The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s ("Florida Housing") intended action to award housing tax credit funding to Intervenors Westside Phase, I, LLLP ("Westside"), HTG Edgewood, Ltd. ("HTG Edgewood"), Diplomat South, LLC ("Diplomat"), and Tranquility at Milton, LLC ("Tranquility"), under Request for Applications 2019-113 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the "RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, the RFA specifications, and clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. 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 (commonly referred to as "tax credits" or "housing credits") was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These housing tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects that qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is that the credits reduce the amount that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the total debt is lower, a housing 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 housing credits. The demand for housing tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. The Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized to allocate housing tax credits and other funding by means of a request for applications or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48) and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60, which govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for housing tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. 1 In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally sell the rights to that future stream of income housing tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount which can be received depends 1 A request for application is equivalent to a "request for proposal" as indicated in rule 67- 60.009(3). upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected total development cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. The RFA was issued on August 20, 2019, and responses were initially due October 29, 2019. The RFA was modified on September 10, 2019, and the application deadline was extended to November 5, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms of the RFA. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $14,805,028 of housing tax credits to proposed developments in medium counties and up to an estimated $1,413,414 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 184 applications in response to the RFA. A review committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing's Board of Directors (the "Board"). The review committee found 169 applications eligible and 15 applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 11 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The review committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On March 6, 2020, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee. Also, on March 6, 2020, at approximately 9:35 a.m., Petitioners and all other applicants received notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and that certain eligible applicants were selected for award of housing credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets on the Florida Housing website, www.floridahousing.org, one listing the Board approved scoring results and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the March 6, 2020, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 11 applicants, including Westside, HTG Edgewood, Diplomat, and Tranquility. Petitioners timely filed notices of protest and petitions for formal administrative proceedings, and Intervenors timely intervened. The RFA Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A summary of the eligibility items is available in section 5.A.1., beginning on page 64 of the RFA. Only applications that meet all the eligibility items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. There were two total point items scored in this RFA. Applicants could receive five points for Submission of Principals Disclosure Form, stamped by the Corporation as "Pre-Approved," and five points for Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive, for a total application score of up to ten points. The RFA has three funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund four Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a. of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund two Developments with a Demographic commitment of Family that select and qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/SADDA Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.b. of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) Development that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.c. of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal. As part of the funding selection process, the RFA starts with the application sorting order on page 68. The highest scoring applications are determined by first sorting together all eligible applications from the highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated as follows: First, by the Application's eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application's Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The RFA includes a Funding Test where small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding available to fully fund the eligible housing credit request amount, and medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding available to fully fund the eligible housing credit request amount. The RFA outlines a specific County’s Award Tally: As each application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County’s Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. According to the RFA, the funding selection process is as follows: The first Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Applications that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. The next four Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next two Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Small County Applications that (i) can meet the Small County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Small County Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Application can meet the Small County Funding Test, no further Small County Applications will be selected and the remaining Small County funding will be added to the Medium County funding amount. The next Application(s) selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Medium County Applications that (i) can meet the Medium County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Medium County Applications. If Medium County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Application