The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Housing's proposed action to deem Madison Landing eligible for an award of housing tax credit funds, as contemplated under Request for Applications 2020-202 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties ("the 2020 RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules or policies, or the 2020 RFA specifications. The standard of proof is whether Florida Housing's proposed action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, whose address is 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and for the purposes of these proceedings, an agency of the State of Florida. Madison Landing is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $1,950,000 in competitive housing credits in in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-021C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. Madison Park is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,881,960 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-004C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. WRDG is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,375,000 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-025C, was deemed eligible and was preliminarily selected for funding by Florida Housing. Florida Housing administers various affordable housing programs, including the Housing Credit Program, pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC" or "the Code") and section 420.5099, under which Florida Housing is designated as the Housing Credit agency for the State of Florida within the meaning of Section 42(h)(7)(A) of the IRC, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60. Florida Housing has established, by rule, a competitive solicitation process known as the Request for Applications ("RFA") to assess the relative merits of proposed developments, pursuant to chapters 67-48 and 67-60. An RFA sets forth the information required to be provided by an Applicant, which includes a general description of the type of projects that will be considered eligible for funding and delineates the submission requirements. While there are numerous references to Florida Housing's rules throughout the RFA, RFAs themselves are not adopted or incorporated by rule. Florida Housing issues many RFAs each year. Although an issued RFA may be similar to these issued in previous years, each RFA is unique. The RFA process begins when Florida Housing requests the Florida Housing Board of Directors ("the Board") to approve Florida Housing's plan for allocating its resources through the various RFAs. If the plan is approved by the Board, Florida Housing begins working on each individual RFA. Florida Housing posts draft documents to its website for public review, such as a draft of the RFA, and holds a workshop in which the RFA is discussed in detail, highlighting language that changed from the previous year. The public is given the opportunity to ask questions and submit written comments for further suggestions and/or additional edits prior to the RFA's issuance. Marisa Button, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, credibly and persuasively testified that Questions and Answers are provided as guidance, but do not provide new requirements to override the terms of an RFA. In the event of an inconsistency between Questions and Answers and another form of guidance for applicants, Florida Housing has maintained the position that the least restrictive guidance controls. Rule 67-60.006 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he failure of an Applicant to supply required information in connection with any competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter shall be grounds for a determination of non-responsiveness with respect to its Application." By applying, each Applicant certifies that: Proposed Developments funded under this RFA will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, inclusive of all Exhibits, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C. and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. On August 26, 2020, Florida Housing issued the 2020 RFA, proposing to provide an estimated $18,669,520 of Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. Modifications to the 2020 RFA were made on September 11 and October 12, 2020. The Application Deadline for the 2020 RFA was October 20, 2020. On or about October 20, 2020, 35 applications were submitted in response to the 2020 RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Board. The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible and one application ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the 2020 RFA, eight applications were recommended for funding. In accordance with the funding selection process set forth in the 2020 RFA, one application was selected from each of Duval, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange counties; two applications were selected from Broward County; and one application (WRDG) was selected from any of these counties. On December 4, 2020, the Board approved these recommendations. On December 17, 2020, Madison Landing timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0146BID. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and MHP FL II, LLC. On January 13, 2021, Madison Landing dismissed all of its allegations against MHP FL II, LLC. On December 17, 2020, Madison Park timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0147BID. An amended petition was filed on January 13, 2021. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and Madison Landing. On January 26, 2021, all parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Findings of Fact in which WRDG conceded that its application should have been found ineligible. WRDG is ineligible for funding under the 2020 RFA. With WRDG ineligible for funding, Madison Landing would be selected for funding in place of WRDG. If both WRDG and Madison Landing were found to be ineligible for funding, Madison Park would be selected for funding in place of WRDG and Madison Landing. No other Applicant selected for funding will be impacted regardless of the outcome of this case. No challenges were made to the terms of the 2020 RFA. Madison Landing's application includes an executed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form, which provides, "The Applicant, the Developer and all Principals are in good standing among all other state agencies and have not been prohibited from applying for funding." The phrase "good standing among all other state agencies" is not defined; and no evidence was presented as to the definitive meaning of the phrase. No evidence was presented that Madison Landing's Principals are not in good standing with any state agency or have been prohibited from applying for funding. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.a. provides that Applicants must disclose the name of the Applicant entity and provide evidence that it is legally formed: (2) The Applicant must be a legally formed entity [i.e., limited partnership, limited liability company, etc.] qualified to do business in the state of Florida as of the Application Deadline. Include, as Attachment 2 to Exhibit A, evidence from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, that the Applicant satisfies the foregoing requirements. Such evidence may be in the form of a certificate of status or other reasonably reliable information or documentation issued, published or made available by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Rule 67-48.002(9) (6/23/2020), defines "Applicant" as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a 'legal entity' means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.c. provides that Applicants must disclose Principals of both the Applicant and Developer entities. The 2020 RFA provides in pertinent part: c. Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer (5 points) (1) Eligibility Requirements To meet the submission requirements, upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 05-2019) ("Principals Disclosure Form") as outlined in Section Three above. Prior versions of the Principal Disclosure Form will not be accepted. To meet eligibility requirements, the Principals Disclosure Form must identify, pursuant to Subsections 67-48.002(94), 67-48.0075(8) and 67- 48.0075(9), F.A.C., the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. For Housing Credits, the investor limited partner of an Applicant limited partnership or the investor member of an Applicant limited liability company must be identified on the Principal Disclosure Form. Rule 67-48.002(94) defines "Principal" as follows: (94) "Principal" means: For a corporation, each officer, director, executive director, and shareholder of the corporation. For a limited partnership, each general partner, and each limited partner of the limited partnership. For a limited liability company, each manager and each member of the limited liability company. For a trust, each trustee of the trust and all beneficiaries of majority age (i.e., 18 years of age) as of the Application Deadline. Page 10 of 22. For a Public Housing Authority, each officer, director, commissioner, and executive director of the Authority. The requirement to provide evidence that the Applicant is a legally formed entity, as well as the requirement to provide a Principals for Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form, are identified as "Eligibility Items." Section Five A.1. of the 2020 RFA states that "only Applications that meet all of the following Eligibility Items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection." Madison Landing submitted Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form(s) with its application. Both forms were approved during the Advance Review Process. On the Principals of the Applicant form, Madison Landing II, LLC, was identified as the Applicant entity. The Principals of the Applicant entity were identified as Patrick E. Law, Manager; Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, Non-Investor Member; and Patrick E. Law, Investor Member. Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, filed Articles of Organization for Florida Limited Liability Company with the Florida Division of Corporations on January 5, 2021, with an effective date of December 31, 2020. The 2020 RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline; however, there is no explicit requirement in the 2020 RFA that each Principal of the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline. Ms. Button testified that her initial view was that the failure of Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, to incorporate by the application deadline should render the application ineligible. However, upon further research, she changed her position, believing that Florida Housing was precedentially bound by a previous final order, which found that an application was eligible under similar legal and factual circumstances. The previous case, on which Florida Housing relied, was decided before Florida Housing adopted the current RFA procedures for awarding funding. Ms. Button testified, however, that while some of the processes followed during the Universal Cycle, in place at that time, were different than the RFA process, the requirements for disclosure of Principals were essentially the same. Florida Housing allows interested parties to submit written questions to be answered by Florida Housing staff for each RFA that is issued. The Question-Answer period is referenced specifically within each RFA. The following Question and Answer are posted on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-111: Question 12: Do the entities listed on the Principal Disclosure Form have to be active as of the stamped "Approved" date or as of the Application Deadline? Answer: As of the Application Deadline. The Applicant may upload a Principals Disclosure Form stamped "Approved" during the Advance Review Process provided (a) it is still correct as of the Application Deadline, (b) it was approved for the type of funding being requested (i.e., Housing Credits or Non-Housing Credits) The same Question and Answer above are on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-110; RFA 2018-112; and RFA 2018-113. The same Question and Answer, however, do not appear in Questions and Answers for the 2020 RFA at issue in this case. Although Questions and Answers from past RFAs remain on the Florida Housing website, they are discrete to the specific RFA for which they were issued. Rule 67-48.002(9) (7/2018) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporations programs. For purposes of rules 67-48.0105. 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a legal entity means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company with a management and ownership structure that consists exclusively of all natural persons by the third principal disclosure level. For Applicants seeking Housing Credits, the Housing Credits Syndicator/Housing Credit investor need only be disclosed at the first principal level and no other disclosure is required. The terms "first principal disclosure level" and "third principal disclosure level" have the meanings attributed to them in the definition of "Principal." Rule 67-48.002(9) (11/2011) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legally formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a request for proposal for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67-48031, F.A.C., Applicants also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, did not demonstrate that it was a legally- formed entity as of the Application Deadline, and therefore, Madison Landing's Principal Disclosure Form did not satisfy the 2020 RFA's requirements. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's application should be deemed ineligible for funding as a result. Based on the weight of the credible evidence and the language of the 2020 RFA and the governing law, the undersigned finds that Florida Housing did not contravene the 2020 RFA, or any other applicable authority, through the process by which it determined that Madison Landing's application was eligible for the award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: (1) finding the application of WRDG ineligible for funding; (2) finding the application of Madison Landing eligible for funding; and (3) dismissing the protest of Madison Park. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2021. J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-231 Tallahassee, Florida 32312
Findings Of Fact Ms. McGhee, the Petitioner, resides at 3807 West Columbia Street, Orlando, Florida. She filed an application for home energy assistance benefits on November 7, 1983. On that application she indicated household income for three persons: Maycia McGhee-$324 per month in Disability and 551; Pamela McGhee-$108 per month from CETA; Stephanie McGhee-$231 per month in AFDC. Ernita Bradley, an HRS employee, was the only person who reviewed and handled Ms. McGhee's case. Ms. Bradley reviewed this application and determined that additional information was needed. Specifically, Ms. McGhee needed to furnish the ages of Stephanie and Pamela; the number of handicapped persons in the household; and income verification from CETA and 551 Disability for the month of November, 1983. Ms. McGhee went to the HRS office on November 28, 1983. She does not recall why she went, but she did see Ms. Bradley on that date. What occurred during that meeting is the source of the present conflict. Ms. McGhee testified that she had the CETA verification from Orange County Vocational with her on November 28, 1983, and that she gave that information to Ms. Bradley. She also stated that she does not recall being asked for the ages of Stephanie and Pamela or the number of handicapped in the household. Ms. McGhee was unable to offer an explanation of how she knew she needed a CETA income verification statement on November 28, 1983, but she just somehow knew that she needed it. Ms. McGhee also acknowledges that during this meeting Ms. Bradley informed her that she was getting ready to send her a letter and instead handed her a letter dated November 28, 1983 requesting the additional information set forth above. Ms. McGhee acknowledges that she did nothing further in regard to her application after the November 28, 1983, meeting because she didn't know that she needed to supply any additional information. Ernita Bradley testified that she recalled Ms. McGhee's visit on November 28, 1983, and she furnished notes that she made the same day as the visit to substantiate her testimony. These notes contained in Respondent's Exhibit 2 and Ms. Bradley's testimony establish that on November 28, 1983, Ms. McGhee came to Ms. Bradley's office and supplied some of the requested information. Ms. McGhee furnished the ages of Stephanie and Pamela and stated that she was the only person disabled in the household. Ms. Bradley testified that she told Ms. McGhee that the SSI verification was not necessary because she had verified that income from the HRS computer. Ms. Bradley emphasized to Ms. McGhee that she needed to bring a check stub or income verification of the CETA income for Pamela. Ms. Bradley further testified that Ms. McGhee stated that she would bring that information. Ms. Bradley beard nothing further from Ms. McGhee. The letter, Respondent's Exhibit 1, gave until December 12, 1983, for Ms. McGhee to furnish the information. Ms. Bradley testified that she gave Ms. McGhee ten more days to get the CETA verification, but after waiting until December 20, 1983, Ms. Bradley denied the application because the verification of CETA income was never received. Because the conflict between the testimony of Ms. Bradley and the testimony of Ms. McGhee must be resolved, it is found that the testimony of Ms. Bradley is more persuasive. This finding is based on the existence of notes made by Ms. Bradley contemporaneous with the events and the vague and imprecise testimony of Ms. McGhee, especially as to details. It is additionally found that Ms. McGhee did not submit verification of the CETA income as requested. Additionally, she did not bring that information with her to the hearing in this matter either.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny Petitioner's application for benefits under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Maycia McGhee 3807 West Columbia Street Orlando, Florida 32805 Gerry Clark, Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson, Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1984.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) employed an unadopted rule when it used rounding on a competing application to place Petitioner’s application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“HC” or “Tax Credits”) in the 2004 Universal Application Cycle in the “B” leveraging tie-breaker group, and if so, whether Florida Housing complied with the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, when it employed rounding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership. Reliance- Andrews, LLC, the sole general partner of Petitioner, is a non- profit entity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(81). Petitioner’s address is 516 Northeast 13th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304. The affected agency is the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”), 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized under Part V, Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing and refinancing houses and related facilities in Florida in order to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to persons and families of low, moderate, and middle income. Petitioner filed an application, number 2004-102C, with Florida Housing for tax credits under the Housing Credit (“HC”) program for a proposed development in Broward County, Florida, known as Flagler Point. Under the HC program, successful applicants receive a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal tax liability in exchange for the development of units to be occupied by low-income households. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for the State of Florida and is authorized to establish procedures necessary for the allocation of Tax Credits under Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing scores and ranks applications for the HC program pursuant to the Universal Application Package Instructions ("Application Instructions") which are adopted as rules pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(111). The applicants for housing credits are sophisticated, and the application process is highly competitive. Most applicants achieve a perfect score on applications, so Florida Housing has created a series of “tiebreakers” to determine which projects receive allocations of tax credits. These include “leveraging,” (the amount of requested funding over the number of set-aside units), proximity to services, proximity of other Florida Housing developments, and, finally, a lottery. Petitioner and numerous other applicants for the HC program received the maximum score on the application, 66 points. Florida Housing then ranked the applications that received perfect scores to determine priority for funding according to certain Ranking and Selection Criteria as outlined in the Application Instructions. Part of the Ranking Selection Criteria process includes "tie-breakers" as enumerated in the Application Instructions. The first of the applicable tie-breakers separates the applications into groups A and B based upon a formula used by Florida Housing to determine funding request per set-aside unit. Group A is comprised of the 80 percent of applications with the lowest amount of total funding request per set-aside unit. The 20 percent of applications with the highest per unit request amount are placed in Group B. Applications in Group A receive preference over Group B. The A/B leveraging tiebreaker alone does not determine who gets funded. Some leveraging Group B projects are funded. The total number of set-aside units for each Application is computed by multiplying the total number of units within the proposed development by the highest total set- aside