The Issue Whether Josephine K. Saunders, the designated beneficiary, is entitled to the benefits payable on the teacher's retirement account of William E. Saunders, deceased, or whether she contractually waived her right to such benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order denying the relief requested by petitioner and distributing the Teachers' Retirement System benefits of William E. Saunders to Josephine K. Saunders, the designated beneficiary. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 15th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1981.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Sarasota Housing Authority (the Housing Authority), discriminated against Petitioner, Estella Smith (Ms. Smith), based on her disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (the Florida FHA), and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Smith, a 52-year-old female, testified she participated in the Section 8 program for over ten years and never had any problems until she moved to Sarasota. Ms. Smith moved into the Sarasota rental unit in October 2009. The Housing Authority is a public housing authority that administers the Section 8 program, within Sarasota County, Florida, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1437f. Under the Section 8 program, the Housing Authority uses funds, supplied by HUD, to pay a percentage of the monthly rent on a leased "unit" directly to the landlord. The Section 8 program tenant pays the balance of the monthly rent to the landlord. Ms. Smith executed a residential lease for a HUD- approved unit on September 5, 2009, to begin a one-year rental. Ms. Smith agreed to abide by all the terms and conditions of the residential lease, including the timely payment of rent and the number of occupants (one adult and one child) in the rental unit without the written consent of the landlord. On or about October 1, 2009, Ms. Smith moved from Tampa, Florida, to Sarasota, Florida, and resided at the rental unit, 3047 East Tamiami Circle, Apartment A, Sarasota, Florida. On September 8, 2009, Ms. Smith executed the Housing Authority's personal declaration/tenant information form. Under part three of this form labeled: "Family Members (including Head of Household) currently residing in unit," there were blank lines to be completed by Ms. Smith. The following information was requested: name; date of birth; social security number; disabled; Hispanic; race; and relationship. Ms. Smith (or someone at her direction) completed the form including information about herself and her sole dependant. Under the disabled heading on the line for Ms. Smith, the word "Pending" is written. Additionally, in part five of this form labeled: "Expenses," was a question, "Are you or your spouse age 62 or older and/or disabled?" Ms. Smith (or someone on her behalf) checked the box before "no" after this specific question. Ms. Smith testified she suffered a stroke sometime in 2009 and was physically affected by it. However, she was unable to reference the specific time frame except for prior to her "porting" back to Sarasota. Ms. Smith claimed to use both a walker and a wheelchair at various times since suffering the effects of the stroke. Further, she later testified that, when she was in her rental unit, the doorways were narrow but she could maneuver in it. During her initial interview with the Housing Authority in September 2009, Ms. Smith stated she was using a walker that day and never told anyone at the Housing Authority that she was disabled. Ms. Smith admitted she withheld the rent from the landlord. However, she claimed her refusal to pay the rent was based on the lack of heat in the rental unit and the suspension of her laundry room privileges. Ms. Smith further testified Bertha L. Pete (Ms. Pete) provided Ms. Smith with assistance in her daily living activities and started living in Ms. Smith's rental unit after Christmas or in late December 2009. A copy of Ms. Pete's Florida driver's license, which reflects Ms. Smith's rental unit address as Ms. Pete's residence as of January 27, 2010, was admitted into evidence. On February 10, 2010, Ms. Smith executed a request for a live-in aide with the Housing Authority. Ms. Smith named Ms. Pete to be her proposed live-in aide. The date stamp for the Housing Authority reflects that the request was received by the Housing Authority on February 17, 2010. Any proposed live- in aide has to meet the requirements imposed by the Housing Authority and HUD. Ms. Pete did not meet the requirements. Additionally, on February 17, 2010, Ms. Smith executed a verification of live-in aide form to be completed by her physician and returned to the Housing Authority. That completed form was never returned to the Housing Authority. Both parties produced an executed medical doctor's prescription with Ms. Smith's name as the patient. The hand-written notation on the prescription is "patient needs in home aid." This verbiage is not sufficient nor equivalent to the requirements listed on the verification form for a "live-in aide." The Housing Authority did not know that Ms. Smith needed a live-in aide when she completed her application in September 2009. Although Ms. Smith utilized a walker at the time of her initial interview with the Housing Authority, the Housing Authority did not know she was disabled at that time. It is not the Housing Authority's practice to inquire of someone's physical status, as that could be perceived as a discriminatory question. Sharla Frantz (Ms. Frantz), director of human resources for the Housing Authority, is the hearing officer for the Section 8 program. Ms. Frantz testified as to the process utilized in the Housing Authority's Section 8 program. Ms. Frantz testified that Ms. Smith made a request for assistance on January 27, 2010, regarding the lack of heat in her rental unit. The Housing Authority caused an inspection to be made that same day, and a deficiency was noted. The repair was completed, and the rental unit passed a follow-up inspection on February 28, 2010. However, at the time of her complaint, Ms. Smith did not discuss any other conditions or circumstances regarding the rental unit, nor was any request for a live-in aide made. On or about February 11, 2010, the Housing Authority was