can meet the Medium County Funding Test, no further Applications will be selected and the remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. According to the terms of the RFA: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the [Review] Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing its Application, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting, or an Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 184 applications for the RFA were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. HTG Edgewood’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1778BID) During scoring, Florida Housing determined that the HTG Edgewood application was eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, selected HTG Edgewood for funding. HTG Edgewood, Florida Housing, and Rochester now agree that HTG Edgewood’s application is ineligible for consideration for funding and the application of Rochester is eligible for funding. Accordingly, HTG Edgewood, Florida Housing, and Rochester agree that Florida Housing should deem the HTG Edgewood application ineligible for funding and Rochester’s application eligible for funding. Diplomat’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1779BID) During scoring, Florida Housing deemed the Diplomat application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Diplomat for funding. Diplomat and Madison Square now agree that Diplomat is ineligible for funding. Florida Housing does not contest Diplomat’s admission of ineligibility. Madison Square, Diplomat, and Florida Housing agree that Madison Square is eligible for funding. Tranquility’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1780BID) Florida Housing deemed the Tranquility application eligible for funding, and pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Tranquility was selected for preliminary funding. Tranquility’s Principals Disclosure Form Madison Oaks contests Florida Housing’s preliminary selection of Tranquility for an award of housing tax credits. In its challenge, Madison Oaks argues that Tranquility failed to correctly complete its Principals Disclosure Form by not identifying the multiple roles of its disclosed principal. Specifically, Madison Oaks argues that Tranquility failed to list Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, which is disclosed as a manager, as a non- investor member as well. Accordingly, Madison Oaks contends Tranquility is not eligible or should lose five points. The purpose of the Principals Disclosure Form is to allow Florida Housing to track an entity’s past and future dealings with Florida Housing so that Florida Housing is aware of the entity with which it is dealing. In regard to principal disclosure, the RFA states, in relevant part: c. Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer (5 points) Eligibility Requirements To meet the submission requirements, the Applicant must upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 05-2019)("Principals Disclosure Form") with the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, as outlined in Section Three above. Prior versions of the Principal Disclosure Form will not be accepted. The Principals Disclosure Form must identify, pursuant to subsections 67-48.002(94), 67- 48.0075(8) and 67-48.0075(9), the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. The investor limited partner of an Applicant limited partnership or the investor member of an Applicant limited liability company investor must be identified. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. Point Item Applicants will receive 5 points if the uploaded Principal Disclosure Form was stamped "Approved" during the Advance Review Process. The Advance Review Process for Disclosure of Applicant and Developer Principals is available on the RFA Website and also includes samples which may assist the Applicant in completing the required Principals Disclosure Form. Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline. The RFA website provides guidance and instructions to assist applicants in completing the principal disclosure. The instructions state: "List the name of each Member of the Applicant Limited Liability Company and label each as either non-investor Member or investor Member (i.e., equity provider and/or placeholder), as applicable." The RFA website guidance and instructions further provides Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQ’s") concerning principal disclosures. FAQ number 4 states: Q: If the Applicant entity is a member managed limited liability company, how should it be reflected on the form since there is no "member-manager" choice at the First Principal Disclosure Level? A: Each member-manager entity/person should be listed twice—once as a non-investor member and once as a manger. If Housing Credits are being requested, the investor-member(s) must also be listed in order for the form to be approved for a Housing Credit Application. On its Principals Disclosure Form, Tranquility listed two entities at the first principal disclosure level: Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, identified as a manager of the applicant and Timshel Partners, LLC, identified as an investor member of the applicant. However, Tranquility failed to identify the dual role of Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a non- investor member in addition to its disclosed role as a manger. Nevertheless, Tranquility’s equity proposal letter submitted as part of its application identified Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a member of the LLC because according to the equity proposal, Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, would retain a .01% ownership interest in the company. Thus, the role of Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a member is available within Tranquility’s application. Tranquility participated in Florida Housing’s Advance Review Process, and on October 17, 2019, Florida Housing approved the Principals Disclosure Form submitted by Tranquility during the Advance Review Process for an award of housing credits. During scoring, Tranquility received five points for having its Principals Disclosure Form stamped "Approved" by Florida Housing. Tranquility’s Principals Disclosure Form met the eligibility requirements of the RFA and Tranquility is entitled to the five points. In addition, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that even if Tranquility’s failure to list the dual role of its disclosed principal on the Principals Disclosure Form is an error, it is so minor as to constitute a waivable, minor irregularity. As detailed above, Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, was specifically designated as a manager on the form and information identifying Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC’s, additional role as a member is included in the equity proposal letter submitted with the application. Madison Oak’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1779BID) Madison Oaks’ application was deemed eligible for funding, but pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Madison Oaks was not selected for preliminary funding. Madison Oaks Site Control Certification Florida Housing and Tranquility now argue that Madison Oaks failed to demonstrate site control. As an eligibility item, the RFA requires applicants to demonstrate site control by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Site Control Certification form ("Site Control Form"). For the Site Control Form to be considered complete, the applicant must attach documentation demonstrating that it is a party to an eligible contract or lease or is the owner of the subject property. Applicants can demonstrate site control by providing documentation that meets the requirements in the RFA for an eligible contract, deed or certificate of title, or a lease. An eligible contract must meet all of the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before April 30, 2020 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 April 30, 2020; 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 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. In demonstrating site control, the RFA states: Note: The Corporation 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, the Corporation will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirements of this RFA to demonstrate site control. The Corporation 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 is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. Additionally, the RFA requires that the site control "documentation include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases, and subleases." In the instant case, Madison Oaks attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Madison Oaks Agreement") to its Site Control Form. The Madison Oaks Agreement lists West Oak Developers, LLC, as the "Seller" and Madison Oaks East, LLC, as the "Purchaser." However, the City of Ocala owns the property in question. The Madison Oaks Agreement in section 12 states that: "Seller has a valid and binding agreement with the City of Ocala, Florida pursuant to which Seller has the right to acquire fee simple title to the Property …." Tranquility and Florida Housing contend that Madison Oaks failed to demonstrate site control because Madison Oaks failed to include the City of Ocala Redevelopment Agreement for Pine Oaks ("Redevelopment Agreement") in its site control documentation. Madison Oaks maintains that the City of Ocala is a seller, pursuant to the Joinder and Section 28 of the Madison Oaks Agreement, and therefore, the Redevelopment Agreement did not need to be included. However, the Madison Oaks Agreement clearly identifies West Oak as the "Seller" and the City of Ocala as the "City." At hearing, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that the Madison Oaks application is ineligible because it did not include the Redevelopment Agreement, which is a relevant agreement for purposes of demonstrating site control. The Redevelopment Agreement was a relevant intermediate contract, which was required to be included in Madison Oak’s application. Madison Oak’s failure to include the Redevelopment Agreement renders its application ineligible. Madison Oaks contends that including the Redevelopment Agreement in its application was unnecessary because of a joinder provision within the Madison Oaks Agreement. The Madison Oaks Agreement contains a Joinder and Consent of the City of Ocala approved by the City Council ("the Joinder"), whereby the City of Ocala joined and consented to the Madison Oaks Agreement "solely for the purposes set forth in, and subject to, Section 28 herein." The Madison Oaks Agreement in Section 28 states that: "Seller hereby acknowledges and agrees that in the event of Seller’s default hereunder, that is not timely cured, or Seller's refusal to close hereunder, Purchaser shall be entitled to close on the property subject to this Agreement … directly with the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 28." However, Section 28 only applies in the event of a default by West Oaks that is not timely cured or West Oak’s refusal to close. There is no information within the Madison Oaks application to determine whether a default or termination of the Redevelopment Agreement occurred as of the application deadline. Westside’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1770BID) Florida Housing deemed Westside’s application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Westside was preliminary selected for funding to meet the goal to fund one development that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. Westside’s Election to Compete for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal In order to qualify for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal, the RFA states: Applicants for proposed Developments that are part of a local revitalization plan may elect to compete for this goal. To qualify for this goal, the Applicant must submit the properly completed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government/Community Redevelopment Agency Verification That Development Is Part Of A Local Community Revitalization Plan form (Form Rev. 08-2019) as Attachment 18. The form is available on the RFA Website. Included with the form must be either (1) a link to the local community revitalization plan or (2) a copy of the local community revitalization plan. The plan must have been adopted on or before January 1, 2019. Florida Housing, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, also has a goal to fund four medium county developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. Westside included an executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government/Community Redevelopment Agency Verification that Development is Part of a Local Community Revitalization Plan form (the "Local Community Revitalization Plan Form") and a link to the local government revitalization plan at Attachment 18 of its application. At question 11.c. in the application, applicants are asked to select "Yes" or "No" from a drop-down menu in response to the question: "Is the proposed Development eligible for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal?" Westside selected "No" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.c. regarding the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. At question 11.a. in the application, applicants are asked to select "Yes" or "No" from a drop-down menu in response to the question: "Is the proposed Development eligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal?" Westside selected "Yes" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering questions 11.a. regarding the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. During scoring, Westside was deemed to have qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal and the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. During the funding selection process, Westside was selected for funding to meet the Local Government Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. HTG Addison selected "Yes" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.c. regarding the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. HTG Addison included an executed Local Community Revitalization Plan Form at Attachment 18 of its application. HTG Addison selected "No" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.a. regarding the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. HTG Addison is the next highest ranked eligible applicant qualified for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal after Westside. If Westside is deemed not to have qualified for the revitalization goal, then HTG Addison, as the next highest ranked eligible applicant, would qualify for that goal. HTG Addison alleges that Westside should not be selected to meet the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal because Westside selected "No" from the drop-down menu in response Question 11.c. Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that Florida Housing does not rely on the drop-down responses to questions 11a., b., or c. in determining whether an applicant "elects to be eligible for a certain goal" because answering "Yes" or "No" to these requirements is not a requirement of the RFA. Rather, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that in determining whether an applicant qualifies for a funding goal, Florida Housing relies on the documentation submitted with the application that is required for the funding goal. In the instant case, Westside included the executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Revitalization Plan form and a link to the local community revitalization plan at Attachment 18 of its application.2 In addition, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that even if Westside erred in selecting "Yes" in response to question 11.c., it is so minor as to constitute a waivable, minor irregularity because Florida Housing has the required information within the application (the executed form and a link to the local community revitalization plan at Attachment 18). 2 Notably, another applicant responding to the RFA, Tranquility at Ferry Pass, selected "Yes" in response to question 11.c., but failed to include at Attachment 18 either a copy of or a link to the local community revitalization plan. During scoring, Florida Housing determined that Tranquility at Ferry Pass did not qualify for the revitalization goal. Florida Housing’s scoring of the Westside application is consistent with its scoring of the Tranquility at Ferry Pass application because in both cases, Florida Housing scored the application based on the requirements of the RFA for the revitalization goal and the documentation submitted in response to those requirements. Florida Housing did not rely on the applicant’s response to question 11.c. regarding the applicant’s expressions of its own eligibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: dismissing the protests of HTG Addison and Madison Oaks; (2) finding the HTG Edgewood, Diplomat, and Madison Oaks applications ineligible for funding; and (3) finding the Rochester, Madison Square, Tranquility, and Westside applications eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2020. Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-231 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Sarah Pape, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 820 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“FHFC”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact FHFC and Affordable Housing Tax Credits FHFC is a public corporation that finances affordable housing in Florida by allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. See § 420.504(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that FHFC is “an entrepreneurial public corporation organized to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing and related facilities in this state.”); § 420.5099(2), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he corporation shall adopt allocation procedures that will ensure the maximum use of available tax credits in order to encourage development of low-income housing in the state, taking into consideration the timeliness of the application, the location of the proposed housing project, the relative need in the area for low-income housing and the availability of such housing, the economic feasibility of the project, and the ability of the applicant to proceed to completion of the project in the calendar year for which the credit is sought.”). The tax credits allocated by FHFC encourage investment in affordable housing and are awarded through competitive solicitations to developers of qualifying rental housing. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150. In contrast, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Not surprisingly, the demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. A successful applicant/developer normally sells the tax credits in order to raise capital for a housing development. That results in the developer being less reliant on debt financing. In exchange for the tax credits, a successful applicant/developer must offer affordable rents and covenant to keep those rents at affordable levels for 30 to 50 years. The Selection Process FHFC awards tax credits through competitive solicitations, and that process is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications (“RFA”). Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(2) provides that unsuccessful applicants for tax credits “may only protest the results of the competitive solicitation process pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 120.57(3), F.S., and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.” For purposes of section 120.57(3), an RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67.60.009(4), F.A.C. FHFC issued RFA 2015-111 on October 23, 2015, and responses from applicants were due on December 4, 2015. Through RFA 2015-111, FHFC seeks to award up to $5,901,631 of tax credits to qualified applicants that commit to preserve existing affordable multifamily housing developments for the demographic categories of “Families,” “the Elderly,” and “Persons with a Disability.” FHFC only considered an application eligible for funding from RFA 2015-111, if that particular application complied with certain content requirements. FHFC ranked all eligible applications pursuant to an “Application Sorting Order” set forth in RFA 2015-111. The first consideration was the applicants’ scores. Each application could potentially receive up to 23 points based on the developer’s experience and the proximity to services needed by the development’s tenants. Applicants demonstrating that their developments received funding from a U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Rural Development program known as RD 515 were entitled to a 3.0 point proximity score “boost.” That proximity score boost was important because RFA 2015-111 characterized counties as small, medium, or large. Applications associated with small counties had to achieve at least four proximity points to be considered eligible for funding. Applications associated with medium-sized counties and those associated with large counties had to achieve at least seven and 10.25 proximity points respectively in order to be considered eligible for funding. Because it is very common for several tax credit applicants in a particular RFA to receive identical scores, FHFC incorporated a series of “tie-breakers” into RFA 2015-111. The tie-breakers for RFA 2015-111, in order of applicability, were: First, by Age of Development, with developments built in 1985 or earlier receiving a preference over relatively newer developments. Second, if necessary, by a Rental Assistance (“RA”) preference. Applicants were to be assigned an RA level based on the percentage of units receiving rental assistance through either a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or USDA Rural Development program. Applicants with an RA level of 1, 2, or 3 (meaning at least 75 percent of the units received rental assistance) were to receive a preference. Third, by a Concrete Construction Funding Preference, with developments incorporating certain specified concrete or masonry structural elements receiving the preference. Fourth, by a Per Unit Construction Funding Preference, with applicants proposing at least $32,500 in Actual Construction Costs per unit receiving the preference. Fifth, by a Leveraging Classification favoring applicants requiring a lower amount in housing credits per unit than other applicants. Generally, the least expensive 80 percent of eligible applicants were to receive a preference over the most expensive 20 percent. Sixth, by an Applicant’s specific RA level, with Level 1 applicants receiving the most preference and Level 6 the least. Seventh, by a Florida Job Creation Preference, which estimated the number of jobs created per $1 million of housing credit equity investment the developments were to receive based on formulas contained in the RFA. Applicants achieving a Job Creation score of at least 4.0 were to receive the preference. Eighth, by lottery number, with the lowest (smallest) lottery number receiving the preference. Rental assistance from the USDA or HUD is provided to existing developments in order to make up for shortfalls in monthly rent paid by tenants. For example, if an apartment’s base rent is $500 per month and the tenant’s income limits him or her to paying only $250 towards rent, then the USDA or HUD rental assistance pays the other $250 so that the total rent received by the development is $500. As evident from the tie-breakers incorporated into RFA 2015-111, the amount of rental assistance, or “RA Level,” played a prominent role in distinguishing between RFA 2015-111 applicants having identical scores. RFA 2015-111 required that applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter containing the following information: (a) the development’s name; (b) the development’s address; (c) the year the development was built; (d) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC;/3 (e) the total number of units that would receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development were to be funded; (f) all HUD or RD financing program(s) originally and/or currently associated with the existing development; and (g) confirmation that the development had not received financing from HUD or RD after 1995 when the rehabilitation was at least $10,000 per unit in any year. In order to determine an applicant’s RA Level Classification, RFA 2015-111 further stated that Part of the criteria for a proposed Development that qualifies as a Limited Development Area (LDA) Development to be eligible for funding is based on meeting a minimum RA Level, as outlined in Section Four A.7.c of the RFA. The total number of units that will receive rental assistance (i.e., PBRA and/or ACC), as stated in the Development Category qualification letter provided as Attachment 7, will be considered to be the proposed Development’s RA units and will be the basis of the Applicant’s RA Level Classification. The Corporation will divide the RA units by the total units stated by the Applicant at question 5.e. of Exhibit A, resulting in a Percentage of Total Units that are RA units. Using the Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart below, the Corporation will determine the RA Level associated with both the Percentage of Total Units and the RA units. The best rating of these two (2) levels will be assigned as the Application’s RA Level Classification. RFA 2015-111 then outlined a Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart to delineate between the RA Levels. That chart described six possible RA Levels, with one being developments that have the most units receiving rental assistance and six pertaining to developments with the fewest units receiving rental assistance. A development with at least 100 rental assistance units and greater than 50 percent of the total units receiving rental assistance was to receive an RA Level of 1. FHFC also utilized a “Funding Test” to assist in the selection of applications for funding. The Funding Test required that the amount of unawarded housing credits be enough to satisfy any remaining applicant’s funding request. In other words, FHFC prohibited partial funding. In addition, RFA 2015-111 applied a “County Award Tally” designed to prevent a disproportionate concentration