percentage the applicant committed to in the Set-Aside Commitment section of the Application. Florida Housing rounded up the total set-aside units on application 2004-084C from 182.7 (the product of the total number of units (203) and the highest total set aside percentage (90%)) to 183. Rounding this figure produces a lower per unit funding request amount for application 2004-084C ($51,857.95 instead of $51,943.10). Petitioner's per unit funding request is $51,882.28, which would be lower than application number 2004-084C if the total set-aside unit figure was not rounded. Petitioner's application was placed in Group B instead of Group A. On May 7, 2004, Petitioner filed a Notice of Possible Scoring Error ("NOPSE") requesting correction of the set-aside unit rounding, which Petitioner contended was in error. Respondent did not adopt Petitioner’s NOPSE, and on May 28, 2004, issued its scoring summary for application number 2004- 084C indicating a per unit Florida Housing funding request of $51,857.95. On July 9, 2004, Respondent issued the 2004 Final Score Corporation Funding Per Set-Aside for A and B Groups indicating that Petitioner had been placed in Leveraging Group B. Florida Housing has used rounding to determine the number of set-aside units in the same manner each year from the 2002 Universal Application Cycle through the 2004 Universal Application Cycle. Applicants are encouraged to, and more often than not do, set aside 100 percent of the units for low or very low income tenants. As most applicants for Tax Credits do just that, rounding is not often an issue. The number of set-aside units represents a commitment the developer makes in return for funding, and the number in the application is the number of set aside units the developer must provide, and is used to determine whether the development is in compliance with its commitment to Florida Housing, and to the Internal Revenue Service. As a practical matter, the number of set-aside units cannot be a fraction of a unit. Rounding up to the next whole number is the only option, because if the unit number is rounded down, the percentage of set-aside units would be below the set- aside commitment, the IRS would deem that the property had not met its set-aside commitment, and the investors would not receive their tax credits. Florida Housing revises its Universal Cycle Application and Instructions through the rulemaking process each year, in response to stakeholder input, in reaction to litigation, and to clarify issues which arise during the year. During the rulemaking process, there is considerable dialogue between developers and Florida Housing. Public hearings (rule development workshops) are noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly, with the agendas being posted on Florida Housing’s website and also made available for distribution at the public hearings. The affordable housing development community is small and its members pay close attention to Florida Housing’s application process, which is intensely competitive. Petitioner is an experienced developer, and has previously received funding from Florida Housing. Petitioner is a member of a coalition of affordable housing developers, which meets before the rule development workshops to discuss the agenda, and to attempt to reach consensus on agenda issues. Petitioner is part of the development community, which normally participates in the rule development process, and Petitioner has been an active participant in the 2005 rule development process. An active member of the affordable housing developer’s coalition, and a veteran participant in the Florida Housing application and funding process, would have been aware of Florida Housing’s use of rounding to determine the number of set-aside units to which each applicant committed. The rounding issue that is at the heart of this proceeding has been addressed by Florida Housing in its proposed rule amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002 for the 2005 Universal Application Cycle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the petition and denying all relief sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 18th day of November, 2004.
The Issue Whether HTG Harbor Village, Ltd's, as Applicant for Crestwood Apartments, ("Petitioner" or "Crestwood") application for funding of Housing Credits and Exchange Funding awards should be granted by Florida Housing Corporation ("Florida Housing").
Findings Of Fact Based on the entire record of this proceeding including the necessary stipulated facts submitted by parties, oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Florida Housing is a public corporation organized under chapter 420, Florida Statutes, promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing and refinancing houses and related facilities in Florida in order to provide decent, safe, and affordable housing to persons and families of low, moderate, and middle income. Florida Housing is governed by the Board consisting of nine individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Florida Senate. Florida Housing provides funding through a number of different federal and state programs to assist in the development of affordable housing in this state. As required by the federal government, the state each year adopts a Qualified Allocation Plan ("QAP"), which is incorporated into Florida Housing's rules. The QAP sets forth the selection criteria and the preferences for developments that will be awarded Housing Credits each year. Each year Florida Housing conducts a "Universal Cycle," through which applicants for certain Florida Housing multi- family programs submit a single application by which projects are evaluated, scored, and competitively ranked. Among the programs included in the Universal Cycle is the Housing Credit program, which was created by the federal government in 1986. Housing Credits (also called tax credits) come in two varieties: competitively awarded nine percent credits and non-competitively awarded four percent credits. For the nine percent credits, the federal government annually allocates to each state a specific amount of credits using a population-based formula. Housing Credits are a dollar for-dollar offset to federal income tax liability over a 10-year period. Developers receiving the federal awarded Housing Credits often sell the future stream of credits to a syndicator, which in turn sell the credits to investors seeking to shelter income from federal income taxes. The sale of the credits generates dept-free cash equity for developers. With the recent economic downturn, the market for Housing Credits dropped significantly. A number of development projects awarded funding in recent Universal Cycles have been unable to close on such funding because of the poor market for Housing Credits. In recognition of the Housing Credit market collapse, the federal government, as part of its economic stimulus efforts, established mechanisms to assist in the development of affordable housing. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ("ARRA"), was enacted on February 17, 2009, and includes provisions relating to the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Among those provisions are the Tax Credit Exchange Program, which allows agencies that allocate Housing Credits (such as Florida Housing) to "exchange" a portion of their 2009 Housing Credit ceiling, as well as previously awarded and returned housing credits, for cash grants from the U.S. Treasury that can be used to make "sub-awards" to finance the construction of, or acquisition and rehabilitation of, qualified low-income buildings. Following the enactment of ARRA, Florida Housing issued several Requests for Proposals ("RFPs")to take advantage of the federal stimulus funds. The federal programs have quick deadlines to stimulate activity. RFP 2010-04, issued on February 26, 2010, anticipated that $150 million in Exchange Funding would be available through the RFP. In order to be eligible for funding under RFP 2010-04, applicants were required to have an active award of nine percent Housing Credits. RFP 2010-04 provided that proposed developments receiving Exchange Funding would be governed by the same rules that govern the Universal Cycle's Housing Credit Program, including credit underwriting requirements.1 HTG Harbor Village Ltd,2 a Florida-limited partnership, submitted an application for funding for Crestwood to Florida Housing in 2009. Crestwood is a proposed 114-unit affordable housing complex in Palm Beach county that will serve elderly residents. Crestwood submitted an application for nine-percent low-income Housing Tax Credits during the 2009 Universal Application Cycle. On February 26, 2010, the Board approved the final rankings for the 2009 Universal Application Cycle and Crestwood was awarded the Housing Credits. Florida Housing staff issued an invitation to Crestwood to enter into the credit underwriting. Crestwood also received a recommendation for Exchange Funding pursuant to RFP 2010-04, which the Board accepted on March 17, 2010. Subsequently, Crestwood was included in the ranked list of proposed developments that were awarded Exchange Funding and invited into credit underwriting. The credit underwriting process is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072 ("Credit Underwriting Rule"). Florida Housing is obligated to satisfy mortgage dept under its Guarantee Fund. It has close to $800 million in outstanding mortgage guarantee commitments. Florida Housing's Guarantee Fund has paid out eight claims since November 2008 for approximately 90 million dollars when borrowers failed to make their payments. Each payout impacted Florida Housing's risk-to capital-ratio. Before the 2009 Universal Cycle in order to try to prevent future defaults and protect the fund from additional claims, the Board amended rule 67-48.0072(10) to require the credit underwriter to review and determine whether a proposed development "will be a negative impact on a Guarantee Fund development within the primary market area." The costs associated with the credit underwriting review is paid by the developer, including the credit underwriting fee and costs of a market study. Florida Housing selects an independent credit underwriter for each developer who reviews each proposal according to requirements set forth by the Credit Underwriting Rule. The credit underwriter prepares a report, known as the Preliminary Recommendation Letter ("PRL"), for each applicant invited into the process. The reports are submitted to Florida Housing's Board, who makes the final decision for funding by approving or denying each application. Florida Housing chose Seltzer Management Group, Inc. ("Seltzer") as the credit underwriter for Crestwood. Seltzer conducted both the credit underwriting for Crestwood's Housing Credit allocation and its Exchange Funding simultaneously. As the credit underwriter, Seltzer, has to re-evaluate the proposed development by performing a comprehensive analysis of all of the aspects of the proposed development. Seltzer sent Crestwood an email checklist to complete in order to have the PRL ready