The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioners in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to release them from a 20-year affordable housing deed restriction.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that Mr. Discher is handicapped, as indicated in his medical records, for purposes of the Fair Housing Act. John and Ruth Discher own the property located at 22916 Bluegill Lane, Cudjoe Key, Florida, with the following legal description: Lot 32, Block 10, Cudjoe Ocean Shores, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 76, of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida. At the time of hearing, the Dischers did not live in the residential home on the property but rented it. No dispute exists that Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida having regulatory jurisdiction over the Dischers’ property. Since around 1979, Monroe County has been designated as an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). As an ACSC, increased State oversight of and involvement in local planning decisions is required by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Florida Administrative Commission, and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), as the State land planning agency. The Florida Legislature imposed a series of “principles for guiding development” in the Florid Keys. § 380.0552(7), Fla. Stat. One of the principles for guiding development imposed by the State is “to make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.” § 380.0552(7)(j), Fla. Stat. In 1992, the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) was adopted by the Florida Administrative Commission on behalf of Monroe County in order to limit growth in the Keys. The purpose and intent of ROGO was to facilitate implementation of goals, objective and policies set forth in Monroe County’s comprehensive plan relating to many areas of concern, including the protection of the environment (including endangered species and species on the concerned list), residents, and visitors; hurricane evacuation; road improvement; property and property development. ROGO consists of a competitive point system, based on a complex scoring system, and those who obtain the top points receive allocations. Point values are accessed on and using a number of criteria. Under the ROGO system, property owners, who wish to build houses on vacant land, must compete to receive a limited number of residential allocations. The yearly number of building allocations is limited by state administrative rule. Property owners seeking building allocations compete against each other in order to receive one of the limited number of allocations. In 1996, Monroe County’s comprehensive plan was effective. Prior to 1996, Monroe County received very few applicants for ROGO; however, after the comprehensive plan became effective the competition under ROGO increased tremendously. Developers and persons with high economic means became the majority of those able to receive points in order to obtain the majority of the limited allocations. With the increase in competition, affordable housing became a concern. The ultimate goal of Monroe County under the ACSC program is for it (Monroe County) to get into the position of being able to protect the environmental resources, provide for hurricane evacuation, and do everything that is required in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and be removed or “de-designated” as an ACSC. Applicable to the instant matter, affordable housing was defined in Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations, Section 9.5-4, which provided in pertinent part: (A-5) Affordable housing means housing which: * * * With respect to a housing unit to be occupied by moderate-income persons, that monthly rents, or monthly mortgage payments, including taxes and insurance, do not exceed thirty (30) percent of that amount which represents one hundred twenty (120) percent of the median adjusted gross annual income for households within Monroe County, divided by 12 for a period of twenty (20) years. The dwelling unit must also meet all applicable requirements of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development minimum property standards as to room sizes, fixtures, landscaping and building materials, when not in conflict with applicable laws of Monroe County. For the purposes of this section, “adjusted gross income” means all wages, assets, regular cash or noncash contributions or gifts from persons outside the household, and such other resources and benefits as may be determined to be income by rule of the department of community affairs, adjusted for family size, less deductions allowable under section 62 of the Internal Revenue code; and In which, if permitted by law, preference is given to local contractors. The threshold for a household’s income to qualify for affordable housing was set by this regulation. Further, Monroe County Code, Land Development Regulations, Section 9.5-266, applicable to the instant matter, provided in pertinent part: (a) Affordable Housing: (1) Notwithstanding the density limitation in section 9.5-262, the owner of a parcel of land shall be entitled to develop affordable housing as defined in section 9.5-4(A-5). . . . * * * Before any certificate of occupancy may be issued for any structure, portion or phase of a project subject to this section, restrictive covenant(s), limiting the required number of dwelling units to households meeting the income criteria described in paragraph (4)(a)-(f) of this subsection (a) running in favor of Monroe County and enforceable by the county, shall be filed in the official records of Monroe County. The covenant(s) shall be effective for twenty (20) years but shall not commence running until a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the building official for the dwelling unit or units to which the covenant or covenants apply. In order for the owner of a parcel of land to be entitled to the incentives outlined in this section, the owner must ensure that: a. The use of the dwelling is restricted to households that derive at least seventy (70) percent of their household income from gainful employment in Monroe County; and * * * e. The use of the dwelling is restricted for a period of at least twenty (20) years to households with an income no greater than one hundred twenty (120) percent of the median household income for Monroe County . . . . This regulation sets the limitation for covenants at 20 years, with the time period beginning to run at the issuance of the certificate of occupancy by the building department. Under the ROGO plan, a person was awarded additional points if the person agreed to the imposition of an affordable housing deed restriction. Being awarded the additional points meant that a person would receive an allocation in a shorter period of time. At that time, Mrs. Discher was an employee of the Monroe County Sheriffs Department. The Dischers completed a ROGO application. They wanted to be awarded additional points to reduce the period of time for them to receive an allocation for the construction of their home. The Dischers completed an Annual Affidavit of Qualification for Affordable Housing (Residential Dwelling Unit). The Affidavit provided, among other things, an acknowledgement by the Dischers that the Affidavit was a waiver of payment of the required impact fees; that Mrs. Discher was an employee of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department and at least 70 percent of the household’s income was derived from that employment; that the single family home was restricted for 20 years to household’s with adjusted gross income of a certain amount; that the Dischers would file an approved deed restriction indicating “that, either (1) the deferred impact fees shall become due and owing if the unit no longer qualifies as Affordable Housing, or, (2) that the dwelling unit shall be restricted by the affordable housing criteria for twenty years commencing from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy”; and that the Dischers understood that, if affordable housing was used to gain points in the allocation system, the single-family home would be restricted by the covenants for 20 years. Mr. Discher prepared an affordable housing deed restriction for a residential dwelling unit in 1997. The Affordable Housing Deed Restriction, prepared by Mr. Discher, was executed by the Dischers on July 2, 1997. Provision II of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provided, among other things, an acknowledgement that “fair share impact fees” shall be paid by any person prior to receiving a building permit for any new land development. Provision III of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provided, among other things, an acknowledgement by the Dischers that they were being exempt from payment of their fair share impact fees for the single family home to be constructed by them on their property. Provision IV of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provided, among other things, that the sale, transfer or rental of their single family home shall only be to persons who qualify under Monroe County’s current affordable housing eligibility requirements as established and amended from time to time. Provision V of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provides, among other things, that the covenants shall be effective for 20 years and shall begin to run at the issuance of certificate of occupancy by the building department. Provision VI of the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction provides, among other things, that the Dischers used the affordable housing program to gain additional points in the permit allocation system. The Affordable Housing Deed Restriction contains no provision for removal of the affordable housing deed restriction. The Dischers were given additional points. Their wait-time for an allocation was reduced, and they received an allocation to build their single family home. The Dischers attempted to pay impact fees on or about October 2, 1997. They were informed by the building department that they were not required to pay the impact fees and their check for the impact fees was returned to them. They obtained a mortgage loan and completed their single family home. A certificate of occupancy was issued on June 30, 1999. Mr. Discher testified at hearing that the only reason that he and his wife applied for the ROGO program and that he prepared and he and his wife executed the Affordable Housing Deed Restriction was because an employee of the Monroe County Building Department informed him that they (the Dischers) could be released from the affordable housing deed restriction simply by paying the fair share impact fee at any time. Before ROGO, Monroe County had an affordable housing ordinance that permitted the removal from affordable housing by paying the impact fees. A household benefited by not initially paying impact fees; but, the household could later decide to pay the impact fees, come forward and pay the impact fees, and be removed from affordable housing. However, after ROGO was adopted, the option to later pay the impact fees and be removed from affordable housing no longer existed. ROGO contained no mechanism for a person to pay the impact fees and be removed from affordable housing before the time limit expired or to be removed from affordable housing before the time limit expired. At hearing, the building official was identified but did not testify. Insufficient evidence was presented to ascertain whether the building official had the apparent authority to allow the Dischers to pay the impact fees and remove them from the affordable housing restrictions prior to the 20 years. Consequently, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the Dischers reasonably relied upon the building official’s representation to support a release from the affordable housing restrictions. No copy of any release from the affordable housing deed restrictions recorded in the official records of Monroe County was presented at hearing. