Intent to Disapprove, and that disapproves the rate filings in Case Nos. 07-5187 and 07-5188 based on the deficiencies numbered 2,3,5 and in the Notices of Intent to Disapprove. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2008.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the actions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2016-110, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the “RFA”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the issue is whether Florida Housing acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications in finding that the applications of Petitioners JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership (“JPM Outlook”) and Grande Park Limited Partnership (“Grande Park”) were ineligible for funding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: JPM Outlook is a Florida limited partnership based in Jacksonville, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Grande Park is a Florida limited partnership based in Jacksonville, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Hammock Ridge is a Florida limited liability company based in Coconut Grove, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. For the purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. 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 that qualify. The credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect of this sale is to reduce 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. Housing 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 is authorized to allocate housing tax credits and other funding by means of a request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its housing tax credits, which are made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants will normally sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount which can be received depends upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated area of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications. A Request for Applications is equivalent to a “request for proposal,” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). The RFA in this case was issued on October 7, 2016. A modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 2, 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 dismissed prior to hearing. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $12,312,632 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments in Medium Counties, as well as up to an estimated $477,091 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments in Small Counties other than Monroe County. By the terms of the RFA, a review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviewed and scored each application. These scores were presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately made a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation was presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (“the Board”) for final agency action. On March 24, 2017, all applicants received notice that the Board had approved the recommendation of the review committee concerning which applications were eligible or ineligible for funding and which applications were selected for awards of housing tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. The notice was provided by the posting on Florida Housing’s website (www.floridahousing.org) 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 10 developments, including Intervenor Hammock Ridge. Petitioners JPM Outlook and Grande Park were deemed ineligible. If JPM Outlook and Grande Park had been deemed eligible, each would have been in the funding range based on its assigned lottery number and the RFA selection criteria. If Grande Park had been deemed eligible, Hammock Ridge would not have been recommended for funding. Petitioners JPM Outlook and Grande Park timely filed notices of protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The scoring decision at issue in this proceeding is based on Florida Housing’s decision that Petitioners failed to submit as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A the correct and properly signed version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form. Petitioners’ admitted failure to submit the correct Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was the sole reason that Florida Housing found Petitioners’ applications to be ineligible for funding. Section Four of the RFA was titled, “INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN APPLICATION.” Listed there among the Exhibit A submission requirements was the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form, described as follows: The Applicant must include a signed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A to indicate the Applicant’s certification and acknowledgement of the provisions and requirements of the RFA. The form included in the copy of the Application labeled “Original Hard Copy” must reflect an original signature (blue ink is preferred). The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form is provided in Exhibit B of this RFA and on the Corporation’s Website http://www.floridahousing.org/Developers/ MultiFamilyPrograms/Competitive/2016- 110/RelatedForms/ (also accessible by clicking here). Note: If the Applicant provides any version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form other than the version included in this RFA, the form will not be considered. The final sentence of the quoted language is referred to by Florida Housing as the “effects clause.” The November 10, 2016, modifications to the RFA were communicated to applicants in three ways. First, Florida Housing provided a Web Board notice. The Florida Housing Web Board is a communication tool that allows interested parties and development partners to stay apprised of modifications to procurement documents. Second, each RFA issued by Florida Housing, including the one at issue in this proceeding, has its own specific page on Florida Housing's website with hyperlinks to all documents related to that RFA. Third, Florida Housing released an Official Modification Notice that delineated every modification, including a “blackline” version showing the changes with underscoring for emphasis. Brian Parent is a principal for both JPM Outlook and Grande Park. Mr. Parent received the Web Board notification of the RFA modifications via email. Upon receiving the email, Mr. Parent reviewed the modifications on the Florida Housing website. The modification to the RFA, posted on Florida Housing’s website on November 10, 2016, included the following modification of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form, with textual underscoring indicating new language: Pursuant to Rule 67-60.005, F.A.C., Modification of Terms of Competitive Solicitations, Florida Housing hereby modifies Item 2.b.