for the July 2010 Board meeting. The responsibility for the market study is assigned by the credit underwriter to an independent market analyst. Seltzer retained Clobus, McLemore & Duke, Inc. ("CMD") of Fort Lauderdale to conduct the market study for Crestwood. CMD completed the market study and issued it on April 6, 2010. CMD's market study report stated in its cover letter that: There are two Elderly Guarantee Fund Developments within the subject's PMA. It is CMD's opinion that the subject's units will not have a negative impact on one or any of the Guarantee Fund Developments. Historically, low-income properties are not significantly affected by new developments other than during lease-up. Occupancy is lower now primarily due to the current economic conditions, not over-improvement. There has always been a demand for low- income housing and the impact on additional properties, including Guarantee Fund Developments may be on occupancy during lease-up. In mid-April of 2010, Seltzer provided a copy of the market study to Crestwood's developers. Crestwood compared CMD's market study with their own conducted by Reinhold Wolff and determined that it was a positive market study. The determination helped Petitioner decide to continue the credit underwriting process and increase its efforts to comply with Seltzer's checklist and quick driven federal deadlines by expending additional funds to complete the process. While seeking credit underwriting approval, Crestwood was required to expend considerable time and money to proceed as an applicant in the process seeking credit underwriting approval. Crestwood developers spent approximately $653,854.94. Soon thereafter, Seltzer prepared the Crestwood PRL signed by John Elasser and emailed it to Florida Housing on May 3, 2010. The cover email stated that the PRL draft was attached. The PRL discussed the CMD market study noting specifically that CMD's opinion is that Crestwood "will not have a long-term negative impact" on Guarantee fund properties near the proposed development. Seltzer concludes the May 3, 2010, PRL by recommending that Crestwood receive both Exchange Funding and Housing Credits. Three days later, on May 6, 2010, Lindsay Lockhart, Florida Housing's Guarantee Program Asset Manager, sent an email to Ben Johnson, the president of Seltzer, providing additional information on Windsor Park Apartments ("Windsor"), one of the Guarantee Fund developments referenced in the May 3, 2010, PRL. Lockhart's email discussed occupancy figures for Windsor, as well as rent concession policies and marketing strategies of Windsor. Windsor was built in the late 1990s and is 1.4 miles northeast of the proposed Crestwood site. Historically, Windsor has struggled financially. Windsor has had over three-and-half million dollars in operating deficits. The next day, May 7, 2010, Seltzer's president emailed Tatreau, Director of multi-family development programs at Florida Housing and stated: The market study indicated that adding the Crestwood units may have a negative impact on the Guarantee Properties during the lease up period. I have reviewed the market study and other economic data and I think that I support that conclusion. That being said, what additional data, analysis, conclusions, recommendations, etc., are you requesting that we include in the PRL? I would appreciate w[hat] ever guidance you ca[n] give us. On May 12, 2010, Johnson followed up and emailed his employee, Elasser, instructing him to incorporate and wordsmith the language attached to the email and utilize it while revising the PRL. On May 13, 2010, Elasser signed and sent a second draft Crestwood PRL to Florida Housing. His cover email states: Revised Preliminary Recommendation Letter for Crestwood, with expanded discussion of Windsor Park and Pinnacle Palms (the two Guarantee fund transactions within Crestwood's submarket). The May 13, 2010, draft PRL again referred to the CMD market study not anticipating "a long-term negative impact" on any Guarantee Fund properties. However, the letter further delineated some of Seltzer's "concerns" regarding Windsor Park by stating: Crestwood will provide potential Windsor Park residents an additional choice when looking for rental housing-an option that will be newer and with a better unit mix. CMDuke suggests, and it is reasonable to conclude, that occupancy at Windsor may drop during Crestwood's lease-up. It is difficult, however, to quantify the number of units lost or how long Crestwood will impact Windsor Park. Seltzer again concludes its May 13, 2010, PRL by recommending that Crestwood receive both Exchange Funding and Housing Credits. Two days after the second draft PRL was sent by Seltzer to Florida Housing, Tatreau emailed Johnson and set up a teleconference call meeting with Florida Housing staff to discuss several proposed developments under review by Seltzer that have Guarantee Fund developments nearby. Crestwood was specifically included. The call took place the following day, May 19, 2010. Most of the talking was done by the Guarantee Fund staff. During the Crestwood credit underwriting process, numerous appropriate communications took place between Seltzer and Florida Housing staff about the impact that the Crestwood transaction would have on Windsor Park and Pinnacle Palms. Florida Housing Staff wanted to make sure that Seltzer had enough information relating to Guarantee Fund developments in the Crestwood market area for Seltzer's analysis and recommendation to be complete. Throughout the process, Florida Housing staff provided Seltzer some of Windsor's data. Seltzer received Windsor information including the: demographic demand; good management; poor unit design of 2/3 bedrooms; occupancy problems; good maintenance; long term struggling finances; operating deficit; and rental concessions and incentives. On May 26, 2010, Seltzer sent a third draft Crestwood PRL to Florida Housing. Unlike the first two draft PLRs, Seltzer had looked through all the information received regarding Windsor for the May 26, 2010, PRL and recognized Windsor's vulnerability to new developments. Even though the third draft was signed by both Elasser and Johnson, and reversed Seltzer's earlier recommendation that Crestwood receive funding, Florida Housing neither told nor instructed Seltzer to change its recommendation for Crestwood. Seltzer concluded after its complete analysis the following: Based upon the information presented in CMDuke's Market Study and its own Due Diligence, SMG concludes that the average occupancy rate within the Subject's submarket meets the minimum requirement of 90%. In accordance with the RFP 2010-04, however, SMG finds its concerns with regard to historical and current occupancy rates for the Elderly at prior and existing Guarantee Fund Properties within the Subject's submarket leads it to recommend FHFC rescind Applicant's tentative award of Exchange Program Funding. Construction of the Subject Development has the potential to negatively impact Affordable Housing Properties previously funded by FHFC in the area, especially the' two Guarantee Fund Properties located within Crestwood's submarket. Seltzer subsequently sent a fourth draft PRL to Florida Housing on June 1, 2010, and a fifth final PRL to Florida Housing on June 3, 2010. The last PRL's cover email stated "Here is the final." The negative recommendations remained in both the PRL of June 1 and 3, 2010, even though the language was slightly different from the language used in previous PRLs. The final June 3, 2010, PRL discusses the operating deficits and Seltzer's "serious concerns." It recommends not only that Crestwood's Exchange Funding be rescinded, but that its Housing Credit allocation also be taken back. Additionally, the recommendation in the June 1 PRL and the final June 3 PRL is based only on an the negative impact on Windsor Park, not on any other Guarantee Fund development or other affordable housing development in the area. The final version provides: Information presented by CMDuke's Market Study and developed through its own Due Diligence leads SMG to conclude the average occupancy rate within the Subject's submarket meets the minimum requirement of 90% for the same demographic population. RFP 2010-04, however, also requires consideration of the potential impact of the Subject Development on existing Guarantee Fund Properties. Based upon marginal occupancy rates and resulting Operating Deficits, SMG has serious concerns regarding the potential negative impact of the Subject Development on Windsor Park. SMG therefore recommends FHFC rescind Applicant's HC allocation award and its Exchange Program Funding. The June 3, 2010, PRL from Seltzer concerning Crestwood was the subject of the Staff Recommendation from the Florida Housing staff to the Florida Housing Board on June 18, 2010. The Staff Recommendation states: Staff has received a preliminary recommendation letter for Crestwood Apartments (Exhibit A) containing a negative recommendation because the Development would cause a negative impact on a Guarantee Fund transaction in the area. Staff has reviewed this report and finds that the Development does not meet all of the requirements of Rule Chapter 67-48., F.A.C. and RFP 2010-04 to be approved for further credit underwriting consideration. The Staff Recommendation concluded by recommending that the Board "[r]escind and return the nine-percent Low-Income Housing Tax Credit award and Exchange Funding to Florida Housing Finance Corporation." Petitioner was first notified of the negative recommendation concerning Crestwood by email on June 2, 2010. After notification of the negative recommendation, Crestwood's developer presented several proposals to Florida Housing's staff in an effort to mitigate any impact of Crestwood on Windsor, the nearby Guarantee Fund development. All of Crestwood's proposals were rejected including the proposal to provide a reserve after Florida Housing determined that what was offered did not mitigate the risk for the Guaranteed Fund. At the June 18, 2010, Florida Housing Board meeting, the Board considered the final PRL of June 3, 2010, with the Crestwood application. Seltzer's president, Johnson, presented Seltzer's recommendation and stated "[it] just doesn't match what's happening on the ground" and that he found it "prudent" to protect the Windsor development.3 There was no discussion at the Board meeting about Seltzer's first two draft recommendations to approve the Housing Credit allocation and Exchange Funding for Crestwood. Steve Auger, executive director of Florida Housing, admitted to the Board at the meeting that he did not know whether Crestwood would have any negative impact on Windsor, but said: And, Mr. Chair, if I may, just one thing, potential impact is all we've got. You know, we're talking about a development that's not built and we're talking about guessing about people's behavior. So potential - we will never have anything other than potential when we're talking about, you know, the possibilities there. At the meeting, the Florida Housing Board considered the Staff Recommendation for Crestwood and voted unanimously to