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Monroe County had released any persons from affordable housing deed restrictions. In 2005, the Dischers made a request to Monroe County for removal of the affordable housing deed restrictions. The Dischers were notified by Monroe County that no provision existed in the Monroe County Code or Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan for removal of the affordable deed restrictions prior the effective date of their expiration or termination and that its Comprehensive Plan provided that affordable housing projects shall be required to maintain the project as affordable housing on a long-term basis in accordance with deed restrictions. Furthermore, the Dischers were notified by Monroe County that prospective occupant(s) of the affordable housing must meet the qualifications for affordable housing. The Dischers attempted to pay the impact fees in order to be released from the affordable housing deed restrictions. They attempted to pay the impact fees on at least two occasions— March 20, 2006, and February 20, 2007. On each occasion, their payment was refused by Monroe County. Monroe County determined that payment of the impact fees would not release the Dischers from the affordable housing deed restrictions, and, therefore, refused and returned the Dischers’ payments. Moreover, no provision in the Monroe County Code permitted the removal of the affordable housing deed restrictions. Monroe County admits that, under the guidelines in place when the Dischers obtained affordable housing, the Dischers are not restricted to a selling or renting price for their single family home. However, they are restricted as to the income of prospective buyer(s) or renter(s), i.e., the prospective buyer(s) or renter(s) must meet the income guidelines set forth in the Monroe County Code. Prior to and during the entire process involving the ROGO program, Mr. Discher was disabled. A copy of a letter written by the Dischers in September 1997, in which Mr. Discher indicated his disability, was forwarded to Monroe County. After the completion of the Dischers’ home, Mr. Discher’s health deteriorated. At hearing, Mr. Discher admitted that, prior to filing the discriminatory fair housing complaint, he had never mentioned his disability to Monroe County in relation to having the affordable housing deed restrictions removed. Moreover, at hearing, he admitted that Monroe County had not discriminated against him on the basis of his disability by refusing to remove the affordable housing deed restrictions. Mr. Discher’s physicians recommended to him that he move away from the Keys to improve his health. Furthermore, eventually, Mr. Discher needed to be closer to the locations where he was receiving his medical treatments, which were outside of the Keys. The Dischers finally moved away from the Keys to be closer to the locations where Mr. Discher was receiving his medical treatments. They rented their single-family home in Monroe County. Mrs. Discher was forced to return to work. If the Dischers are released from the affordable housing deed restrictions or if the affordable housing deed restrictions are removed, the Dischers would sell the single-family home. A Senior Planner with DCA, Ada Mayte Santamaria, testified at hearing as an expert in community planning. Ms. Santamaria testified that neither Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan nor its Land Development Regulations allow for the removal of the Dischers’ affordable housing deed restrictions; and that, if the affordable housing deed restrictions were released, DCA would probably issue a notice of violation against Monroe County for not properly implementing its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations and probably recommend to the Administration Commission that Monroe County’s allocations for the year following such release be reduced because of the failure of Monroe County to enforce and implement its Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Ms. Santamaria further testified that Monroe County is allowed to submit two proposed comprehensive plan amendments per year; and that, because of the process involved in proposed amendments, including review by DCA, a proposed amendment by Monroe County to release affordable housing deed restrictions would take a minimum of six months and could take up to a year and a half to complete the process. At a Monroe County Commission meeting held on January 17, 2007, the Dischers requested to be released from their affordable housing deed restrictions based on hardship due to Mr. Discher’s medical conditions. At the meeting, copy of his medical documents, identifying his disability, was distributed to the Commissioners. The Commissioners denied the Dischers’ request. However, the Commissioners also decided that they wanted to address extreme hardship situations and unanimously voted to direct its staff to begin work on an “exit strategy” for affordable housing deed restrictions on the basis of extreme hardship situations. The Commission staff represented at the meeting that such a process would take at least three months and indicated that Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan may have to be amended in conjunction with what the Commission wanted. At the time of the final hearing in the instant matter, approximately a year and a half later, no “exit strategy” had been brought before the Commission. No evidence was presented that the Commission had decided that it no longer wanted to develop an “exit strategy.” No evidence was presented as to why the process had not begun. The Dischers are convinced that Monroe County wants to take their property. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Monroe County wants to take the Dischers’ property.
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 finding that Monroe County Commissioners did not commit a discriminating housing practice against John and Ruth Discher in violation of the Fair Housing Act by failing to release or remove the affordable housing deed restrictions. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondents, Housing Authority of Flagler County and Chris Beyrer, Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Flagler County (collectively, the Authority); and Advantage Realty and Management, Inc. and Dymitri Belkin (collectively, Advantage), discriminated against Petitioner Jennifer Nichole King (Petitioner) based on her race by engaging in discriminatory terms and conditions, discriminatory statements, and steering, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who is a participant in the Authority’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8 Program). On April 8, 2013, Petitioner moved from the Pinellas County Housing Authority’s Section 8 Program to the Authority’s Section 8 Program. The Authority did not transfer Petitioner into its Section 8 Program, but rather administers Petitioner’s Section 8 voucher for the Pinellas County’s Housing Authority in accordance with the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations. The essence of Petitioner’s claim against the Authority is that, because of her race, the Authority, and its executive director, Chris Beyer, steered her away from homes in predominately white areas and told her she needed to look for homes in the “projects.” According to Petitioner, when she inquired about certain homes in nicer, predominantly white areas, Chris Beyer told her that people like her did not qualify for that type of housing. She also suggested that, because of discrimination based on her race, the Authority allowed Advantage, and/or the owners of the housing units that she rented under the Section 8 Program, to continue to receive rent and raise rental rates, even though the Authority knew that repairs required for habitability were not being made. The evidence, as outlined in the Findings of Fact below, does not support Petitioner’s claims against the Authority. During her orientation process for Section 8 services in Flagler County, Petitioner completed the Authority’s voucher briefing process, which included both an oral briefing and an information packet. The subjects covered by the briefing information and documentation included family and owner obligations and responsibilities; the housing selection process; a list of the Authority’s resources for locating housing, which included areas outside of poverty or minority concentrated areas; the Authority’s process for determining the amount of housing assistance payment for the family and maximum rent; and a list of participating realtors that manage properties for various owners participating in the Section 8 Program. After Petitioner completed the voucher briefing process, on April 18, 2013, the Authority issued Petitioner a Housing Choice Voucher. In July 2013, Petitioner independently, and voluntarily, located a potential rental unit at 49 Raintree Place, Palm Coast, Florida 32164 (Raintree Place unit), and submitted a Request for Tenancy Approval for this unit to the Authority, along with a copy of the proposed dwelling lease for the unit. The Raintree Place unit was a four bedroom, detached single-family home constructed in 2006. The proposed rent for the unit was $1,000.00 per month, with a required security deposit of $1,500.00. The Authority inspected the unit, determined that it passed the housing quality standards, and that the rent was reasonable. The Authority then approved the unit and executed a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract with the owner, or owner’s agent, to pay housing assistance to the owner on behalf of Petitioner. On May 29, 2014, the owner of the Raintree Place unit filed an eviction action against Petitioner for nonpayment of rent. At a subsequent mediation, the parties to the eviction action entered a stipulation agreement on July 2, 2014, which required Petitioner, among other things, to vacate the unit by July 31, 2014. The stipulation agreement also provided that if Petitioner timely performed all of the terms and conditions of the stipulation agreement, then the owner agreed to dismiss the eviction case. On July 31, 2014, Petitioner timely vacated the Raintree Place unit as agreed, thereby avoiding a judgment for possession against her. Thereafter, on August 6, 2014, the Authority issued Petitioner a new Housing Choice Voucher to locate another rental unit. In August 2014, Petitioner independently, and voluntarily, located another potential unit located at 92 Ulysses Trail, Palm Coast, Florida 32164 (Ulysses Trail unit). Petitioner submitted a Request for Tenancy Approval for this unit to the Authority, along with a copy of the proposed dwelling lease. This unit was a four bedroom, detached single- family home constructed in 2002. The proposed rent for the unit was $1,200.00 per month, and the security deposit was $1,500.00. The Ulysses Trail unit was owned by Serghei Potorac. Mr. Potorac hired Advantage to manage the unit. Advantage managed the Ulysses Trail unit until September 6, 2017. The Authority inspected the Ulysses Trail unit and determined that it passed the housing quality standards and that the proposed rent was reasonable. The Authority then approved the unit and executed a HAP contract with the owner, or the owner’s agent, Advantage, to pay housing assistance to the owner on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner and her family moved into the Ulysses Trail unit on September 1, 2014. During Petitioner’s tenancy, the owner of the Ulysses Trail unit received various notices for city code violations because of Petitioner’s failure to maintain the property in accordance with local city codes or ordinances. The alleged violations included overgrown lawn, failing to screen outside trash containers, and accumulation of trash on the property. As a result, the city assessed fines against the owner totaling over $800.00. On July 8, 2015, Advantage sent Petitioner a seven-day notice to cure, demanding that she pay the outstanding fines. Petitioner ultimately either corrected, or agreed to correct, the violations. As a result, the city waived the outstanding fines. After conferring with the owner, Petitioner and Advantage advised the Authority that the owner would not proceed against Petitioner. On July 13, 2015, the Authority conducted an annual inspection of the Ulysses Trail unit. The unit passed the inspection but there were some issues that the Authority felt needed to be addressed. Therefore, on July 13, 2015, Robert Beyrer, the Petitioner’s housing counselor at the Authority, sent Advantage an email regarding those issues. The next year, on July 12, 2016, the Authority conducted its next annual inspection of the Ulysses Trail unit. Because of some noted deficiencies, the unit did not initially pass inspection. The Authority sent correspondence to Advantage detailing the deficiencies that needed correction by August 12, 2016. Thereafter, Advantage provided the Authority with an invoice from VK Services showing that the deficiencies