(4) of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form to read as follows: (4) Confirmation that, if the proposed Development meets the definition of Scattered Sites, all Scattered Sites requirements that were not required to be met in the Application will be met, including that all features and amenities committed to and proposed by the Applicant that are not unit- specific shall be located on each of the Scattered Sites, or no more than 1/16 mile from the Scattered Site with the most units, or a combination of both. If the Surveyor Certification form in the Application indicates that the proposed Development does not consist of Scattered Sites, but it is determined during credit underwriting that the proposed Development does meet the definition of Scattered Sites, all of the Scattered Sites requirements must have been met as of Application Deadline and, if all Scattered Sites requirements were not in place as of the Application Deadline, the Applicant’s funding award will be rescinded; Note: For the Application to be eligible for funding, the version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form reflecting the Modification posted 11-10-16 must be submitted to the Corporation by the Application Deadline, as outlined in the RFA. Rule 67-48.002(105) defines “Scattered Sites” as follows: “Scattered Sites,” as applied to a single Development, means a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition “contiguous” means touching at a point or along a boundary. Real property is contiguous if the only intervening real property interest is an easement, provided the easement is not a roadway or street. All of the Scattered Sites must be located in the same county. The RFA modification included other changes concerning Scattered Sites. Those changes either modified the Surveyor Certification Form itself or required applicants to correctly provide information concerning Scattered Sites in the Surveyor Certification Form. Each Petitioner included in its application a Surveyor Certification Form indicating that its proposed development sites did not consist of Scattered Sites. The Surveyor Certification Forms submitted were the forms required by the modified RFA. There was no allegation that Petitioners incorrectly filled out the Surveyor Certification Forms. However, the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form submitted by each of the Petitioners was the original form, not the form as modified to include the underscored language set forth in Finding of Fact 20 regarding the effect of mislabeling Scattered Sites on the Surveyor Certification Form. The failure of JPM Outlook and Grande Park to submit the correct Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was the sole reason that Florida Housing found them ineligible for funding. In deposition testimony, Ken Reecy, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, explained the purpose of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form: There’s a number of things that we want to be sure that the applicants are absolutely aware of in regard to future actions or requirements by the Corporation. If they win the award, there are certain things that they need to know that they must do or that they are under certain obligations, that there’s certain obligations and commitments associated with the application to make it clear what the requirements--what certain requirements are, not only now in the application, but also perhaps in the future if they won awards. At the conclusion of a lengthy exposition on the significance of the modified language relating to Scattered Sites, Mr. Reecy concluded as follows: [W]e wanted to make sure that if somebody answered the question or did not indicate that they were a scattered site, but then we found out that they were, in fact, a scattered site, we wanted to make it absolutely clear to everyone involved that in the event that your scattered sites did not meet all of those requirements as of the application deadline, that the funding would be rescinded. Petitioners argue that the failure to submit the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form should be waived as a minor irregularity. Their simplest argument on that point is that their applications did not in fact include Scattered Sites and therefore the cautionary language added to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form by the November 10, 2016, modifications did not apply to them and could have no substantive effect on their applications. Petitioners note that their applications included the substantive changes required by the November 10, 2016, modifications, including those related to Scattered Sites. Petitioners submitted the unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form as Attachment 1 to their modified Exhibit A. Petitioners further note that the “Ability to Proceed Forms” they submitted with their applications on December 2, 2016, were the forms as modified on November 10, 2016. They assert that this submission indicates their clear intent to acknowledge and certify the modified RFA and forms, regardless of their error in submitting the unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. Petitioners assert that the Scattered Sites language added to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form by the November 10, 2016, modifications was essentially redundant. Mr. Reecy conceded that the warning regarding Scattered Sites was not tied to any specific substantive modification of the RFA. The language was added to make it “more clear” to the applicant that funding would be rescinded if the Scattered sites requirements were not met as of the application deadline. Petitioners point out that this warning is the same as that applying to underwriting failures generally. Petitioners assert that the new language had no substantive effect on either the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form or on the certifications and acknowledgements required of the applicants. Even in the absence of the modified language, Petitioners would be required to satisfy all applicable requirements for Scattered Sites if it were determined during underwriting that