accept it, which denied Crestwood's application and rescinded the award of Housing Credits and Exchange Funding. Petitioner received formal notice of Florida Housing's decision to rescind the Housing Credit and Exchange Program funding awarded to Crestwood on June 25, 2010. On July 12, 2010, Crestwood filed a petition with Florida Housing that commenced this proceeding. A day after the hearing closed, on January, 21, 2011, the Florida Housing Board voted through Item N on its Consent Agenda to approve a credit underwriting letter authorizing $1.8 million loan to Windsor from RFP 2010-16. The credit underwriting letter states "[T]he Guarantee Program's credit exposure will be eliminated or greatly reduced." Upon the approval, staff was directed to proceed with loan closing activities. During 2010, Windsor Park's occupancy rate increased. The occupancy report for Windsor shows the following occupancy rate increases: January 2010, 87.08 percent; February 2010, 88.75 percent; March 2010, 87.50 percent; April 2010, 89.17 percent; May 2010, 89.58 percent; June 2010, 88.75 percent; July 2010, 92.25 percent; August 2010, 94.17 percent; September 2010, 96.25 percent; and October 2010, 95.00 percent. No credible evidence was presented to show that the increased occupancy rate trend had a correlating financial improvement for Windsor's long term financial struggles. There is insufficient evidence to show that the addition of Crestwood to the Windsor market area would not adversely affect the financial feasibility of the existing Guarantee Fund. Florida Housing's priority to protect the Guarantee Fund is necessary to safeguard the resources used to support the creation and availability of affordable housing in the state.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 16th day of March, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Respondent), discriminated against Petitioner, Wikindson Philippe (Petitioner) in the origination of Petitioner's mortgage loan on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, and, if so, what remedy is available.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Wikindson Philippe, is a black male of Haitian origin. He filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint against Respondent on November 5, 2008. At all times material to the allegations of the complaint, Respondent was a lender in partnership with KB Home, a construction entity developing a residential community described in the record as Blackstone. On May 20, 2007, Petitioner and his wife ventured forth to look at homes for purchase. They initially went to a KB Home development to inquire about homes but were told it was sold out. The proceeded to a nearby development, Blackstone, and met with a salesman who Petitioner described as "aggressive." The salesman showed Petitioner various lots and Petitioner and his wife were impressed by the community. In order to get "pre-qualified" for a loan to purchase a home, the KB Home salesman referred the couple to Lydia Lapotaire, a loan consultant who was located in Respondent's sales center. Mrs. Lapotaire was employed by Countrywide KB Home Loans, the preferred lender for KB Home residential properties. Working in tandem, KB Home the builder/developer and Countrywide KB Home Loans, the preferred lender, sought to accommodate Petitioner's interest in purchasing the Blackstone home. Both entities had a financial interest in securing Petitioner's business. Despite his concerns that he was being inappropriately pressured to purchase a home, Petitioner signed a contract to acquire a lot and single-family dwelling to be constructed on the lot. The purchase agreement recognized that the final purchase price could be stated in an addendum to the initial contract. Based upon the purchase agreement Petitioner planned to acquire a home with a total sales price of $302,490.00. At all times material to the negotiation of the purchase agreement, Petitioner had advised the salesman and Mrs. Lapotaire that he could not afford to pay more than $1,600.00 per month for a mortgage payment. Petitioner was not concerned regarding the amount of the loan so long as the total monthly payment did not exceed his cap. Because he relied on the representations of the salesman and the lender's consultant and wanted to have the home, Petitioner deposited $5,000.00 down on the purchase agreement. At all times material to the purchase, both Mrs. Lapotaire and the salesman assured Petitioner that the lender would work with him to allow him to acquire the home. Nevertheless, when Petitioner consulted a friend who had more experience in the purchase of homes, Petitioner became concerned that the home he desired could not be acquired for the amount he could pay. When Petitioner brought these concerns to the salesman's attention he was advised that he would lose his deposit if he attempted to cancel the contract. Petitioner believed that the only way he could recover his deposit money was to be denied for the loan. To that end, Petitioner and his wife selected upgrades from the base price of the home. In so doing, Petitioner was required to make additional deposits. In accordance with the time lines specified by the builder, Petitioner deposited a total of $20,000 toward the purchase price of the home. As evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit B (also admitted into the record as Respondent's Exhibit 7), Petitioner's loan application for the Blackstone home was not approved. The Notice of Action Taken specified several reasons Countrywide KB Home Loans was unable to approve the loan. Petitioner claimed he did not receive the notice; it was sent to an incorrect address. Instead of being addressed to apartment 772, it was addressed to apartment 72. In the meanwhile, the lender continued to seek financing for Petitioner's purchase. At that time, Respondent had an affiliated company called Full Spectrum Lending that worked as a subprime unit. By going that route it was presumed the buyer was still actively seeking to purchase the home and that various lending scenarios could be explored to determine whether Petitioner might qualify. It is undisputed that Petitioner did not qualify for a loan under the standard loan scenario. None of the lending procedures used by Respondent, Countrywide KB Home Loans, or Full Spectrum Lending required Petitioner to disclose his race or ethnic origin. In fact, Petitioner did not prove that any of the loan processors or underwriters knew Petitioner's race or ethnic origin. There is no evidence that Petitioner's race and ethnic origins were considered in the decision to approve or not approve the loan. The motivations of Respondent and KB Home were likely similar. As joint venture partners, they would have wanted Petitioner to be approved for a loan and to close on it. KB Home would not likely decline to sell to Petitioner nor want to refund his deposit. Respondent would not likely profit from not approving the loan. None of the business reasons for wanting the loan and sale to be consummated were based upon Petitioner's race or ethnic origin. In short, financial interests and not a desire to harm a person of Petitioner's race or ethnic origin were the key reasons for the seller and lender to work in concert to achieve the closing on Petitioner's home. After an extended amount of time, Petitioner did close on the home. He claimed that he was pressured into closing due to the fear that his deposit would be lost but he nevertheless signed all of the closing documents necessary to own and finance the home. It was undoubtedly too expensive for Petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to keep current on his mortgage obligation. Facing foreclosure, he now asserts that Respondent's actions were to take advantage of him based upon his race or ethnic origin. Respondent and KB Home may have unduly pressured Petitioner to purchase a home he could not afford, but there is no evidence they did so based upon his race or ethnic origin. Petitioner is an articulate person. Through out these proceedings he has stated his position on the issues of the case in a well-reasoned and cogent manner. He is understandably disenchanted with the financial results of his home purchase. He has, however, continued to enjoy the residence and his wife likes the home. Petitioner's purchase agreement provided, in pertinent part: 5.5 Failure to Obtain Commitment. Prior to the Loan Approval Deadline, if Buyer's loan application is denied or Buyer obtains an unsatisfactory loan approval (in Buyer's reasonable discretion) Buyer may cancel this Agreement with written notice to Seller and receive a refund of all Deposits. Based upon the Notice of Action Taken (dated July 13, 2007); Petitioner could have canceled the purchase agreement. He chose to close on the transaction. If Petitioner was not approved for a loan or if the terms of a loan were unreasonable, Petitioner did not have to accept the terms of the loan. Petitioner erroneously presumed he would not receive a refund of his deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint of discrimination filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert C. Graham, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2500 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Wikindson Philippe 2413 Country Pond Court St. Cloud, Florida 34771-8868 COPY FURNISHED BY CERTIFIED MAIL Sylvia Bakrevski Country Wide Home Loans 5220 Las Virgenes Road Calabasas, California 91302 (Certification No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2966)