had been timely corrected. During the time period from July 2015 through October 2016, the Authority received copies of at least four three-day notices that Advantage had delivered to Petitioner for failing to timely pay rent. With respect to a three-day notice delivered to Petitioner on October 11, 2016, the owner subsequently filed an eviction action on October 20, 2016. During a court-ordered mediation, the parties entered into a Stipulation Agreement dated November 10, 2016. When Petitioner failed to comply with the November 10, 2016, Stipulation Agreement, Advantage filed an affidavit on February 2, 2017, on behalf of the owner, seeking a judgment for possession. That same day, without advising the Authority of the ongoing eviction action, Petitioner asked the Authority to conduct a special inspection of the Ulysses Trail unit. During the Authority’s inspection, the Authority found that the unit failed the inspection as a result of various deficiencies attributed to both the owner and Petitioner. The next day, on February 3, 2017, the court entered a final judgment for possession against Petitioner, and the court clerk issued a writ of possession. In response, Petitioner filed a motion to stay the execution of the writ, claiming, among other things, that Advantage failed to repair items as agreed in the November 10, 2016, Stipulation Agreement. In the meantime, the unit was re-inspected by the Authority on February 27, 2017, and the inspector found that some of the deficiencies had been addressed but there remained some that still needed to be corrected. On March 14, 2017, the Authority did a final inspection of the unit and determined that the remaining deficiencies had been addressed by both Advantage and Petitioner. Following two hearings on Petitioner’s motion in the eviction case, the court granted Petitioner’s motion to stay and vacated the final judgment. The court also reduced Petitioner’s portion of the rent due for the months of January and February 2017 based on its findings regarding the outstanding repairs. Further court orders reflect that Advantage ultimately addressed the disputed repairs and that Petitioner was ordered to pay full rent for the months of March and April 2017. The Authority was not a party and did not appear in the eviction proceedings. Thereafter, the owner gave Petitioner notice and advised the Authority that Petitioner’s lease would not be renewed, and that Petitioner would need to vacate the unit by August 31, 2017. The Authority subsequently sent correspondences to Petitioner explaining what she needed to do in order to be eligible to move to another location with continued housing assistance from the Authority. Petitioner timely vacated the Ulysses Trail unit and was issued a new voucher by the Authority on September 1, 2017, that could be used for a new rental unit. On October 13, 2017, Petitioner sent Robert Beyrer an email stating: Good Morning, Can you email the list of realtors that you have. I misplaced ours with all the moving about. Also I am going to need to request an[] extension of my voucher. Do we need to sign anything? Thank, Jen King In response, Robert Beyrer sent Petitioner another copy of the list of participating realtors in Flagler County previously provided to her by the Authority during her initial voucher briefing. The Authority, through Robert Beyrer, also granted Petitioner’s request for an extension of her voucher until December 1, 2017. On October 30, 2017, Petitioner sent Robert Beyrer another email advising that she was having difficulty finding another unit. By email, Robert Beyrer responded by further extending the expiration date of her voucher until December 31, 2017, and counseling her on various sources where she might find available units, stating: There are rentals out there. I am not sure who you are speaking with. I would continue to contact the landlords on the participating realtors list, check the local newspaper weekly, and check Zillow.com for reputable property management companies. We have been leasing people up with your voucher size in your price range. I will continue to keep my eyes open for you! Petitioner independently and voluntarily located a potential rental unit located at 10 Pier Lane, Palm Coast, Florida 32164 (Pier Lane unit) and, on December 27, 2017, submitted a Request for Tenancy Approval for this unit to the Authority, along with a copy of the proposed dwelling lease for the unit. The Authority inspected the Pier Lane unit and determined that it passed the housing quality standards and that the proposed rent was reasonable. The Authority then approved the unit and executed a HAP contract with the owner, or owner’s agent, to pay housing assistance to the owner on Petitioner’s behalf. On February 1, 2018, Petitioner moved into the Pier Lane unit. At the time of the final hearing, Petitioner was residing at the Pier Lane unit and the Authority was paying HAP payments to the owner on behalf of Petitioner under a HAP Contract with the owner. At the hearing, Petitioner maintained that the crux of her housing discrimination complaint was actually based on racially discriminatory statements allegedly made to her by Chris Beyrer. Petitioner alleged that Chris Beyrer said to her, among other things, “You cannot live by the canals; they do not rent to people like you.” Petitioner testified that she took Chris Beyrer’s statements to mean that she could not rent a unit by the canals because they do not rent to black people or people of color. Petitioner admitted, however, that Chris Beyrer never referenced or otherwise indicated that race was the underlying reason or motive when he made the alleged statements. Chris Beyrer denied making the alleged discriminatory statements attributed to her by Petitioner, or any other racially discriminatory statements. Ms. Beyer explained that any housing suggestions to Petitioner would have been on the type of unit Petitioner could afford to rent based on the amount of her reported household income and rental subsidy. Ms. Beyer’s testimony was credible and is accepted. Rather than showing racial discrimination against Petitioner in the Authority’s administration of the Section 8 Program, the evidence showed that, as a Section 8 participant in Flagler County, Petitioner was and is free to locate or choose an eligible rental unit anywhere in the Authority’s jurisdiction and submit the proposed rental unit to the Authority for approval. Further, at the hearing, Petitioner withdrew any claim that Advantage had unlawfully discriminated against her because of her race by failing to make requested repairs or by providing false repair records for the Ulysses Trail unit to the Authority. Specifically, Petitioner stated at the hearing that she did not believe Advantage had engaged in any discriminatory conduct towards her, and was rescinding her housing discrimination complaint against Advantage. Nevertheless, near the close of the hearing, one of Advantage’s witnesses, a repairman from VK Services, provided brief testimony confirming that he had personally made the repairs at the Ulysses Trail unit, as indicated in the various invoices provided by Advantage to the Authority. The testimony is credited. Finally, despite Petitioner’s claims that the Authority also discriminated against her by allowing Advantage to raise rents and continuing to pay HAP to the owner during the years of her tenancy at the Ulysses Trail unit while unaddressed deficiencies existed, Petitioner admitted that she voluntarily chose to accept the owner’s proposed rental increases and repeatedly renewed her lease with the owner. The evidence further showed that Petitioner was always free under the Section 8 Program to reject lease rental increases and relocate to a new unit of her choice with continued housing assistance from the Authority. In sum, the evidence does not support Petitioner’s claim that, because of racial discrimination, the Authority steered her to only certain rental units, that the Authority allowed rent increases despite lack of repairs, that there were discriminatory statements made against her, or that Advantage was complicit in the alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon 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 Petition and Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2018, 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 30th day of August, 2018.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to fund the application of Petitioner Duval Park, Ltd. (Duval Park), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation that administers low-income housing tax credit programs. As of July 1, 2012, Florida Housing was authorized to use up to ten percent of its annual allocation of low-income housing tax credits to fund high-priority affordable housing developments selected through a competitive solicitation process, such as the RFP. See Ch. 2012-127, § 4, Laws of Fla. (2012)(creating § 420.507(48), Fla. Stat.). Examples of "high priority" affordable housing developments include housing for veterans and their families, and housing for persons with special needs. Prior to issuing the RFP, Florida Housing conducted some demonstration RFPs for developments serving special needs households, but the RFP represents the first actual use of the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits. Previously, low-income housing tax credits were awarded through what was known as the universal application cycle, a process described as cumbersome, lengthy, and inflexible. As part of the universal application cycle, an applicant could indicate by checking a box that it intended to provide affordable housing to special needs households. However, the general universal application process did not lend itself to a targeted proposal detailing how the unique needs of specific special-needs population groups would be addressed. The competitive solicitation process was seen as a way to allow applicants to respond to particular high-priority development needs identified by Florida Housing. In setting forth their development proposals for defined target population groups, applicants would be able to tell their story: applicants would identify and describe the unique needs and household characteristics of the specific special-needs population group that is the focus of their application; applicants could detail and demonstrate their know-how with regard to the resources available in the community where the proposed development is located, to meet the unique needs of the target population; and applicants would be able to discuss the relevant experience of the developer and management teams that make them well-suited to carry out the proposed development and meet the unique needs of the targeted population group. The RFP The RFP solicited responses or applications proposing the development of "permanent supportive housing" (as defined in the RFP) for persons with special needs. Florida Housing issued the RFP with the expectation of funding two or more proposals. The RFP provided that applicants could propose developments for persons with special needs generally, or applicants could choose to focus on serving veterans with special needs. If an applicant chose to focus on veterans with special needs, the applicant was required to pick one of two specific subcategories: either veterans with service-connected disabling conditions transitioning from a Veterans' Administration (VA) hospital or medical center; or chronically homeless/ institutionalized veterans with disabling conditions who were significant users of public resources, such as emergency care and shelter. The RFP specified that it was Florida Housing's goal to fund at least one development proposing to serve veterans with special needs. Preference would be given to proposed developments focusing on serving special-needs veterans in the first subcategory, i.e., veterans transitioning from VA hospitals and medical centers. Duval Park, Osprey, and five other applicants timely submitted applications in response to the RFP. Both Duval Park and Osprey proposed permanent supportive housing developments to serve veterans with special needs transitioning from VA hospitals and medical centers. As described in the RFP, an evaluation committee comprised of Florida Housing employees reviewed and scored the applications. Members of the evaluation committee were instructed to independently evaluate and score the application sections assigned to them. The RFP specified that at least one public meeting would be held at which the evaluators were