made aware of a possible unauthorized person living at Ms. Smith's rental unit, as well as her failure to timely pay rent. Several days later, the Housing Authority issued a letter to Ms. Smith detailing the reasons for her termination from the Section 8 program: an unauthorized person living in the rental unit and her failure to pay rent. Ms. Smith requested a hearing from the Housing Authority, which was held on March 2, 2010. As a result of the hearing, the Housing Authority issued a letter detailing the basis for Ms. Smith's termination from the Section 8 program: an unauthorized person living in the rental unit and her failure to pay rent. Ms. Smith was afforded time to prove that the rental amount was paid in full and that Ms. Pete did not live with her. Ms. Frantz testified that at the Housing Authority hearing, Ms. Smith wrote a check for the past due rental amount. However, Ms. Frantz never received proof that the payment was actually made to the landlord. Ms. Smith testified the landlord wanted the payment in cash; however, Ms. Smith did not feel comfortable paying the rent in cash, as it did not provide her with a receipt. The rent was never paid. After waiting several days, the Housing Authority issued another letter to Ms. Smith stating that Ms. Smith was terminated from the Section 8 program for two program violations. It further described that a lease agreement, brought in to the Housing Authority, did not substantiate her claim that an unauthorized person (Ms. Pete) was not living in Ms. Smith's rental unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Estella Smith in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 17th day of August, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner enrolled in "Plan A" of the Teachers Retirement System on August 13, 1954 as a teacher in the Orange County Florida school System. Petitioner transferred to Jacksonville, Florida and began teaching in Duval County on August 18, 1959 and continued hem membership in the Teachers' Retirement System "Plan A". Petitioner requested a change from the Teachers' Retirement System "Plan A" to Teachers' Retirement System "Plan E" by letter dated April 5, 1965. Petitioner was approved on March 26, 1966 for Teachers' Retirement System benefits and received disability retirement benefits for a period of time until she re-entered the teaching profession on November 27, 1970 in Duval County, Florida. She subsequently repaid an overpayment of these disability benefits which been paid for a period of time when she had returned to work in Duval County without notice to the Division of Retirement. Petitioner transferred from the Teachers Retirement System to the Florida Retirement System on October 15, 1970 when she signed a ballot entitled "Social Security Referendum and Application for Florida Retirement System Membership". Petitioner complains that she did not know when she signed the ballot that she was in fact changing her retirement from the Teachers' Retirement System to the Florida Retirement System contending that the statements of the person conducting the meeting at which the ballots were distributed informed the group the ballots were for an election for social security coverage. The ballot, however, clearly reflects that if social security benefits are desired, a change in the retirement system is necessary. Petitioner applied for Florida Retirement System disability benefits on October 20, 1971 and was approved. This benefit is $26.07 per month greater than the benefits she would have received had she remained in the Teachers' Retirement System. On October 3, 1975, Petitioner was supplied with the various documents concerning her actions in regard to her retirement benefits and was informed that her election to transfer into the Florida Retirement System was irrevocable and there was no method by which she could be transferred back into the Teachers' Retirement System. She requested a hearing on the transfer.
Recommendation Dismiss the Petition of Petitioner Martha A. Crosson. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of November, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: L. Keith Pafford, Esquire Division of Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Martha A. Crosson 801 West Myrtle Independence, Kansas 67301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OF RETIREMENT MARTHA A. CARSON, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1456 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Plotkin is the owner and operator of the Rendale Hotel located at 3120 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, Florida, which has been operated by Plotkin, a family owned corporation, for more than twenty-five years. The apartment/hotel has 98 studio apartments. In the Spring of 1972, after Plotkin corresponded with DOR, it made the determination that it was exempt from the imposition of sales tax on the rentals it charges. Plotkin made the same determination for consecutive years through and including 1978. Early in September 1978, DOR caused an audit to be made of Plotkin's records and determined that Plotkin was not an exempt facility and that taxes were due for the three years prior to September , 1978, for all rentals to "non- permanent" guests. DOR's auditor utilized only the transcript of guest charges in making his determination. The transcript was compiled from April 1, 1975, a period beyond three years prior to the date of the audit. A transcript is a compilation generally prepared by the night clerk of all the active folio cards or guest ledge cards for that particular day. When tenants or guests were absent from the apartment hotel for various periods of time, they were not carried on the transcript. At times when a tenant had no charges for a particular day, the tenant was not carried on the transcript. As of April 1, 1975, Plotkin had 87 units occupied. As of June 30, 1975, it had 55 units occupied. Thirty of those units were occupied continually during that test period in 1975. As of April 1, 1976, 80 units were occupied and as of June 30, 1976, 55 units were occupied. Twenty-five units were continuously occupied during that three month test period. As of April 1, 1977, 95 units were occupied and as of June 30, 1977, 50 units were occupied. During the test period, 29 units were occupied for a continuous period of time.