The Issue Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created under Florida law to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Florida Housing administers a competitive solicitation process to implement the provisions of the housing credit program, under which developers apply and compete for funding for projects in response to RFAs developed by Florida Housing. The RFA in this case was specifically targeted to provide affordable housing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The RFA introduction provides: 2 As this Recommended Order of Dismissal is based upon a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of the three Petitions filed by the Petitioners in this consolidate case are accepted as true, and the Findings of Fact are derived from the four corners of those Petitions, see Madison Highlands. LLC v. Florida Housing Finance Corp., 220 So. 3d 467, 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), and facts that are not otherwise in dispute. This Request for Applications (RFA) is open to Applicants proposing the development of affordable, multifamily housing located in Miami- Dade County. Under this RFA, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (the Corporation) expects to have up to an estimated $7,195,917 of Housing Credits available for award to proposed Developments located in Miami-Dade County. After Florida Housing announced its preliminary funding award decisions for RFA 2019-112 for Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County, each of the Petitioners filed Petitions challenging the decisions. Petitioners do not allege that Florida Housing improperly scored or evaluated the applications selected for funding, nor do they contend that Petitioners' applications should be funded. Instead, Petitioners allege that the evaluation was fundamentally unfair and seeks to have the entire RFA rescinded based on alleged improprieties of one responding entity and its affiliates. Petitioners claim that the evaluation process was fundamentally unfair is based entirely on allegations that several entities associated with Housing Trust Group, LLC (HTG), combined to submit 15 Priority I applications in contravention of the limitation in the RFA on the number of Priority I applications that could be submitted. Even assuming Petitioners' assertions are correct, there is no scenario in which Petitioners can reach the funding range for this RFA. In order to break ties for those applicants that achieve the maximum number of points and meet the mandatory eligibility requirements, the RFA sets forth a series of tie-breakers to determine which applications will be awarded funding. The instant RFA included specific goals to fund certain types of developments and sets forth sorting order tie-breakers to distinguish between applicants. The relevant RFA provisions are as follows: Goals The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) proposed Development that (a) selected the Demographic Commitment of Family at questions 2.a. of Exhibit A and (b) qualifies for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/SADDA Goal as outlined in Section Four A. 11. a. The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) proposed Development that selected the Demographic Commitment of Elderly (Non-ALF) at question 2.a. of Exhibit A. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal. Applicant Sorting Order All eligible Priority I Applications will be ranked by sorting the Applications as follows, followed by Priority II Applications. First, from highest score to lowest score; Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.lO.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.(b)(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Applicant's Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Applicant's eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and And finally, by lotterv number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. This RFA was similar to previous RFAs issued by Florida Housing, but included some new provisions limiting the number of Priority I applications that could be submitted. Specifically, the RFA provided: Priority Designation of Applications Applicants may submit no more than three (3) Priority I Applications. There is no limit to the number of Priority II Applications that can be submitted; however, no Principal can be a Principal, as defined in Rule Chapter 67- 48.002(94), F.A.C., of more than three ( 3) Priority 1 Applications. For purposes of scoring, Florida Housing will rely on the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Rev. 05-2019) outlined below in order to determine if a Principal is a Principal on more than three (3) Priority 1 Applications. If during scoring it is determined that a Principal is disclosed as a Principal on more than three (3) Priority I Applications, all such Priority I Applications will be deemed Priority II. If it is later determined that a Principal, as defined in Rule Chapter 67-48.002(94), F.A.C., was not disclosed as a Principal and the undisclosed Principal causes the maximum set forth above to be exceeded, the award(s) for the affected Application(s) will be rescinded and all Principals of the affected Applications may be subject to material misrepresentation, even if Applications were not selected for funding, were deemed ineligible, or were withdrawn. The Petitioners all timely submitted applications in response to the RFA. Lottery numbers were assigned by Florida Housing, at random, to all applications shortly after the applications were received and before any scoring began. Lottery numbers were assigned to the applications without regard to whether the application was a Priority I or Priority II. The RFA did not limit the number of Priority II Applications that could be submitted. Review of the applications to determine if a principal was a principal on more than three Priority 1 Applications occurred during the scoring process, well after lottery numbers were assigned. The leveraging line, which would have divided the Priority I Applications into Group A and Group B, was established after the eligibility determinations were made. All applications were included in Group A. There were no Group B applications. Thus, all applications were treated equally with respect to this preference. The applications were ultimately ranked according to lottery number and funding goal. . If Florida Housing had determined that an entity or entities submitted more than three Priority I Applications with related principals, the relief set forth in the RFA was to move those applications to Priority II. Florida Housing did not affirmatively conclude that any of the 15 challenged applications included undisclosed principals so as to cause a violation of the maximum number of Priority I Applications that could be submitted. All of the applications that were deemed eligible for funding, including the Priority II Applications, scored equally, and met all of the funding preferences. After the applications were evaluated by the Review Committee appointed by Florida Housing, the scores were finalized and preliminary award recommendations were presented and approved by Florida Housing's Board. Consistent with the procedures set forth in the RFA, Florida Housing staff reviewed the Principal Disclosure Forms to determine the number of Priority I Applications that had been filed by each applicant. This review did not result in a determination that any applicant had exceeded the allowable number of Priority I Applications that included the same principal. One of the HTG Applications (Orchid Pointe, App. No. 2020-148C) was initially selected to satisfy the Elderly Development goal. Subsequently, three applications, including Slate Miami, that had initially been deemed ineligible due to financial arrearages were later determined to be in full compliance and, thus, eligible as of the close of business on January 8, 2020. The Review Committee reconvened on January 21, 2020, to reinstate those three applications. Slate Miami was then recommended for funding. The Review Committee ultimately recommended to the Board the following applications for funding: Harbour Springs (App. No. 2020-101C), which met the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/SADDA Goal; Slate Miami (App. No. 2020-122C), which met the Elderly (non-ALF) Goal; and Naranja Lakes (App. No. 2020-117C), which was the next highest-ranked eligible Priority I Application. The Board approved the Committee's recommendations at its meeting on January 23, 2020, and approved the preliminary selection of Harbour Springs, Slate Miami, and Naranja Lakes for funding. The applications selected for funding held Lottery numbers 1 (Harbour Springs), 2 (Naranja Lakes), and 4 (Slate Miami). Petitioners' lottery numbers were 16 (Quail Roost), 59 (Sierra Meadows) and 24 (Ambar Trail). The three applications selected for funding have no affiliation or association with HTG, or any of the entities that may have filed applications in contravention of the limitation in the RFA for Priority I applications. The applications alleged in the Petitions as being affiliated with HTG received a wide range of lottery numbers in the random selection, including numbers: 3, 6, 14, 19, 30, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 49, 52 through 54, and 58. If Petitioners prevailed in demonstrating an improper principal relationship between the HTG applications, the relief specified in the RFA (the specifications of which were not challenged) would have been the conversion of the offending HTG applications to Priority II applications. The relief would not have been the removal of those applications from the pool of applications, nor would it have affected the assignment of lottery numbers to any of the applicants, including HTG. The Petitions do not allege any error in scoring or ineligibility with respect to the three applications preliminarily approved for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioners lack standing and dismissing the Petitions with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 3rd day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Tana D. Storey, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 (32302) Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact (As established by the Stipulation of Facts) Chapter 77-49, Laws of Florida (Sections 83.770 to 83.794, Florida Statutes.) Created the Mobile Home Tenant-Landlord Commission. Section 6 thereof required the registration of all mobile home parks containing 100 or more dwelling units. A registration fee of $1.00 for each dwelling unit contained in the mobile home park , was required to accompany the application for registration. Pursuant to the Act Respondent, Authority, the owner and operator of a 742 unit mobile home park, filed its application for registration together with $742.00 on March 3, 1978. On April 26, 1979, subsequent to the foregoing payment by Respondent, Chapter 77-49, Laws of Florida was held unconstitutional in the case of Department of Business Regulation v. National Manufactured Housing Federation, 370 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1979). Thereafter, on July 16, 1979, Respondent requested a refund of $742.00 from the Office of the Comptroller. The Comptroller denied the request on October 26, 1979. On November 13, 1979, Respondent requested an administrative hearing on the Notice of Intent to Deny Refund. The State Mobile Home Tenant-Landlord Trust Fund lacked sufficient monies from which to make a refund at the time of the request by Respondent. The funds received by the State Mobile Home Tenant-Landlord Trust Fund had been disbursed for the payment of salaries, travel expenses of its employees, postage expenses, office supplies, etc. and for the payment of $9.664.96 to the General Revenue Fund of the State of Florida (GRF). This payment was made on June 25, 1979 to repay sums appropriated from the GRF to the Mobile Home Tenant-Landlord Commission for start up costs prior to the collection of registration fees. On October 18, 1977, the State Administration Commission granted a loan of $19,627 from the GRF to the Department of Business Regulation for the purpose of providing start up funds for the administration of the State Mobile Home Tenant-Landlord Act, Chapter 77-49, Laws of Florida. In making the loan the Administration Commission provided that it be repaid on or before June 30, 1978. No evidence has been presented on why the loan was not repaid at that time.