allowed to discuss their evaluations, make any adjustments deemed necessary to best serve the interests of Florida Housing's mission, and develop recommendations for the Florida Housing Board of Directors. For most application sections, a single evaluator was assigned to review and score the seven responses. For example, Mr. Aldinger was the evaluator who reviewed and scored the two application sections addressing developer and management company experience with permanent supportive housing. Two application sections were assigned for evaluation and scoring by two evaluation committee members. The two evaluators first independently reviewed and scored all seven application responses for the two sections. Then the two evaluators met in a noticed public meeting to conduct a "reconciliation process," in which they discussed their evaluations of the responses to the two application sections and reconciled differences in their scores. The evaluation committee ultimately concluded that Duval Park's application was entitled to a total of 119 points out of 133 possible points, and that Osprey's application was entitled to 117 points. A large gap in scoring separated these two highest-scoring applicants from the other five applicants; the next highest score was 95 points. The evaluation committee presented its recommendation to the Florida Housing Board of Directors, along with a summary of the scores assigned by the evaluation committee. The committee's recommendation was that Florida Housing should award funding to Duval Park for its proposed development. Florida Housing's Board adopted the committee's recommendation. Osprey's Protest Issue Remaining for Determination Following the parties' withdrawal of most of their protest issues, the only remaining disputed issue for resolution in this proceeding is Osprey's claim that Duval Park should have received "at least three" less points than Osprey for the sections addressing developer and management company experience.2/ Mr. Aldinger's assignment as the evaluation committee member responsible for reviewing and scoring these application sections comports with his expertise. Mr. Aldinger has served as Florida Housing's supportive housing coordinator since 2006. In that role, he has been coordinating with governmental bodies and industry stakeholders to develop strategies for focusing Florida Housing's resources on the provision of supportive housing to special needs households. The RFP was developed in furtherance of this effort, and Mr. Aldinger was one of the RFP's authors. Mr. Aldinger assigned the same number of points to the Duval Park and Osprey applications in both sections. Each application received 24 out of 25 possible points for developer experience, and all ten of the points available for management company experience. Osprey's contention is that its narratives for these two application sections show its objective superiority. Osprey's "objective superiority" argument is primarily based on a quantitative comparison, in which its narrative showed experience developing and operating a larger number of permanent supportive housing units than did Duval Park's narrative. Osprey also contends that its narrative was qualitatively better in providing greater detail regarding its experience developing and operating permanent supportive housing. As part of its argument, Osprey contends that Duval Park strayed from the RFP instructions by describing experience with more than just permanent supportive housing, but that the evaluator gave Duval Park credit anyway. The RFP instructions provide the starting point to assess Osprey's contentions. First, the RFP provided the following definition of "permanent supportive housing": Rental housing that is affordable to the focus households with household incomes at or below 60 percent of area median income (AMI), that is leased to the focus households, for continued occupancy with an indefinite length of stay as long as the Permanent Supportive Housing tenant complies with the lease requirements. Permanent Supportive Housing shall facilitate and promote activities of daily living, access to community-based services and amenities, and inclusion in the general community. Permanent Supportive Housing shall strive to meet the needs and preferences of the focus households. This RFP definition was acknowledged to be somewhat broader than how that phrase might be understood by some industry models. For example, Mr. Aldinger testified that transitional housing could be permanent supportive housing within the RFP definition, as long as a lease agreement is used. Permanency is not required, only an "indefinite" length of stay. The fact that leases are for finite terms of 12 or 24 months would not be dispositive; rather, the length of stay would be considered "indefinite" if tenants are not required to leave at the end of their lease terms, if they are not ready to leave and are otherwise in compliance with the lease terms. The provision of supportive services to meet the needs of the focus population is a key part of the RFP definition. The RFP instructions for the developer experience narrative were as follows: Developer Experience with Permanent Supportive Housing (Maximum 25 points): The Applicant must describe the experience of the Developer, co-Developer, and/or Principal in developing and operating Permanent Supportive Housing, and more specifically, housing for the households the Applicant is proposing to serve. Describe the role(s) and responsibilities of any Developer, co- Developer, and/or Principal listed in the Applicant's responses to Items A.2.c. and 3.a. of Section 6 of the RFP, related to the proposed Development, and describe the experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out the roles and responsibilities for this proposed Development. (emphasis added). The RFP instructions for the first application section must also be considered because they tie into the developer/ manager experience sections. The instructions for the first application section required the applicant to provide a detailed description of the focus population group, and the instructions also explained how that description would be used, as follows: [T]he Applicant must provide a detailed description of the resident household characteristics, needs, and preferences of the focus population(s) the Applicant is proposing to serve. This description will provide a point of reference for the Corporation's evaluation and scoring of the Application, providing the foundation for the appropriateness of the experience of the Developer(s) and Management Company, proposed Construction Features and Amenities, Resident services and Access to Community Based Services and Amenities. (emphasis added). As part of this first application section, applicants focusing on special-needs veterans transitioning from VA facilities were required to designate the specific VA facilities with which the applicants expected to be working and coordinating. Osprey, whose proposed development is in Liberty City, Miami-Dade County, designated Miami VA Healthcare System (Miami VA) in Miami. Duval Park, whose proposed development is in unincorporated Pinellas County, designated Bay Pines VA Healthcare System (Bay Pines VA) in Pinellas County, as well as the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital and the Tampa Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center, both in Tampa, Hillsborough County. Osprey and Duval Park both provided extensive narratives describing their target populations and detailing the unique needs and preferences of their target populations. Osprey's narrative described the information learned from interviewing social workers in each of the programs under the umbrella of the Miami VA, with whom Carrfour would be coordinating for transitioning veterans. Osprey's narrative also described a VA grant to Carrfour of $1,000,000 per year for supportive services for veteran families, through which Carrfour provides a comprehensive case management program called Operation Sacred Trust. This program has an outreach team that works closely with social workers throughout the Miami VA. The Duval Park narrative discussed and documented the work of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority Wounded Warrior Community Advisory Group to assess housing needs for veterans. Developer-partner ServiceSource's director of housing was a participant. As part of the assessment, the advisory group conducted veterans' focus groups to hear from the veterans themselves regarding their needs and preferences, including the particular supportive services needed to allow veterans to transition to an independent living setting. The Duval Park narrative also described the information about transitioning veterans learned through ongoing projects with the VA facilities designated for the proposed development, including a Memorandum of Understanding between James A. Haley Veterans Hospital and ServiceSource's Warrior Bridge program. As called for by the RFP instructions, Mr. Aldinger used each application's detailed description of the target population in section one as the foundation for evaluating that application's developer and management experience narratives. The experience narratives were properly evaluated in accordance with the RFP instructions in the context of each applicant's specific proposal to focus on a defined population group transitioning from designated VA facilities, whose unique needs were fleshed out in the first section narratives. Mr. Aldinger reviewed and was impressed with both Osprey's and Duval Park's developer experience narratives, for good reason. As he explained, the two responses took different approaches, but both provided good detail in the limited space allotted. Osprey's narrative described Carrfour, a non-managing member of the applicant entity that will be the developer and, through a subsidiary, manager of the proposed development. Carrfour is a not-for-profit organization created in 1993 by the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, with the mission of developing permanent supportive housing to end homelessness. In setting forth Carrfour's experience, the Osprey narrative took a quantitative approach by enumerating Carrfour's 16 mixed-use housing development projects that included permanent supportive housing. Some details were provided for each development, such as the funding sources, the number of total units, how many of those units were permanent supportive housing units, and how many of the units were currently occupied by veterans. However, the narrative did not explain whether any supportive services provided for these developments were specifically geared to meeting the special needs of veterans. The types of supportive services were not identified for any of the 16 developments. For three developments, the description stated only that "a full array of supportive services" was provided or that "on-site supportive services" were provided. Supportive services were not mentioned in the descriptions of the other 13 developments. Other than providing the number of units then occupied by veterans, Osprey's developer experience narrative had no information to demonstrate experience providing housing specifically developed to meet the unique needs of the focus population for its proposed development: veterans with service- related disabling conditions transitioning from the Miami VA. Duval Park's developer experience narrative did not match Osprey's approach of enumerating individual permanent supportive housing developments and quantifying the units in each development. Duval Park's response chose instead to describe in general aggregate terms the permanent supportive housing experience of the developer-partners. The Duval Park narrative went into more detail to highlight the developer team experience with housing projects specifically designed to meet the unique needs of special-needs veterans transitioning from the VA facilities designated in its application, something lacking in the Osprey response. For example, Duval Park's response described developer- partner Boley's substantial experience since it was founded in 1970, in developing more than 500 units of permanent supportive housing in Pinellas County. The narrative also described the even longer-standing experience of developer-partner ServiceSource, founded in 1959 with a mission to provide services to needy people with disabilities. Initially providing employment, training, rehabilitation, and support services (relevant to the roles described for