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be permitted to return his retirement contributions and be reinstated in the Florida Retirement System so that he can apply for disability benefits from the Florida Retirement System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a thirty-four year old man, having left high school in the eleventh grade in order to get married, but later took the GED test to qualify as a high school graduate. Some years later he was informed by an Ophthalmologist that he had fallen into the bracket of being legally blind, a status which categorizes a person who has ten percent (10%) or less vision. Petitioner can and does read. He worked for a bakery which entailed work with machinery and required extensive reading, but was advised by the ophthalmologist to find a job where he would not be required to work with machinery and which did not require extensive reading. Petitioner began participating in the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System on July 1, 1969, when he became a partner in a blind vending stand. He elected to become a member of the Florida Retirement System on December 1, 1970. Petitioner attended two (2) agency meetings at which retirement was discussed. He stated that he had changed from the State and County Officers and Employees Retirement System (Chapter 122, Florida Statutes) to the Florida Retirement System (Chapter 121, Florida Statutes), and was prompted to make the change because a senior partner in the business who had been there for many years said that it was a good idea for him and for the younger partner to sign into the new system. He stated that there probably was a discussion relative to the merits of the new retirement system but that he did not remember anything about it. He did, however, sign the card to change retirement systems. On June 1, 1971, Petitioner suffered some type of injury to his back which was subsequently diagnosed as a sprain. Petitioner received medical treatment and returned to work where he continued to work for the Bureau of Blind Services for approximately three years, resigning November 11, 1974. On March 5, 1975, Petitioner obtained a lump sum as a settlement for this disputed claim under the Florida Workmen's Compensation Act. Petitioner went on leave February 5, 1974, after supplying his supervisor, Mr. Eurgil G. Crawford, Administrative Vending Stand Section, Bureau of Blind Services, with a letter from the physician stating that Petitioner had a "nervous condition." In a letter of October 10, 1974, Mr. Crawford advised Petitioner to either return to work or to contact them if it was not possible. He also stated that the Petitioner would have sixty (60) days in which he might come back to work if he so desired, but that after that time his position would have to be filled permanently by another employee. Petitioner had had some employment problems with the other two (2) members of the three (3) man working team. The problems involved the work at the stand, cleanliness and the lifting necessary to operate the stand. He stated that he and the other two (2) members just could not get together as far as working as a team was concerned. After termination of employment, which was voluntary on the part of Petitioner, Petitioner contacted the supervisor, Mr. Crawford, and asked whether he was entitled to benefits he had contributed and was told that he was. Thereupon, Mr. Crawford sent him the necessary forms to apply for a refund. A refund was made after Petitioner had signed the proper forms and returned them to Mr. Crawford. Two (2) state warrants were issued to Petitioner, one on December 19, 1974, and a subsequent one to close out his account. Petitioner did not work after leaving the Blind Services and has not attempted to find work but receives disability benefits from Social Security based on a 15 percent permanent partial disability rating. He stated that "I have come up with a couple of not so advantageous jobs, you know, its a possibility of getting hurt and one thing and another, I haven't done anything." Subsequently, Petitioner requested information from the Respondent and, after receiving literature from them in 1976, tendered a sum of money equal to the refund he had received so he could apply for disability retirement benefits. The tender of the repayment of his contributions was denied. Petitioner applied for this administrative hearing. Petitioner contends: That he was unaware of a choice to apply for a disability rating when he signed the waiver to obtain a refund. That the supervisor owed Petitioner a special duty to inform him of the possibility of applying for disability benefits before requesting a return of his contributions. Respondent contends: That Petitioner was present at meetings at which the retirement system was discussed; he had information that caused him to transfer to the Florida Retirement System; that he knew of eligibility requirements under the Florida Retirement System and that requirements for eligibility were written in a booklet he had obtained from an employee of the retirement system and that he testified he knew of the five year eligibility requirement. That Petitioner voluntarily signed the waiver, that he had due notice and that the tender of the refund was properly denied.