Recommendation In light of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of the City of Melbourne, Melbourne Regional Airport Authority for a refund from the State Treasury in the amount of $742.00 be denied. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Potter, Esquire NABORS POTTER McCLELLAND GRIFFITH & JONES, P.A. 1380 Sarno Road Post Office Box 977/EG Melbourne, Florida 32935 Michael Basile, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) review and scoring of the applications responding to RFA 2020-104 SAIL Funding for Farm Worker and Commercial Fishing Worker Housing (“the RFA”) were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, the stipulated facts, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2020).2 Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the financing of affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is authorized by section 420.507(48), to allocate federal low income housing tax credits, State Apartment Incentive Loans (“SAIL”), and other funding by means of competitive solicitations. Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing will allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications, which is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as described in rule 67-60.009(4). 1 Pueblo Bonito’s Exhibit 1 is the deposition of Nancy Muller of Florida Housing. 2 Unless stated otherwise, all statutory references shall be to the 2020 version of the Florida Statutes. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated total of $5,131,050 in SAIL Financing for the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing developments for farm workers and commercial fishing workers. The RFA was issued on April 15, 2020, and a modified version was issued on April 24, 2020. The application deadline was May 19, 2020. La Estancia and Pueblo Bonito submitted applications proposing the rehabilitation of existing farm worker housing in Hillsborough and Lee Counties, respectively. Both applications were deemed eligible for funding. A review committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (“the Board”). The scoring of the applications was based on a 100-point scale. Applicants submitting a Principal Disclosure Form that had been stamped “pre-approved” received five points. The remaining points were awarded based on the subjective scoring of narrative sections within the applications, and the maximum points were available as follows: Current and Future Need for Farm Worker or Commercial Fishing Worker Housing in the Area (“Need”): 15 points Experience Operating and managing Farm Worker or Commercial Fishing Worker Housing (“Experience”): 20 points Outreach, Marketing, and Referral (“Outreach”): 30 points Resident Access to Onsite and Offsite Programs, Services, and Resources (“Access”): 30 points. With regard to Need, the 2019 Rental Market Study prepared for Florida Housing by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies at the University of Florida determined that 14.2 percent of Florida’s farm workers are employed in Hillsborough County and 2.55 percent are employed in Lee County. Pueblo Bonito noted in its application that its development is only three miles from the Collier County line, and 5.63 percent of the state’s farm workers are employed in Collier County. La Estancia did not reference Manatee County in its application but noted in its request for a formal administrative hearing that its development is a similar distance from Manatee County, and 6.88 percent of the state’s farm workers are employed there. The Shimberg study also calculated need for farm worker housing type by county with 3,813 multifamily units needed in Hillsborough County, 741 multifamily units needed in Lee County, 1,546 multifamily units needed in Collier County, and 2,337 multifamily units needed in Manatee County. For some RFAs, Florida Housing imposes additional conditions on applications for developments located in Limited Development Areas (“LDAs”). The main purpose of an LDA is to protect Florida Housing’s funded developments in a particular area. An LDA is generally an area that Florida Housing has placed a boundary around that limits different types of new development. Florida Housing annually publishes an LDA Chart on its website listing areas or counties that may apply in the RFA cycle for the coming year. The mere existence of an LDA does not prohibit development within the LDA. This is especially true for rehabilitation projects like those proposed in the instant case. An RFA must specifically reference the LDA in order for the LDA to apply. The first draft of the 2020 LDA Chart was not published by Florida Housing until May 29, 2020, and thus the modified RFA issued on April 24, 2020, included no reference to the LDA Chart. Nor did the RFA include any specific provisions regarding LDAs. The first draft of the 2020 LDA Chart and each subsequent draft or amendment included Lee County for farm worker housing. Florida Housing indicated that the basis for Lee County’s LDA designation was a downward trend in occupancy rates. The occupancy rate for the housing stock in Lee County for the period of August 2019 through January 2020 was 91.67 percent as compared to 95.83 percent for the period of September 2019 through February 2020. Based on this trend, Lee County was proposed as an LDA for the 2020/2021 Florida Housing RFA funding cycle, which became effective July 10, 2020. The following table reflects how the review committee awarded points to the two applicants: Pueblo Bonito La Estancia Principal Disclosure Form (5) 5 5 “Need” (15) 12 12 “Experience” (20) 16 17 “Outreach” (30) 27 27 “Access” (30) 25 24 Total (100) 85 85 In the event of a tie, Florida Housing designed the RFA and the associated rules to incorporate a series of “tie-breakers.” The tiebreakers, in the order of applicability, were: By points received for the Need criterion, with more points preferred. Both applicants received 12 points for need. By SAIL Request Amount Per Unit, with lower SAIL funds per unit preferred. Both applicants requested $50,000 in SAIL funds per unit. By Total SAIL Request Amount as a percentage of Total Development Cost (“TDC”), with applicants whose SAIL request amount is 90 percent or less of TDC preferred. Both applicants’ Total SAIL Request Amount was 90 percent or less of their respective TDCs. By a Florida Job Creation Preference. Both applicants satisfied this preference. By lottery numbers randomly assigned to the applications when they were submitted to Florida Housing. Pueblo Bonito had lottery number 1, and La Estancia had lottery number 2. Nancy Muller was the Review Committee member assigned to review and score the “Need” narrative section of the Applications responding to the RFA. Ms. Muller is currently a Policy Specialist with Florida Housing. Prior to her current position, Ms. Muller was, for many years, the Director of Policy and Special Programs. In reviewing and scoring the applications submitted to Florida Housing in the instant case, Ms. Muller indicated that she first read the narrative question of the RFA and broke the question down into four separate component parts. The components included: (a) current and future need for farm workers over the next 10 to 15 years; (b) location and proximity of farms and other types of farm work that typically use farm worker labor; (c) information concerning the types of crops, seasons, etc. and the demand for specific farm worker housing; and (d) whether waivers have been requested or granted for either the proposed Development or Developments in the area. Next, Ms. Muller reviewed each application against those component parts and ultimately awarded La Estancia and Pueblo Bonito 12 points each for their respective response to the need section. Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s corporate representative, testified that just because the documented need for farm worker housing is higher in Hillsborough County than it is in Lee County does not mean that La Estancia should have received a higher score in the narrative section than Pueblo Bonito because the RFA “sets forth a much more nuanced request for the description of the current and future needs in the area for the proposed development. So it’s not limited to just a flat-out look at the county under the Shimberg study. If [that] were the case, we wouldn’t need to have a narrative scoring component of the RFA.” Ms. Muller and Ms. Button persuasively testified that numeric need was just one of the components an applicant needed to address in responding to the needs question. In fact, Ms. Muller indicated she recognized the greater numeric need for farm worker housing in Hillsborough County, and the greater need factored into her consideration of that particular component. However, Ms. Muller pointed out that because both proposed projects were rehabilitation of existing units, neither was actually addressing nor reducing the numeric need for new units. Ms. Muller acknowledged that La Estancia’s response at this component of the need analysis was “stronger” because of the greater need. Nevertheless, Ms. Muller indicated that while La Estancia demonstrated a greater numeric need, Pueblo Bonito’s response was “stronger” in other areas of the overall need response. Specifically, Pueblo Bonito provided a stronger response as to the location and proximity of farms and other types of farm work that use farm worker labor. Ms. Muller considered and evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of each response and no one component was weighted greater than any other component. Based on the scoring and tie-breakers, the review committee recommended Pueblo Bonito for funding. However, the Board’s deliberations were not to be limited to the review committee’s recommendation or information provided by the review committee. With regard to the Board’s funding selection, the RFA stated that: [t]he Board may use the Applications, the Committee’s scoring, any other information or recommendation provided by the Committee or staff, and any other information the Board deems relevant in its selection of Applicants to whom to award funding. The Board met on July 17, 2020, to consider the review committee’s recommendation and preliminarily selected Pueblo Bonito for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process.3 Florida 3 The RFA also employed a “Funding Test” to be used in the selection of applications for funding. The “Funding Test” required that the amount of unawarded SAIL funding must be enough to fully fund that applicant’s SAIL request amount. After the selection of Pueblo Bonito for funding, there was only $1,131,050 in SAIL funding remaining, and that was not enough to fund La Estancia’s $4,200,000 SAIL request. Housing staff did not inform the Board that Lee County had been designated as an LDA for farm worker housing on the 2020 LDA Chart. Also, there is no evidence that any Board member knew of Lee County’s LDA status or of declining farm worker housing occupancy when they voted to select Pueblo Bonito for funding. La Estancia could not have presented the information regarding Lee County’s LDA status to the Board. The RFA contains a “noninterference” clause prohibiting an applicant or its representative from contacting Board members or Florida Housing’s