this developer-partner in operating the proposed development), ServiceSource began a housing program in 1995. ServiceSource's permanent supportive housing development experience was summarized in shorthand as including 20 separate "HUD 202/811 awards." The unrefuted testimony established that this shorthand reference was properly understood by Mr. Aldinger to signify 20 permanent supportive housing developments for persons with disabilities. Two specific supportive housing projects for veterans, developed and operated by Boley working with the Bay Pines VA, were detailed in Duval Park's developer experience narrative. In 2007, Bay Pines VA awarded Boley a contract for "Safe Haven Model Demonstration Project" services, described in the notice of contract award as "a specialty model of HCHV residential care as mandated by the . . . zero-tolerance policy to end homelessness within the Veteran population." Through this contract, Boley acquired and rehabilitated a former 20-unit skilled nursing facility to establish Morningside Safe Haven (Morningside), which provides housing and a residential treatment program with counseling for veterans. Half of the 20 veterans housed there have service-connected disabling conditions, and one-third of the veterans transitioned from VA facilities. Pinellas County and HUD provide funding support for this VA pilot program. Osprey contends that Boley's experience developing and operating Morningside should have been ignored in scoring Duval Park's developer experience, because a residential treatment program is not permanent supportive housing. However, according to Mr. Humberg, Morningside is considered permanent supportive housing under HUD guidelines. Veterans sign a 12-month lease to reside in a unit. Although the intent is that tenants will complete treatment and move on, tenants are not required to leave at the end of their 12-month lease terms; they can stay as long as they need to, if they are otherwise compliant with their leases. Even if Morningside did not technically meet the RFP definition of permanent supportive housing, the discussion of Morningside still would be appropriate for this narrative, pursuant to the RFP instructions. The Morningside experience demonstrates Boley's "experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out" its roles and responsibilities for the proposed development, identified in the same narrative to include mental health counseling, case management, and VA coordination. Also described in Duval Park's narrative was Boley's 2010 development of Jerry Howe Apartments, with 13 units developed specifically for formerly homeless veterans, many of whom have service-connected disabling conditions. Funding for this development was provided by the VA and the City of Clearwater. Boley coordinates with Bay Pines VA in operating this development, with Bay Pines VA providing screening and referral services to identify veterans who are candidates to lease apartment units. Boley's staff members work closely with the veteran tenants to provide supportive services, preparing them for more independent living. Osprey quibbles with whether Jerry Howe Apartments technically qualifies as permanent supportive housing, noting that while the veteran tenants do sign a lease, the intent of the project is to serve as transitional housing for up to 24 months. However, Mr. Aldinger explained that transitional housing would meet the RFP's broad definition of permanent supportive housing if tenants are not required to leave after a finite period of 12 or 24 months. Mr. Humberg confirmed that veterans residing at Jerry Howe Apartments are not required to leave after 24 months, if they are not ready to move on. Mr. Humberg also clarified that Boley owned the apartments before they were redeveloped in 2010, specifically to meet the needs of veterans. Before the 2010 redevelopment, Boley operated the property as permanent supportive housing, just not specifically for veterans. In fact, two of the units remain occupied by prior non-veteran permanent supportive housing tenants, who did not want to move out in 2010 when the property was redeveloped. It is not necessary to debate whether Jerry Howe Apartments technically is permanent supportive housing, although the evidence demonstrated that the development is and has been permanent supportive housing, as defined in the RFP. Certainly, this project demonstrates Boley's experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out its roles and responsibilities for the proposed development and, therefore, is worthy of consideration as part of the developer experience narrative. Duval Park's developer experience narrative also detailed specific veterans' supportive service programs developed by both Boley and ServiceSource. The descriptions of these programs demonstrate experience and qualifications directly relevant to the described roles and responsibilities for Boley and ServiceSource with respect to the proposed development. Duval Park's experience narrative details the many accomplishments of ServiceSource's nationally-recognized Warrior Bridge program, which provides a wide variety of supportive services to veterans. Noteworthy is a 2012 award of over $1,000,000 from the City of St. Petersburg to ServiceSource to expand housing options for wounded veterans. Under this program, in the past year, ServiceSource partnered with Home Depot to modify 16 homes and facilities serving wounded veterans in the Tampa Bay area to increase accessibility, safety, and energy efficiency. This experience translates directly to the role ServiceSource will serve as a participant in designing the proposed housing development specifically to accommodate the unique accessibility and other needs of special-needs veterans with disabling conditions. ServiceSource's Warrior Bridge program also operates the "Veterans' Mall" in the vicinity of the proposed development. At the Veterans' Mall, household appliances, cookware, business attire, and necessities are made available to wounded veterans transitioning to more independent housing settings. According to Duval Park's narrative, the Veterans' Mall has served more than 325 veterans since opening in October 2011, through partnerships with Bay Pines VA and local community organizations serving veterans. ServiceSource's representative testified that ServiceSource recently secured a five-year commitment from T.J. Maxx to stock the Veterans' Mall with new suits for veterans going on job interviews. The Duval Park developer experience narrative regarding the Warrior Bridge program portrays ServiceSource's experience and qualifications to carry out its described roles and responsibilities for the proposed development, which include community outreach, physical disability counseling, employment assistance, job training, and VA coordination. Another program described in Duval Park's developer experience narrative is Boley's Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. This is a case management, training, and employment program specifically for veterans, conducted by Boley case managers and employment specialists, demonstrating that they are well-suited to carry out the described roles and responsibilities for Boley with respect to the proposed development, which includes the lead case management role. A reasonable person attempting to compare the two developer experience narratives might say that Osprey's narrative demonstrated greater quantitative experience in developing more units of permanent supportive housing generally, but that Duval Park's narrative demonstrated better qualitative experience among the developer-partners in developing supportive housing specifically for veterans with special needs. Duval Park's narrative was more directly focused on specific experience developing supportive housing that addresses the unique needs of those special-needs veterans who are transitioning from VA facilities. In addition, Duval Park's narrative better demonstrated experience and qualifications among the developer- partners that are directly relevant to their described roles and responsibilities in carrying out the proposed development. Both narratives were very good and responsive to the RFP instructions, while taking very different approaches. Mr. Aldinger reasonably applied the RFP instructions, reasonably evaluated the two narratives, and reasonably judged them both to be deserving of the same very high score. The credible evidence does not support Osprey's contention that its developer experience narrative was superior, or that Duval Park's narrative strayed beyond the RFP instructions, or that Duval Park's narrative was judged by different standards than Osprey's narrative.3/ Osprey also takes issue with the scoring of the two applications' narratives describing management company experience with permanent supportive housing. As noted, Mr. Aldinger evaluated these narratives and awarded each application the maximum ten points for this application section. Osprey's narrative identified Carrfour's not-for-profit subsidiary, Crossroads Management, LLC (Crossroads), as the manager for its proposed Liberty Village development. Although Carrfour was established in 1993, Crossroads was not created until 2007. Before Crossroads was created, Carrfour did not manage the housing projects it developed; instead, it turned the developments over to traditional property management companies. As Osprey's narrative acknowledges, this created problems, as the traditional management companies lacked the sensitivity and training to address special needs of permanent supportive housing tenants. Since 2007, Crossroads has been taking over management functions for Carrfour developments and is now managing most of the 16 developments listed in the developer experience narrative. Osprey's application was given credit for proposing management with ideal experience. For Duval Park's application, Boley is identified as the management company. In addition, Boley will engage Carteret Management Company (Carteret), which is owned and operated by James Chadwick, a principal of developer-partner Blue Sky, to assist with tax-credit compliance and other matters within Carteret's expertise during the initial phases of the project. Boley's specific experience managing supportive housing for veterans with special needs, previously detailed in the developer experience discussion above, could not reasonably be questioned. As described in the manager experience narrative, Boley manages 561 units of its own permanent supportive housing. Boley also manages 112 additional permanent supportive housing units owned by other not-for-profit companies (including an 88-unit development owned by ServiceSource). The management narrative describes the profile of the typical Boley-managed housing unit tenant as having mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder and/or substance abuse problems, requiring supportive services provided by Boley staff. These supportive services include mental health counseling, case management intervention, and transportation assistance--functions for which Boley will assume responsibility operating the proposed development. The narrative also describes Boley's property management personnel: seven housing staff who handle leasing, income certifications, and other leasing matters; eight maintenance staff to handle property repairs; three drivers who provide transportation; and four accounting staff for property management functions. Osprey does not articulate a specific reason why Duval Park's management company experience narrative should not be entitled to ten points, or why Osprey believes its narrative was qualitatively or quantitatively better than Duval Park's, except to the extent of Osprey's criticisms of the developer experience narratives. Yet Osprey's narrative for manager experience arguably should not fare as well as its narrative for developer experience, given the many more years of management experience demonstrated by Boley and the comparatively few years of management experience by the Crossroads management entity created by Carrfour in 2007. Nonetheless, Mr. Aldinger credited the Osprey application with the maximum points based on Crossroads' management experience since 2007. No credible evidence was presented to support the contention that Duval Park's management experience narrative was not entitled to at least the same number of points as Osprey's management experience narrative. As repeatedly acknowledged by all parties throughout the hearing, Florida Housing was fortunate to have received two