Recommendation Deny the Petition. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Townsend, Esquire Albritton, Sessums & Di Dio 100 Madison Avenue, Suite 301 Tampa, Florida 33602 Stephen S. Mathues, Esquire Assistant Division Attorney Division of Retirement Department of Administration Cedars Executive Center Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this matter, Respondent was licensed to operate an assisted living facility at 817 Eleventh Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating, and assuring compliance with state laws governing, assisted living facilities. Joseph Narkier, a human services surveyor employed by AHCA, was assigned to perform an appraisal of the Respondent's facility in September, 1995. He visited the facility on September 27, 1995, along with Polly Weaver, chief of field operations. In accordance with his instructions, Mr. Narkier did not perform a full survey but only looked at certain items, "tags," which had historically been out of compliance at the facility. Based upon his review, Mr. Narkier found the following deficiencies at the Aries Retirement Living facility: Respondent failed to display its current license inside the facility as required by state standard A 003. This deficiency had been cited on an earlier survey, March 14, 1995. Fiscal records were not on the premises, thus Respondent could not identify income and expenses as required by state standard A 100. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. Since fiscal records were not on the premises, it could not be determined that the facility was administered on a sound financial basis as required by state standard A 101. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. The Respondent did not produce an accurate written admission and discharge record as required by state standard A 201. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. The Respondent did not produce an executed contract for each resident dated at the time of admission as required by state standard A 300. There were three residents for whom no evidence of a contract, executed at admission, could be produced. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. State standard A 301, which relates to the content of the resident contract, was also deficient. Since there were no contracts for three residents, the contract content did not exist. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. The Respondent did not have medical records or other support documentation to show that one resident had had a medical examination either within sixty days prior to admission or within thirty days after admission to the facility. Such exams are required to verify the residents are free of signs and symptoms of any communicable disease which is likely to be transmitted to other residents and is required by state standard A 406. The Respondent also could not produce documentation regarding admissions criteria as required by state standard A 408. According to records for one resident, medications were to be administered by a licensed professional. Since records did not verify the medications were administered according to the physician's orders, state standard A 601 was not met. Electrical outlets in the kitchen were not maintained in a safe condition in violation of state standard A 901. Hot and cold water faucets were not identified by use of the "H" and "C" initials as required by state standard A 1023. The records needed to verify the facility was in compliance with the state standards were not made available to the surveyors prior to their departure from the facility. Moreover, fiscal records were not made available to Mr. Narkier at the follow-up review on November 21, 1995. The fiscal records were not available until a third survey date, February 13, 1996, the second follow-up date. Based upon the foregoing, at the time of the survey Respondent had at least six class III deficiencies. None of the excuses suggested by Respondent to explain the survey findings has been deemed credible. This Respondent has a history of deficient performance. Two prior contested administrative complaints resulted in findings of numerous violations. Those violations were fully addressed in DOAH Case Nos. 94-5078 and 94-6908. On April 5, 1995, a recommended order was entered in DOAH Case Nos. 94-5078 and 94-6908. That order was adopted and incorporated by reference in the final order entered by AHCA on May 15, 1995. The final order entered in DOAH Case Nos. 94-5078 and 94-6908 imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $8,000.00 which Respondent has not paid. In addition to this outstanding administrative fine, Respondent has a history of two other administrative actions which also resulted in administrative fines. In DOAH Case No. 92-2415, the parties entered into a stipulation wherein Respondent agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $1,125.00. The Respondent did not timely remit that administrative fine. The second administrative action also resulted in an administrative fine. That case was not referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The final order (AHCA Exhibit 4), entered on August 8, 1991, imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00. Respondent eventually paid this fine on April 22, 1992. Respondent has consistently failed to honor the state standards set for this type facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing Case No. 95-0128 since the applicant has withdrawn the request to increase capacity of the ALF; denying the renewal of licensure sought in Case No. 95-0129; and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,200.00 in Case No. 95-5678. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 2, and 4 through 10, such paragraphs reiterate findings of fact made in DOAH Case Nos. 94-5078 and 94-6908 which have been adopted by final order and are not at issue in this proceeding. As a matter of law, unless set aside such findings remain in effect. Paragraph 15 is rejected as hearsay. Notwithstanding that Respondent's proposed findings of fact failed to comply with Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, and contained multiple facts per paragraph (some of which could not be accepted while others could), to the extent possible, the following rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are made: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or inaccurate. An administrative proceeding related to two complaints against this Respondent which found numerous violations resulted in a final order being entered by the Department. With regard to paragraph 2, the last sentence is accepted; the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or inaccurate or procedural issues unrelated to this matter. Further, as to the unannounced survey conducted by Mr. Narkier, notice of an intended survey is not required as a matter of law. With regard to paragraph 3, it is accepted a current license was not displayed. Otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The violation stems from the failure to display the current license. Paragraph 5 is rejected as mischaracterization of the testimony or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are rejected as no record cited supported the findings or irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence in its entirety. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Linda L. Parkinson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Health Quality Assurance 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-309 Orlando, Florida 32801 Esther A. Zaretsky, Esquire 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Forum III, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) preliminary award of funding to University Station I, LLC (“University Station”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, the stipulated facts, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Findings on Florida Housing and the RFA Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, and promotes public welfare by administering the financing of affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing as the State of Florida’s housing credit agency within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, Florida Housing is responsible for establishing procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. Florida Housing allocates housing credits and other funding via requests for proposals or other competitive solicitation methods identified in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing initiated the instant competitive solicitation by issuing the RFA on October 15, 2020, and anticipates awarding up to an estimated $88,959,045.00 in State Apartment Incentive Loan (“SAIL”)2 financing. The RFA set forth a process by which applications would be scored based, in part, on eligibility items. Only applications satisfying all of the eligibility items were eligible for funding and considered for selection. 2 Marissa Button, the Director of Multifamily Programs at Florida Housing, testified that the SAIL program finances the development of multifamily, affordable rental housing. The Florida Legislature traditionally appropriates money for the SAIL program via the State Housing Trust Fund. Site Control was an eligibility item because Florida Housing wants assurances that applicants selected for funding will be able to actually use the development sites.3 Applicants satisfy the Site Control requirement by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Site Control Certification Form (“the Site Control Form”). In order for the Site Control Form to be considered complete, an applicant had to attach documentation demonstrating that it: (a) was a party to an eligible contract or lease; or (b) owned the property in question. The RFA set forth specific requirements for contracts and leases used for demonstrating site control. For example, a contract had to satisfy all of the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021. It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant; and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or 3 Ms. Button explained that Site Control “is a component of how the applicant demonstrates its ability to proceed with the proposed development. And essentially it is the – the way that we require them to demonstrate they have control over the proposed development site.” As for why Site Control is important, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing wants “to be assured if the – the applicant is successful in its request for funding, that the – they will be able to actually use the development site.” conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The language quoted above indicates that the RFA was referring to a sales contract when it used the term “contract.” If an applicant used a lease to satisfy the Site Control requirement, then the RFA provided the following: (3) Lease – The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline and the lessee must be the Applicant. The owner of the subject property must be a party to the lease, or a party to one or more intermediate leases, subleases, agreements, or assignments, between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to lease the property for at least 50 years to the lessee. Marissa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that the RFA did not require a lease to have a commencement date. The RFA required that Site Control documentation for leases “include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases, and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” Ms. Button provided the following testimony about this requirement: A: Florida Housing includes the requirements for that documentation to – to essentially acknowledge that there are circumstances where there may be an intermediate contract or agreement that would demonstrate one of the criteria for those different types of site control and the requirements that we want to see that -- that chain back to the requirement itself. * * * Q: So Florida Housing considers this term to broadly include all different types of potential contract agreements, et cetera; correct? A: Yes. Q: Could you give me an example of an intermediate contract or agreement? A: Yes. An intermediate contract or agreement may be where – with regard to the [ ] contract, the terms require an owner of the subject property to be a seller of the subject property. And so there may be an applicant that has a contract with the seller of the property. And that seller might not be the actual owner; so there may be an intermediate contract that we need to see between the seller to the buyer and the actual owner of the subject property. Q: And that situation that you just described, that happened in the past few years; correct? A: I can think of one example where that happened, yes. Q: Okay. And in that case Florida Housing agreed that the intermediate agreement was necessary to include with the site documentation; correct? A: Florida Housing reviewed – yes. That – Florida Housing’s position was there was an intermediate agreement necessary because the site control documentation provided did not include the owner of the subject property. As for Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, the RFA provided as follows: Note: [Florida Housing] will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, [Florida Housing] will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. [Florida