staff “concerning their own or any other Applicant’s Application” during the period beginning with the application deadline and continuing until the Board “renders a final decision on the RFA.” If an applicant makes such contact in an attempt to influence the selection process, then that applicant’s application is disqualified. As a result, La Estancia was unable to correct the review committee’s omission of information regarding declining farm worker housing occupancy levels in Lee County. Ms. Button testified that it was Florida Housing’s practice not to apply new standards or requirements that changed after the application deadline when scoring applications. She stated that Florida Housing scores “based on the terms of the RFA and we wouldn’t retroactively apply something to those applications after they’ve been submitted.” She specifically testified that if a county is designated as an LDA after the application deadline, Florida Housing would not apply that designation to the application. She also testified that one of the reasons for not considering new requirements after the application deadline is that applicants would not be allowed to amend their applications to address these new requirements. Even if the July 10 LDA designation had applied to this RFA, there is no evidence that it would have changed Florida Housing’s scoring decision. The primary purpose for the LDA designation is to discourage new construction that could harm existing developments. In this case, both applicants are proposing to rehabilitate existing developments, and the evidence shows that Florida Housing would not prohibit the funding of a rehabilitation project even if it were in an LDA. Florida Housing has funded the rehabilitation of farm worker developments located in LDAs since 2013 or 2014. In RFA 2017-104, the only previous farm worker RFA in evidence, the LDA designation did not even apply to rehabilitation projects that were in Florida Housing’s portfolio. Ms. Muller testified that because the two applicants in this case both involved rehabilitation of developments in Florida Housing’s portfolio, the LDA designation would have been “moot,” unless the physical occupancy rates were dire, which they were not. She also testified that “preservation of existing developments is of much less, if any, importance related to LDA.” Ms. Button testified that she did not specifically inform the Board of the LDA designation “because it’s not relevant to the terms for which the applications were scored for this RFA, it was not a part of the RFA terms, and the applicants did not, you know, apply with that designation put in place. It’s for a future prospective funding cycle and it was not effective until after the application due date.” The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Florida Housing’s review and scoring of the applications responding to the RFA were not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a Final Order dismissing La Estancia, Ltd.’s formal written protest and awarding funding to Partnership in Housing, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2020, 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 1st day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from sales and use tax as a religious or charitable organization.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Consumer Certificate of Exemption dated March 17, 1992, Petitioner requested a sales tax exemption as a religious organization. The application indicates that Petitioner was incorporated on February 18, 1992. At all times, the president of Petitioner has been Reverend Robert M. Rinaldi. By letter dated April 16, 1992, Respondent requested that Petitioner supply information concerning its primary purpose, including a list of all activities or services and to whom they are generally offered. The letter also requested, among other things, statements of receipts and expenditures and a copy of the letter determining that Petitioner is exempt from federal income tax. Petitioner submitted to Respondent evidence of 12 expenditures during the quarter ending March 31, 1992. The expenditures and their descriptions are as follows: Morrisons-- dinner business; Holiday Inn in Tampa--lodging for quarterly convention; Maas Brother in Naples--attire; Marshalls-- personal; Martha's Health Food Shop--personal; Things Remembered--card case/business cards; RJ Cafe Tropical--lunch interview; Beach Works Marco Island--attire; annual membership fee for vice president's American Express card; Las Vegas Discount golf and tennis in Naples--personal; Eckerd's Vision Works--medical eyeglasses; Quality Inn Golf Country Club in Naples--lodging during business travel; Avon Fashions/Hampton-- personal; Del Wright in Sarasota--automobile expenses and travel; JC Penney--personal; Amador's Restaurant in Naples-- dinner/lunch; Avon Fashions/Hampton--personal; annual membership fee for treasurer's American Express card; and Mobil Oil--business travel. Petitioner produced other evidence of similar types of expenditures, such as for fitness center fees, car insurance, car service, car payments, utilities, and rent. Nothing in the record links these expenditures to religious or charitable activities. There were expenditures for printing religious tracts and self- improvement educational materials, but they do not appear to be a substantial part of the total expenditures of Petitioner during the time in question. After receiving these materials, a representative of Respondent telephoned Reverend Rinaldi and stated that Petitioner would have to submit additional documentation of its income and expenses and formal affiliation with prison chapels where Petitioner reportedly conducted outreach programs. Respondent's representative also asked for evidence of Reverend Rinaldi's counselling credentials. Petitioner next submitted a copy of a letter from the Department of Treasury determining that Petitioner was exempt from federal income tax. Petitioner also submitted a budget for the year ending 1992 and a proposed budget for the year ending 1993. However, the budgets did not document a charitable purpose. The budget reveals that the largest disbursement was $4200, which was rent for an office and living quarters. The largest single receipt was $1764.27, which was a contribution from the incorporator, who was Rev. Rinaldi. There were no charitable receipts, such as from contributions from members, the public, or anonymous sources. On November 10, 1992, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner requesting additional information, including statements of the primary purpose of the organization and of receipts and expenditures. The request asked for a description or explanation for each charity-related program expenditure. On November 18, 1992, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. The information was essentially unchanged from the first application. Rev. Rinaldi also sent Respondent a religious flyer. On February 10, 1993, Petitioner submitted a third Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. The material was essentially unchanged from the preceding two applications. On March 30, 1993, one of Respondent's representatives sent a letter to Petitioner stating that Petitioner does not meet the criteria for exemption from sales tax. In response, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent received April 8, 1993, requesting reconsideration of the denial. On May 4, 1993, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter stating that, as indicated during an earlier telephone conversation, Respondent had not yet received sufficient documentation to justify a sales tax exemption. Following up on Rev. Rinaldi's opinion that Petitioner qualified as a charitable organization, the letter suggests that he submit materials describing each charitable service or activity, the types of persons receiving such services, the frequency that the services are offered, the demonstrated benefit provided by Petitioner to disadvantaged persons, the fees charged by Petitioner, and the availability of Petitioner's services at the same or less cost elsewhere. The letter also asks for a statement of income and expenses. In response, Petitioner filed a fourth Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption on November 10, 1993. Rev. Rinaldi explained Petitioner's activities as informing people of the truth and the second coming of Jesus Christ and stopping addictions to drugs and alcohol. The enclosed materials included a church telephone number. The materials state that services are available 24 hours a day for no fees and are provided solely for the spiritual preparation of humanity. The materials also indicate several addresses at which religious activities are conducted. Upon investigation, Respondent learned that Petitioner's telephone number had been disconnected, the street address is Rev. Rinaldi's apartment, and the addresses at which religious activities are conducted are locations of Alcoholic Anonymous, from which Rev. Rinaldi and his church had been barred as public disturbances. Checking with the post office, the investigator learned that all mail for Rev. Rinaldi and Petitioner is being forwarded to an address in New York. Respondent asked for more information, and Petitioner supplied information no different than that previously supplied. By letter dated April 26, 1994, Respondent informed Petitioner that its application was denied. Following another exchange of correspondence, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny dated June 17, 1994. The Notice of Intent to Deny states that Respondent determined that: [Petitioner] travels from church to church and does not assemble regularly at a particular established location. [Petitioner] conducts services for short periods of time at numerous temporary locations. [Respondent] has reviewed your application and supporting documents and has determined that the primary purpose of your organization fails to meet the qualifications for sales tax exemption authorized by Section 212.08(7), Florida Statutes. By letter dated June 24, 1994, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on its application for sales tax exemption. Petitioner does not regularly conduct services. Petitioner does not engage in other religious activities nor does Petitioner provide services typically associated with a church. Petitioner has no established physical place for worship. Petitioner has generalized plans to construct one or more places for worship. However, these plans are post-apocalyptic in nature and thus do not assure the commencement of construction in the immediate future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption certificate from sales and use tax. ENTERED on December 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 20, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Rev. Robert Rinaldi P.O. Box 1081 167 N. Collier Blvd. J-3 Marco Island, FL 33937-1081 Attorney Lisa M. Raleigh Office of the Attorney General The Capitol--Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
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.