excellent proposals by Osprey and Duval Park that were head and shoulders above the other responses. Florida Housing then was faced with the difficult task of deciding which, between two excellent choices, should receive the funding nod, if only one of the two could be funded. Based on the evidence and the findings above, Mr. Aldinger's assignment of the same number of points for developer experience (24 points out of a possible 25 points) and for management company experience (the maximum of 10 points) to the two excellent proposals was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition. His conclusion that both applicants demonstrated nearly ideal development experience and ideal management company experience for their proposals was reasonable. The evidence established that Mr. Aldinger made the points assignments he did after evaluating all of the relevant information he was allowed to consider pursuant to the RFP instructions. His scoring of these two application sections was shown to be an honest, good faith exercise of his expert judgment applied to sort out the various pros and cons of the responses. Osprey did not identify any statute or rule that it contends was violated by the scoring of the Osprey and Duval Park developer and management experience narratives. Osprey argued, but did not prove, that the scoring of these two applications was contrary to the RFP specifications. Osprey argued that Mr. Aldinger's evaluation was contrary to the RFP because he considered differences between the two projects in assessing developer experience. Osprey characterized this as double- counting, because the same aspects of the projects were scored in other sections. Osprey also contended that considering the differences between the two proposed developments and the different approaches by the two applicants was tantamount to applying different standards in evaluating the two applications. Osprey's criticism was not borne out by the evidence. Instead, Mr. Aldinger described a reasonable process, consistent with the RFP terms explaining that developer experience would be assessed in the context of the attributes of the target population described in the first section of the application, and also in context with the roles and responsibilities described for the developer team members in carrying out the proposed development. The same RFP instructions and the same standards were applied to the evaluation of the two applications; it was the applications that were different, not the standards.4/ Although not actually raised as a distinct challenge, Osprey suggested an additional argument in its PRO, not articulated in its written protest or in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Osprey argued in its PRO that Florida Housing should have used two evaluators to score the developer and manager experience narratives, as a "check and balance" against arbitrary scoring. Osprey's new argument stands in stark contrast to the only challenge to the evaluation process articulated in Osprey's written protest and in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Before the hearing, Osprey challenged the evaluation procedure used for two application sections that were scored by two evaluators. Rather than providing any check-and-balance comfort, the two- evaluator process was viewed as defective by Osprey because the initial scores independently assigned by each evaluator were reconciled in a public discussion meeting at which differences in scores were harmonized, meaning that when the initial scores differed, the evaluators agreed to adjust their initial scores. Osprey has established only that for some application sections, a single evaluator was used, while for other application sections, two evaluators were used and their separate scores were reconciled. No credible evidence was offered to prove that use of two evaluators was better than using one evaluator (or vice versa, as Osprey initially argued).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decision to award funding for the Duval Park, Ltd., proposed development, and dismissing the formal written protests of Osprey Apartments, LLC, and Duval Park, Ltd. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2013.
The Issue Whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioners’ failure to appear at the scheduled telephonic final hearing.
Findings Of Fact Upon receipt of the Petitions for Relief at the Division, Initial Orders were issued on October 24, 2012, requiring Petitioners to coordinate a joint response to provide certain information within seven days or to file a unilateral response if a joint response was not possible. Neither Petitioners nor Respondents responded to the Initial Order in either case. Case I was initially set for final hearing on December 17, 2012, by video teleconference at sites in Pensacola and Tallahassee, Florida. Case II was initially set for final hearing on December 27, 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. Prior to consolidation of the cases, Respondent Hamilton requested a continuance of the final hearing scheduled in Case I. Hamilton’s correspondence, which was taken as a motion, represented that Hamilton had attempted to contact Petitioners to determine whether they would agree to a continuance, that Hamilton had left a voice message with Petitioners, and that Petitioners had not responded. At the direction of the undersigned, the Division also attempted to contact Petitioners to determine their position on the requested continuance. Division personnel also left voice messages with Petitioners. On December 10, 2012, Michael Edwards contacted Division staff, identified himself as Petitioners’ son, stated he had received the messages, and represented that Petitioners had no objection to a continuance. Further, Mr. Edwards explained that a continuation would be needed because Myrna Edwards was recovering from major surgery and McArthur Edwards was suffering with complications from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Having received confirmation that Petitioners did not oppose continuance, and would likely have been unable to attend the final hearing as scheduled, the undersigned entered an Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance on December 10, 2012. The Order required Petitioners to confer with Respondents’ counsel and advise as to the status of the matter no later than January 30, 2013. Further, Petitioners were required to include in the status report mutually-agreeable dates for scheduling the final hearing if Petitioners intended to pursue the matter. The cases were consolidated on December 17, 2012, thus the Order was binding in both cases. Neither the original Notice of Hearing nor the Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Case in Abeyance mailed to Petitioners was returned as “undeliverable.” On January 30, 2013, Respondent Bristol filed a status report representing that Bristol had not been contacted by the Petitioners to coordinate the status report as directed in the Order. Further, Bristol represented that it had attempted to reach Petitioners by phone the previous day and had left a voice message, but had received no return call from Petitioners. Despite the fact that Petitioners did not comply with the Order, the undersigned requested Division personnel to contact Petitioners to determine whether Petitioners intended to pursue the matter. Division staff called Petitioners’ residence and left messages for Petitioners to contact the Division regarding this case. The Division received no return call. In an abundance of caution, the undersigned scheduled the case for telephonic final hearing on February 28, 2013. Telephonic hearing was chosen to afford Petitioners, now residing out of state, every opportunity to be heard on their complaints. The undersigned also issued an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions (Order) requiring the parties to confer no later than seven days prior to the final hearing to determine whether the matter could be resolved amicably and to exchange witness lists and copies of proposed exhibits. Neither the Notice of Telephonic Hearing nor the Order mailed to Petitioners was returned “undeliverable.” On February 20, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed its witness list and served proposed exhibits on all other parties. On February 21, 2013, the same Respondents provided copies of proposed exhibits to the undersigned. On February 21, 2013, Respondent Bristol filed its witness and exhibit lists and provided copies of proposed exhibits to the undersigned. Petitioners filed neither a witness list nor an exhibit list and did not provide the undersigned with any proposed exhibits. On February 21, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed a Notice of Attempt to Comply in response to the undersigned’s Order. The Notice documents Respondents’ unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioners to confer and exchange witness lists and proposed exhibits. On February 22, 2013, Respondent Hamic filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, Alternatively, to Close the Case. The Motion represented that Petitioners had not contacted Respondents as required by the Order to confer and exchange witness lists and exhibits. The Motion was denied. The final hearing commenced as scheduled, via telephone, on February 28, 2013. Respondents Hamic and Bristol entered appearances. Petitioners did not appear. The undersigned allowed 20 minutes from the noticed hearing time, 9:30 a.m., for Petitioners to make an appearance. None was made. Respondent Hamic offered Exhibits 1 through 41 into evidence, which were received without objection. Respondent Bristol offered Exhibits B-1 through B-8 into evidence, which were received without objection. No witnesses were called. The proceedings closed at approximately 10:00 a.m. No transcript of the proceedings was made.
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 Petitioners McArthur and Myrna Edwards’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this supplemental proceeding is whether Respondents Soo Y. and Myung S. Chung, separately or together, retaliated against Petitioners as a result of Petitioners' exercise, or attempted exercise, of a protected housing right.
Findings Of Fact From August 2012 through January 2015, Petitioners Verdell Carter ("V. Carter") and her daughter Courtney Carter ("C. Carter"), who are African-Americans, rented and occupied a residential unit in Cité Condominiums ("Cité") in Miami, Florida, which served as their principal residence. At all relevant times, the owners of this unit were Soo Y. Chung and Myung S. Chung (collectively, the "Lessor"). Respondent Cité Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association"), oversees the operation of the property. The Association's Board of Directors (the "Board") is its governing body. At all relevant times, a third-party property management company, FirstService Residential Florida, Inc. ("Management"), performed on-site management services at Cité. V. Carter and the Lessor entered into a lease agreement concerning Unit No. 3206 at Cité in July 2012. Pursuant to the applicable declaration of condominium, this lease (like all such leases of units at Cité) was subject to Board approval as a condition precedent of V. Carter's taking possession of the leased premises. To obtain Board approval, V. Carter and the Lessor were required (as were all persons entering into such leases) to execute an Addendum to Lease, which made the Association a third-party beneficiary of the lease and, among other things, bound the lessee to all of the rules and conditions applicable to unit owners. There is some dispute concerning the term of the subject lease. It commenced on or around August 15, 2012——that much is certain. The Carters assert that the lease was for three years, until August 15, 2015. The Association contends that the lease had a one-year term with options to renew annually for up to two additional years. The Association maintains——and acted on the belief——that it had the right to veto any attempt to renew the lease. This particular dispute is immaterial, however, for whether or not the Association could veto a renewal attempt, it clearly had the right to dispossess the Carters if they disobeyed the Association's rules. The Addendum to Lease provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Lessee agrees to abide by this Addendum, the [provisions of the Association's Declaration, By-Laws, Articles of Incorporation, Rules and Regulations, as