Housing] has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, [Florida Housing] may rescind the award. When questioned about Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, Ms. Button offered the following testimony: Q: If you look at the next page, Page 48, at the end of Subsection A there’s a note. It says Florida Housing will not review the site control during the scoring process. It will not evaluate the authority or enforceability of such documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: But even though Florida Housing does not review the site documentation during scoring, it will review the documentation during the bid protest; correct? A: Yes as it relates to the RFA requirements. * * * Q: If the documents attached to a site control documentation [do] not meet the RFA criteria, then that site control certification form would be incorrect; right? A: Yes. Q: And the applicant would be found ineligible; correct? A: Yes. The RFA and Ms. Button’s testimony indicate that Florida Housing intended, under most circumstances, to accept the representations set forth in an applicant’s Site Control documentation during the scoring process. In other words, Florida Housing did not go behind the Site Control documentation to verify the representations therein. The terms of the RFA were not challenged. Stipulated Facts Pertaining to Certain Parties Douglas Gardens and Florida Housing agree that Douglas Gardens’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. Quiet Meadows and Florida Housing agree that Quiet Meadows’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. MHP and Florida Housing agree that MHP’s Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA.4 MHP, Quiet Meadows, and Douglas Gardens agree that Fulham Terrace’s application remains eligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows and Florida Housing agree that the Willows Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows agrees that the HTG Astoria Application is eligible for funding via the RFA. 4 MHP, Florida Housing, Quiet Meadows, Douglas Gardens, and Fulham Terrace entered into a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation on March 26, 2021, that was entered into evidence as Fern Grove Exhibit 1. SoMi Parc, Vista, and Florida Housing agree that the SoMi Parc Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. SoMi Parc has accepted an invitation to enter credit underwriting for the same Development in RFA 2020-203 and thus cannot be funding via the RFA. Findings Regarding the Applications of University Station and Vista Florida Housing received 90 applications in response to the RFA. Those applications were processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA. On January 22, 2021, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 17 applicants, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. University Station was one of the 17 successful applicants, and University Station’s Site Control documentation included: (a) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Hollywood, Florida (“the City”), and University Station (“the University Station I Lease”); (b) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD (“the University Station II Lease”); and (c) an Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement assigning University Station II, LTD’s interests in the Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD to University Station.5 The University Station I Lease described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the closing date of Tenant’s construction financing for the development of the Phase I Project (the “Construction Financing”), but in no event later 5 The Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement between University Station and University Station II was a relevant intermediate document for demonstrating Site Control. than June 30, 2022. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this Lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the later of the closing date of Tenant’s construction loan for the development of the Project (the “Construction Loan”) and the termination of the lease of the premises to Barry University, but in no event later than June 30, 2023. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that the leased premises are currently improved with an educational facility and adjacent ground parking that is leased to Barry University through November 23, 2021 and the Landlord may enter into an additional one-year extension of the lease to Barry University at Landlord’s sole discretion. Until the Commencement Date, Landlord, or its tenant, shall be solely responsible for the operation and maintenance of the leased premises and any uses on the Leased Premises. University Station’s proposed Development site consists of five Scattered Sites. Barry University currently leases a building and parking spaces located on the Scattered Site described as latitude and longitude coordinates of 26.014703, -80.148572 in Question 5.d.2 of the University Station Application. This is the site described in the University Station II Lease. The City and Barry University, Inc., are the parties to the Barry University Lease (“the Barry University Lease”). The Barry University Lease was executed on May 23, 2011, with a term of 10 and one-half years, which would expire on approximately November 23, 2021. With regard to its term, the Barry University Lease states that “[t]he term of this lease shall be for ten and one-half (10 ½) years commencing upon the execution of this lease. The parties will have the mutual option to renew this lease subject to City Commission and the Lessee’s Board of Directors approval.” A copy of the Barry University Lease was not included in University Station’s application. In contrast to the statement in the University Station II Lease that the Barry University Lease could be extended by “an additional one-year extension” at the City’s “sole discretion,” the Barry University Lease simply says that the parties have a “mutual option to renew” with no mention of a particular term. Ms. Button provided the following testimony regarding the Barry University Lease: Q: And you are aware that University Station did not submit the Barry University lease as part of its site control documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: And does the existence of that Barry University lease change your position on whether University Station met the requirements in the RFA for a lease? A: No. Q: And why not? A: Because the documents submitted with the application meet the terms of the RFA for a lease site control documentation. Q: Did the existence of the Barry University lease impact whether or not the University Station site control documentation met the requirements for a lease? A: No. Q: As Florida Housing’s corporate representative, what is your position regarding University Station’s application? A: It is eligible for funding. Vista also applied for funding from the RFA. Florida Housing determined that Vista was eligible for funding, but Florida Housing did not preliminarily select Vista for funding. If University Station is deemed ineligible for funding, then Vista will be selected for funding subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting. Ultimate Findings Vista has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that Florida Housing’s proposed award to University Station was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Also, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that: (a) Florida Housing’s proposed action is not contrary to the RFA’s terms; and that (b) University Station will have control over the site in question. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the University Station Lease I Lease, the University Stations II Lease, and the assignment of University Station II’s interest to University Station collectively satisfied the RFA’s requirements because: (a) there is unexpired term of at least 50 years after the application deadline; (b) University Station, i.e., the lessee, was the applicant for funding; and (c) the City, as the owner of the subject property, was a party to the lease. Upon considering Florida Housing’s preliminary approval of University Station’s application without the benefit of reviewing the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Florida Housing was not clearly erroneous when it determined that the Barry University Lease was not a relevant intermediate lease within the meaning of the RFA. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II requires the lease to begin no later than June 30, 2023. Also, the City and University Station II acknowledge that Barry University’s Lease runs through November 23, 2021, and they agree that the City may extend Barry University’s lease by “an additional one-year.” Accordingly, the Barry University Lease will end prior to June 30, 2023, and University Station will have site control no later than that date. In other words, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. The analysis set forth above does not change if one considers the Barry University Lease.6 Even though the Barry University Lease does not limit a renewal to one year, the lease cannot be renewed without the City’s assent, and the City agreed in the University Station II Lease that any renewal would not exceed one year. Therefore, even if one considers the terms of the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that it is a relevant intermediate document that was required to be included with University Station’s application. Again, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. 6 As will be explained in more detail in the Conclusions of Law below, “[n]ew evidence cannot be offered to amend or supplement a party’s response or application. § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. However, new evidence may be offered in a competitive protest proceeding to prove that there was an error in another party’s application. Intercontinental Props., supra.” Heritage at Pompano Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp., Case No. 14-1361BID, ¶ 116 (Fla. DOAH June 10, 2014; Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp. June 13, 2014).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: awarding funding to University Station I, LLC, via Request for Application 2020-205 subject to credit underwriting; and (b) finding that the applications submitted by Douglas Gardens IV, Ltd., MHP FL VIII, LLLP, Quiet Meadows, Ltd, RST The Willows, LP, and Residences at SoMi Parc, LLC are ineligible for funding via Request for Application 2020-205. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marc Ito, Esquire Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2021. Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley McMullen 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Hall, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Wharton, Esquire Dean Mead and Dunbar Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel Ryan Russell, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Deferred Retirement Option Program.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been since 1976, a firefighter employed by Miami-Dade County and, as such, a Special Risk member of the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner's date of birth is September 19, 1937. Accordingly, on July 1, 1998, the effective date of DROP, Petitioner was 61 years of age and had approximately 22 years of creditable service as a Special Risk member of the Florida Retirement System. Petitioner was aware that he needed to file an application to join DROP within 12 months of July 1, 1998, but he opted not to file such an application because he believed that the retirement benefits he would receive if he joined DROP within this 12-month period would not be enough for him to "live on" after he stopped working.2 Petitioner thought that it would be in his best interest, instead, to wait until 2003 to retire (and enjoy higher retirement benefits). On June 7, 2001, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Governor Bush, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: Yesterday I met with the head spokesman of FL. State Retirement concerning my participation in the D.R.O.P. [and] he advised me to send this note. As you know it started in 1998 at which time I was offered a small window because of my age (unlawful discrimination) for which I was not able to get into because of the insignificant amount offered as permanent retirement. Since then, as anticipated, my retirement has increased from the high 30's to the low 60's due thanks to you . . . Now, I am asking, by special request, to be allowed to enter into the D.R.O.P. either to finish these two years or to be given an opportunity to go for the whole 5 years, which I doubt I would complete. . . . Petitioner's e-mail correspondence was referred to the State Retirement Director who, by letter dated June 8, 2001, advised Petitioner that Petitioner's "request to join DROP at this late date must be denied."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order finding that Respondent is not eligible to participate in DROP because he did not elect to do so within the time frame prescribed by Subsection (13)(a)2. of Section 121.091, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of December, 2001.