their applications included Scattered Sites. Petitioners conclude that, even though the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was not included with either of their applications, the deviation should be waived as a minor irregularity. Florida Housing could not have been confused as to what Petitioners were acknowledging and certifying. The unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was submitted with a modified Attachment 1 that included all substantive changes made by the November 10, 2016, modifications to the RFA. Petitioners gained no advantage by mistakenly submitting an unmodified version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. The submittal of the unmodified version of the form was an obvious mistake and waiving the mistake does not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. Mr. Reecy testified that he could recall no instance in which Florida Housing had waived the submittal of the wrong form as a minor irregularity. He also observed that the credibility of Florida Housing could be negatively affected if it waived the submission of the correct form in light of the “effects clause” contained in Section Four: Due to the fact that we did have an effects clause in this RFA and we felt that, in accordance with the rule requirements regarding minor irregularities, that it would be contrary to competition because we wanted everybody to sign and acknowledge the same criteria in the certification; so we felt that if some did--some certified some things and some certified to others, that that would be problematic. And the fact that we had very specifically instructed that if we did not get the modified version, that we would not consider it, and then if we backed up and considered it, that that would erode the credibility of the Corporation and the scoring process. Mr. Reecy testified that the modification to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was intended not merely to clarify the Scattered Sites requirement but to strengthen Florida Housing’s legal position in any litigation that might ensue from a decision to rescind the funding of an applicant that did not comply with the Scattered Sites requirements as of the application deadline. He believed that waiving the “effects clause” would tend to weaken Florida Housing’s legal position in such a case. Petitioners had clear notice that they were required to submit the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. They did not avail themselves of the opportunity to protest the RFA modifications. There is no allegation that they were misled by Florida Housing or that they had no way of knowing they were submitting the wrong form. The relative importance of the new acknowledgement in the modified form may be a matter of argument, but the consequences for failure to submit the proper form were plainly set forth in the effects clause. Florida Housing simply applied the terms of the modified RFA to Petitioners’ applications and correctly deemed them ineligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order confirming its initial decision finding JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership and Grande Park Limited Partnership ineligible for funding, and dismissing each Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing filed by JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership and Grande Park Limited Partnership. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2017, 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 29th day of June, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The only facts that were here presented are those contained in the petition which were admitted in the Answer by Respondent. The sole issue here presented is the effect of the appreciation in the value of property between time of acquisition and November 2, 1971 when such property is sold subsequent to January 1, 1972 and a capital gain is realized thereon.
Findings Of Fact In 1972 Petitioner received $743,982 of income from state and municipal bonds. On its federal income tax return the Petitioner allocated $471,229 of this amount to the policyholders' share as required by law and $272,753 to the company's share (Phase I). The Phase II figures were $359,669 and $384,313 respectively. Respondent has added back the entire $743,982 for purposes of computing Petitioner's Florida taxable income. Petitioner added back the $272,753 (Phase I) and $384,313 (Phase II). For 1972 Petitioner accrued $350,000 of Florida taxes on its federal income tax return. In computing its deductions on its federal income tax return 36.6612 percent of this amount was deducted in the Phase I computation and 51.6564 percent in the Phase II computation. Respondent has added back all of the Florida tax accrued in computing the Florida income tax owed by Petitioner. Petitioner's position is that only the company's percentages were deductible and only these amounts should be added back. The amount of additional Florida income tax assessment proposed for 1972 by the Respondent over that paid by Petitioner is $21,234. In 1973 Petitioner received $552,408 of income from state and municipal bonds. On its federal income tax return Petitioner allocated $335,662 of this amount to policyholders' share as required by law and $216,786 to the company's share (Phase I). The Phase II figures were $248,789 and $303,619 respectively. Respondent has added back the entire $552,408 for purposes of computing Petitioner's taxable income. Petitioner added back the $216,786 (Phase I) and $303,619 (Phase II). For 1973 Petitioner accrued $475,000 of Florida taxes on its federal income tax return. In computing its deductions on its federal income tax return 39.2438 percent of this amount was deductible in Phase I and 54.9628 percent in Phase II. Respondent has added back all of the Florida tax accrued. Petitioner's position is that only the company's percentages were deductible and only these amounts should be added back. The amount of additional Florida income tax assessment proposed for 1973 by Respondent was $20,184. It was further stipulated that the sole issues here involved are: The computation of the amount of tax exempt interest which is excludable from taxable income under section 103(a) Internal Revenue Code for purposes of the Florida corporate income tax; and The computation of the amount of Florida income tax accrued which is deductible for purposes of federal income tax and added back for purposes of computing the Florida income tax.