same may be amended from time to time,] and all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. If Lessee fails to comply with [any of these], Lessor shall promptly commence action to evict Lessee. If Lessor fails to promptly commence action to evict Lessee, Lessor hereby authorizes the Association . . . to commence eviction proceedings [on Lessor's behalf.] Unfortunately for everyone concerned, the Carters repeatedly violated the rules. Early in the lease term, V. Carter brought her dog into the unit without first registering the pet with the Association as required. After Management became aware in November 2012 that V. Carter had an unregistered pet on the premises, it provided her the form for curing the violation, but she failed timely to return the paperwork. As a result, on November 26, 2012, the Association assessed a charge of $56 against the Lessor's account.3/ Meanwhile, C. Carter moved into Unit No. 3206 without informing the Association, which gave rise to a series of violations. Although C. Carter initially occupied the premises as a guest, before long she decided to remain as a resident. In time, Management noticed that C. Carter's stay had exceeded 30 days, making her an "unregistered visitor." Additionally, C. Carter parked her car——which was an "unregistered vehicle"—— in spaces reserved for Cité's owners and tenants (both residential and commercial). This resulted in several $56 charges being posted to the Lessor's account in November 2012 for unauthorized parking and for parking an unregistered vehicle in an unauthorized area. In January 2013, the Lessor was again assessed a $56 charge because C. Carter had parked her unregistered vehicle in an unauthorized area, along with a separate $56 charge for the presence an unregistered visitor (namely C. Carter). By letter dated January 23, 2013, the Association notified the Lessor that it intended to take steps to terminate the lease between the Lessor and V. Carter due to the Carters' failure to comply with the Association's rules. Before that could happen, however, V. Carter registered her dog, C. Carter became a registered tenant, and C. Carter rented an additional parking space from the Association for her car. The Carters assured the Lessor and the Association that, in the future, they would comply with all of the Association's rules. In due course, the Board agreed to acquiesce to the continuation of the lease, and——with the exception of a few relatively minor issues too trivial to recount——relations between the Carters, Management, the Association, and the Lessor calmed down to a reasonably peaceful state of affairs. This détente ended on Sunday, June 22, 2014. On or around that date, the commercial tenant directly below Unit No. 3206 experienced damage from water intrusion at the ceiling. Minor dampness was observed on the carpet outside the front of Unit No. 3206. Management contacted V. Carter and notified her that maintenance personnel needed to enter her unit immediately to locate the source of the leak, which there were grounds to believe was inside. Management's authority to enter the unit was clear and is not disputed. The Addendum to Lease provides: The Association and/or its authorized agent(s) shall have the irrevocable right to have access to the Unit as may be necessary for inspection, maintenance, repair or replacement of any Common Elements accessible therefrom, or for making emergency repairs necessary to prevent damages to the Common Elements or other units. Claiming that she was in the process of showering and in a state of partial undress, V. Carter refused to admit the maintenance men that Sunday morning. They left, so that V. Carter could finish getting ready. When the repair crew returned a short while later, however, V. Carter turned them away again, explaining that she was leaving for church. First thing the next day, June 23, Management notified the Lessor that V. Carter had refused to let maintenance personnel into the unit so that they could identify and repair the source of a suspected leak. The Lessor authorized Management to access the unit that morning. V. Carter, however, again refused to allow the maintenance men to enter the unit. This obstinacy violated the Association's rules and resulted in the imposition of charges totaling $126, for which the Association billed the Lessor. Eventually, Management gained access to the unit and fixed the problem in the bathroom which had caused the leak. Because V. Carter had refused access to the unit in violation of the Association's rules, the Association notified the Lessor and the Carters that it would not approve an extension of the lease beyond August 15, 2014. On June 25, 2014, V. Carter requested a meeting with the Board to discuss this decision. Her request was denied. By letter dated July 11, 2014, the Lessor notified the Carters that the lease would terminate on August 15, 2014. The Lessor also demanded payment of past due rent for April ($500) and July ($1,500) plus reimbursement of a returned-check charge of $30 that the Lessors had incurred when the Carters' June rent check bounced. A few weeks later, a heavy rainstorm, which took place late at night on Sunday, August 3, 2014, and during the early morning hours of August 4, caused Unit No. 3206 to flood. Other units flooded as well, causing an emergency situation for Management, which by all accounts responded promptly. The Carters claim to have been out of town at the time of this incident. Regardless, V. Carter acknowledges that Management contacted her by phone and requested permission——which she gave——to enter her unit to take remedial measures. Maintenance personnel entered the unit and extracted the water. In doing so, they discovered that the patio drain had been plugged with a flower pot, which likely had allowed water to pool on the patio and ultimately flood into the unit through the patio door. The Carters allege that the maintenance men discriminated against them on the basis or race or color by entering other units before taking care of Unit No. 3206. There is no persuasive evidence, however, of any sort of delay (discriminatory or otherwise) on the part of the maintenance crew, which as mentioned responded quickly and reasonably to an overnight situation affecting multiple units in addition to the Carters'. The Carters did not vacate Unit No. 3206 on or before August 15, 2014. As it happened, however, there was another rainstorm on that day which caused further flooding in the unit. C. Carter was present at the time, and she contacted Management, which addressed the immediate problem. After that, a months-long struggle ensued, during which Management and the Lessor attempted to arrange for repairs to be made to fix the damages that had resulted from the August floods and the earlier, June leak, and the Carters, while demanding that the repairs be made, refused access to repairmen and generally failed reasonably to cooperate. Around this time, as well, the Carters——who in the Lessor's eyes had become holdover tenants as of August 15——stopped paying rent to the Lessor. On August 19, 2014, the Lessor gave the Carters a statutory three-day notice to pay rent or vacate the premises on or before August 22, 2014. The Carters did not leave. On September 12, 2014, the Lessor gave the Carters another statutory three-day notice. The Carters, however, did not quit the premises. On or around September 19, 2014, the Lessor commenced an action for eviction in the Miami-Dade County Court. Several months later, the county court entered a judgment of eviction against the Carters, and, on January 20, 2015, a writ of possession was issued. The Carters moved out of Unit No. 3206 on January 23, 2015, but not without incident. Association rules prohibit the use of the stairways when moving furniture and other household goods. Residents who are moving in or out of Cité must reserve (and pay a fee for the use of) the freight elevator and loading dock. The Carters had not arranged to use the freight elevator, preferring instead to use the stairs. Management saw this violation in progress and sought to stop the Carters from moving their belongings down the stairs. The Carters would not be deterred. Management called the police, an officer arrived, and the unauthorized transport of goods through the stairwell was arrested. Meantime, V. Carter's dog urinated on the hallway carpet and on the wall. As a result of this memorable departure, the Association imposed charges against the Lessor's account totaling $950. V. Carter claims to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, which she characterizes as a "non-visible" disability. C. Carter claims to suffer from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which she characterizes as a "non- visible" disability. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of the Association's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, the Carters, or either of them, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus directed toward V. Carter or C. Carter. There is no persuasive evidence that the Association refused, upon request, to make a reasonable accommodation for either V. Carter or C. Carter. There is likewise no persuasive evidence that any of the Lessor's actions, including bringing suit to evict the Carters, were motivated by discriminatory animus or were taken to retaliate against the Carters for their exercise of a protected housing right. In sum, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination or retaliation could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that the Association did not commit any prohibited act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding the Association not liable for housing discrimination and awarding the Carters no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 2015.
The Issue Whether the intended decision of Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Respondent/Florida Housing) to fund the application of West River Phase 2, LP (West River/Intervenor), based on the scoring of its application, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Intervenor is a Florida limited partnership based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Respondent is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. This has the effect of reducing the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150, while a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. Florida Housing allocates housing tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation as authorized by section 420.507(48). Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA at issue here is 2016-113, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. The RFA was issued on October 28, 2016, a modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 30, 2016. A challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA by parties not associated with the instant case, but that challenge was ultimately unsuccessful. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,669,052 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments. A review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviews and scores each application. These scores are presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation is presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (Board) for final agency action. On May 5, 2017, Petitioner and all other participants in RFA 2016-113 received notice that the Board had determined which applications were eligible for consideration for funding and that certain applications were selected for awards of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” and “ineligible” applications and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven developments, including Intervenor. Petitioner’s application was deemed eligible and scored the maximum number of points, but it was not selected for funding due to having a higher lottery number than Intervenor. If Intervenor’s application had been deemed ineligible, Petitioner’s would have been selected for funding. In this proceeding, Petitioner alleges that Intervenor’s application is ineligible for two reasons. First, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to include all “principals” for its designated developer entity as required by the RFA. Next, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish that its designated developer entity, and specifically the identified “principal” of the developer entity, had the requisite developer experience required by the RFA. Disclosure of the Principals of the Developer The RFA at section Four (A)(3)(d) requires the disclosure of information as follows: Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer. The Application must include a properly completed Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 08- 16) (“Principals Disclosure Form”) that was uploaded as outlined in Section Three above. The Principals Disclosure form must identify the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline and must include, for each applicable organizational structure, ONLY the types of Principals required by subsection 67-48.002(93), F.A.C. A Principals Disclosure Form that includes, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals, will not be accepted by the Corporation to meet the Mandatory requirement to provide the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form. The term “principal” is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93)(b) with respect to a developer, and provides as follows when the developer entity is a limited liability company: A limited liability company, at the first principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company, and, with respect to any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company that is: A corporation, at the second principal disclosure level, any officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, A limited partnership, at the second principal disclosure level, any general partner or limited partner of the limited partnership, or A limited liability company, at the second principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the limited liability company. Florida Housing offers a pre-approval of the principals disclosure form to all potential applicants. The pre-approval process verifies that the disclosure form has been completed properly as to form. However, its purpose is not to determine the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant. Intervenor utilized the pre-approval process and its principal disclosure forms were pre-approved. In response to this RFA and rule requirement, Intervenor identified WRDG Boulevard, LLC, as its developer. On the principal disclosure form included within its application, Intervenor further identified Banc of America Community Development Corporation (BOACDC) as the “managing member” and the Housing Authority of the City of Tampa as “member” of WRDG Boulevard, LLC. The principal disclosure form submitted by Intervenor for its developer entity lists approximately 62 individuals that are principals of BOACDC and identifies them as officers, directors, and shareholders. However, two officers who met the definition of principal were omitted from Intervenor’s principals disclosure form for the developer entity. The evidence establishes that the annual report filed by BOACDC with the Florida Secretary of State’s office on March 31, 2016, lists four officers and directors for BOACDC. The listed officers and directors include Mr. Jason Pritchard as senior vice president and Mr. Nathan Barth as secretary. Neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on the principals disclosure form submitted to Florida Housing by Intervenor. Intervenor concedes that the principals disclosure form is missing these two principals, but asserts that neither Mr. Barth nor Mr. Pritchard had actual authority to bind BOACDC or had any direct involvement with the proposed project. Intervenor further points out that neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on Respondent’s past due report dated April 5, 2017, which was the most recently published past due report prior to the RFA review committee meeting on April 25, 2017. Intervenor also asserts that there is no specific language in the RFA that prohibits waiving this admitted deviation. Accordingly, Intervenor alleges that the failure to include these two principals should be waived as a minor irregularity. The RFA requires that principals be listed and does not include qualifiers or exemptions to these requirements in instances where the omitted principal is either not on the latest arrears list or does not have the authority to bind the designated entity. Mr. Reecy testified that while Respondent has waived other failures to submit certain information, it did so only when the missing information could be found elsewhere in the application. In the present case, there is no other place in the application where a list of the principals of the developer could be found. The evidence establishes that the accurate and complete disclosure of principals is important in the RFA process for several reasons. First, Respondent uses the disclosure of principals to determine if any individuals associated with a proposed development are in arrears or indebted to Florida Housing in connection with other developments previously funded by Florida Housing. A Florida Housing staff member, during the review process, checks each principal listed for arrearages and reports back to the review committee accordingly. Second, Respondent uses the information to determine if any principal associated with a proposed development is ineligible to participate in any Florida Housing program due to prior illegal acts or misconduct. Mr. Reecy testified as to several recent instances where individuals have been subject to “timeouts” due to misrepresentations made to Florida Housing. Mr. Reecy credibly testified that Florida Housing must know who it is dealing with for each applicant and developer entity, and that to not know this information would harm the basic structure of the RFA application process, which resultantly would adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing and the public. Developer Experience Chart Section Four, 4(a)(3) of the RFA provides, in part, as follows: General Development experience (5 Points): To be eligible to be awarded 5 points for General Development Experience, the Prior General Development Experience chart must meet the requirements of (a) below. At least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Development Experience requirements in (i) and (ii) below. General Development Experience: A Principal, which must be a natural person, of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1996, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2006. If the experience of a natural person Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the natural person Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity as the term Principal was defined by the Corporation at that time. Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each natural person Principal intending to meet the minimum general development experience reflecting the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. The RFA requires that at least one principal of the designated developer entity have completed at least three affordable rental housing developments since January 1996. If the designated principal is using experience from a previous developer entity, the named principal must have been a principal of that entity as the term principal “was defined by the Corporation at that time.” Intervenor submitted a general development experience chart as part of its application in accordance with the RFA. This chart listed Eileen M. Pope as its principal with the required developer experience, and specified three developments for which Ms. Pope was identified as a principal of the developer. Based upon this chart, Intervenor was awarded five points by the scoring review committee. One of these developments was First Ward Place Phase I, which was listed as being completed in 1998. In 1998, Ms. Pope was employed as a regional property manager for the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA). She was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the CHA. The RFA in this case requires an applicant to state the name of each developer, including all co-developers. It is thus relatively easy for applications submitted to Florida Housing in 2017 to determine whether or not a particular entity is considered a “co-developer” of a project. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to make this determination with respect to developers of projects located in North Carolina in 1998. There is no evidence directly identifying CHA as a “co-developer” of First Ward Place Phase I. However, Ms. Pope identified it as such, and there is evidence in the record that the CHA was in partnership with NationsBank Community Development Corporation (NBCDC), and that NBCDC was the developer of the project. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the CHA should not be considered a co-developer of First Ward Place Phase I. Whether Ms. Pope should be considered a principal of a co-developer, however, is another matter. The evidence is uncontroverted that she was employed by the CHA as a regional property manager. The CHA was governed by a board of directors along with several officers (president, CEO, CFO), any of whom would have been considered a principal of the CHA. Ms. Pope was not a director, officer, or shareholder of the CHA; for the First Ward Place Phase I project, she “worked on the development team middle-to-back-end piece.” She considered herself a member of the “senior management” of the CHA and part of the “development team.” She testified that the CHA was, to some extent, a regulatory agency, and that part of her job was to oversee compliance issues and to track how certain funds were being spent. She testified that it was her understanding that a “principal” was “a person in authority” and, thus, she considered herself to be a “principal.” However, she also testified that she did not claim to be a principal: I disagree with your first part of the comment in that you said that I said I was a principal of the housing authority. I didn’t say I was a principal. I said there were no principals, and I was asked if I viewed myself as a principal, and I said I don’t understand what the definition of the principal would be, that a principal is somebody in authority. So, if you’re asking me that, yes, I would have viewed myself as a principal. I never claimed to be a principal of the housing authority. (Jt. Ex. 8, pg. 53) Mr. Reecy testified that Ms. Pope was “an employee, but not a principal in any way that Florida Housing has ever defined principal in any regard.” Mr. Reecy also testified that Florida Housing had never considered a person other than an officer, director, shareholder, or managing member to be a principal of either an applicant or a developer. In fact, Mr. Reecy compared Ms. Pope’s position with the CHA to his own position with Florida Housing, in that both had a high level of responsibility, and both were integral to the operation of the entity, but that neither could be considered a principal. As noted above, the RFA requires that in order to gain points for developer experience, the natural person principal must have also been a principal of that previous developer entity as the term principal was defined by the Florida Housing “at that time.” There is no dispute that Respondent’s rules in effect in 1998 did not explicitly define a principal of a developer. Both Florida Administrative Code Rules 9I-48.002(69) and 67-48.002(77) defined “principal” to include only officers, directors, shareholders or general partners, but these rules specifically applied only to applicants. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that it has been Respondent’s position and practice that a principal did not include all employees of an applicant or developer, even those in positions of authority, but instead, included only the officers, directors, shareholders, or general partners of an applicant or developer. The greater weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Pope had some degree of experience. As Mr. Reecy indicated, however, simply having experience is only part of the equation; Ms. Pope must also have been a principal. There is no evidence establishing that Ms. Pope was an officer, director, or shareholder of either NBCDC or the CHA in conjunction with the First Ward Place Phase I development. It is, therefore, found that Ms. Pope was not a principal of either entity, and the award to Intervenor of five points for its developer experience was clearly erroneous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Florida Housing’s initial scoring decision regarding the West River application was erroneous, concluding that the West River application is ineligible for funding, and awarding funding to Blue Broadway. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2017.