Findings Of Fact John Wallace began service as a Sumter County school board member on January 1, 1959. (Joint Stipulation). On or about January 1, 1959, he completed a blue-top computer enrollment card (Petitioner's Exhibit 1), which also designated his wife Effie as his first beneficiary of his retirement benefits and his daughter, Mrs. Kindle Johnson, as the second beneficiary. (Joint Stipulation). Effie Wallace died January 22, 1963. (Joint Stipulation) John Wallace married Estell Loudin June 9, 1964. (Joint Stipulation). John Wallace executed an election to transfer to the Florida Retirement System, effective December 1, 1970. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). (Joint Stipulation). John Wallace died September 8, 1975. (Joint Stipulation). On November 12, 1975, Betty Carruthers, an employee of the Sumter County School Board, notified the Division of Retirement of Mr. Wallace's death. Margie Smith in the Division of Retirement completed a form (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) setting forth the information she received from Betty Carruthers in the November 12, 1975, telephone conversation. Not having any beneficiary designation form in the School Board file, Carruthers simply advised Smith that petitioner was Wallace's second wife, his first wife, Effie, having predeceased him. Smith's quick check of the Division of Retirement records management section did not uncover Wallace's designation of beneficiary form. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, 5). On March 9, 1977, the Division of Retirement received petitioner's FR- 11, an application (albeit on the incorrect form) for her deceased husband's benefits, along with certain supporting documents. In an April 13, 1977, letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) sent out over David Ragsdale's name but written and signed by a benefits calculation specialist trainee, petitioner was erroneously informed that she was the beneficiary of her husband's benefits, since he had designated his first wife Effie, who had predeceased him. But after the letter went out, it came to the attention of Marjorie Smith that the April 13, 1977 letter was incorrect since Wallace's original January 1, 1959 designation of beneficiary form designated Wallace's daughter, Mrs. Kindle [sic] Johnson, who is still living, as Wallace's second beneficiary. In a June 5, 1977, latter (Petitioner's Exhibit 7), again sent out over David Ragsdale's name but dictated by Marjorie Smith and signed by Ragsdale's secretary, petitioner was informed that respondent had located the designation of beneficiary card, signed by Mr. Wallace, designating his daughter, Mrs. Kindle [sic] Johnson, as his second beneficiary. On June 20, 1977, Randall Thornton, petitioner's attorney at the time, wrote a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 8) to David Ragsdale, seeking a copy of the beneficiary card upon which the respondent based its decision in the June 15, 1977, letter to petitioner. On July 12, 1977, Mr. Thornton sent another letter to the respondent, attention Mrs. Ferguson (Petitioner's Exhibit 9), asking again for a copy of the beneficiary designation upon which its decision was based awarding Mr. Wallace's retirement benefits to his daughter. On the same date, respondent sent Mr. Thornton a letter (Petitioner's Exhibit 10), enclosing a copy of the original enrollment card. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Thornton's secretary called petitioner into the office on July 15, 1977, the day after Thornton received and reviewed respondents' July 12, 1977 letter. Petitioner looked at the copy of Wallace's designation of beneficiary form and stated that she did not believe her husband had written both his first wife's name and his daughter's name as first and second beneficiaries, respectively, at the same time. She did not, however, prove this at final hearing. Petitioner did not prove that there is or ever was another designation of beneficiary executed by Mr. Wallace other than Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Prior to 1972, if a member of the Florida Retirement System or any pension plan in existence prior to December 1, 1970, wanted to change his designated beneficiary, he would complete another blue-top enrollment card. In 1972, a new enrollment form, FRS-M10, was instituted consisting of three identical parts. If a member of the Florida Retirement System completed the form, the original would be sent to the respondent, with a copy to the agency employing the individual and a copy to the individual. (Carruthers deposition, p.4). Respondent has searched its records and has found no other designation of beneficiary form signed by Mr. Wallace apart from Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The files at the Sumter County School Board have been searched and no designation of beneficiary signed by Mr. Wallace found. (Carruthers deposition, p.3). Petitioner's attorney Randall Thornton has searched his files and found no designation of beneficiary signed by Mr. Wallace other than Petitioner's Exhibit (Thornton deposition, p.18)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying petitioner's request for benefits on the ground that she is not, in law and fact, entitled to benefits resulting from the death of her husband, John Wallace. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of July, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1984.