of funded developments in any one county. As a result, all other applicants from other counties had to receive an award before a second application from a particular county could be funded. After ranking of the eligible applicants, RFA 2015-111 set forth an order of funding selection based on county size, demographic category, and the receipt of RD 515 financing. The Order was: One RD 515 Development (in any demographic category) in a medium or small county; One Non-RD 515 Development in the Family Demographic Category (in any size county); The highest ranked Non-RD 515 application or applications with the demographic of Elderly or Persons with a Disability; and If funding remains after all eligible Non- RD 515 applicants are funded, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Elderly demographic (or, if none, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Family demographic). Draft versions of every RFA are posted on-line in order for stakeholders to provide FHFC with their comments. In addition, every RFA goes through at least one workshop prior to being finalized. FHFC often makes changes to RFAs based on stakeholder comments. No challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. A review committee consisting of FHFC staff members reviewed and scored all 24 applications associated with RFA 2015-111. During this process, FHFC staff determined that none of the RD-515 applicants satisfied all of the threshold eligibility requirements. On June 24, 2016, FHFC’s Board of Directors announced its intention to award funding to five applicants, subject to those applicants successfully completing the credit underwriting process. Pineda Village in Brevard County was the only successful applicant in the Non-RD 515 Family Demographic. The four remaining successful applicants were in the Non-RD 515 Elderly or Persons with Disability Demographic: Three Round Tower in Miami-Dade County; Cathedral Towers in Duval County; Isles of Pahokee in Palm Beach County; and Lummus Park in Miami- Dade County. The randomly-assigned lottery number tie-breaker played a role for the successful Non-RD 515 applicants with Three Round Tower having lottery number one, Cathedral Towers having lottery number nine, and Isles of Pahokee having lottery number 18. While Lummus Park had a lottery number of 12, the County Award Tally prevented it from being selected earlier because Three Round Tower had already been selected for funding in Miami-Dade County. However, after the first four applicants were funded, only $526,880 of credits remained, and Lummus Park was the only eligible applicant with a request small enough to be fully funded. All Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The Challenge by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns Woodcliff is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 34-unit development for elderly residents in Lake County.4/ Colonial is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 30-unit development for low-income families in Lake County.5/ St. Johns is seeking an award of tax credits to acquire and preserve a 48-unit development for elderly residents in Putnam County.6/ FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns to be ineligible because of a failure to demonstrate the existence or availability of a particular source of financing relied upon in their applications. Specifically, FHFC determined that the availability of USDA RD 515 financial assistance was not properly documented. For applicants claiming the existence of RD 515 financing, RFA 2015-111 stated: If the proposed Development will be assisted with funding under the United States Department of Agriculture RD 515 Program and/or RD 538 Program, the following information must be provided: Indicate the applicable RD Program(s) at question 11.b.(2) of Exhibit A. For a proposed Development that is assisted with funding from RD 515 and to qualify for the RD 515 Proximity Point Boost (outlined in Section Four A.6.b.(1)(b) of the RFA), the Applicant must: Include the funding amount at the USDA RD Financing line item on the Development Funding Pro Forma (Construction/Rehab Analysis and/or Permanent Analysis); and Provide a letter from RD, dated within six (6) months of the Application Deadline, as Attachment 17 to Exhibit A, which includes the following information for the proposed Preservation Development: Name of existing development; Name of proposed Development; Current RD 515 Loan balance; Acknowledgment that the property is applying for Housing Credits; and Acknowledgment that the property will remain in the USDA RD 515 loan portfolio. (emphasis added). FHFC was counting on the letter mentioned directly above to function as proof that: (a) there was RD 515 financing in place when the letter was issued; and that (b) the RD 515 financing would still be in place as of the application deadline for RFA 2015-111. FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns ineligible because their RD letters were not dated within six months of the December 4, 2015, deadline for RFA 2015-111 applications. The Woodcliff letter was dated May 15, 2015, the Colonial letter was dated May 15, 2015, and the St. Johns letter was dated May 5, 2015. FHCA had previously issued RFA 2015-104, which also proposed to award Housing Credit Financing for the Preservation of Existing Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments. The deadline for RFA 2015-104 was June 23, 2015, and Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns applied using the same USDA letter that they used in their RFA 2015-111 applications. Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns argued during the final hearing that FHFC should have accepted their letters because: (a) they gained no competitive advantage by using letters that were more than six months old; (b) waiving the six- month “shelf life” requirement would enable FHFC to satisfy one of its stated goals for RFA 2015-111, i.e., funding of an RD 515 development; and (c) other forms of financing (such as equity investment) have no “freshness” or “shelf life” requirement. However, it is undisputed that no party (including Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns) challenged any of the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. In addition, Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Programs) testified that there must be a point at which FHFC must ensure the viability of the information submitted by applicants. If the information is “too old,” then it may no longer be relevant to the current application process. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for FHFC to utilize a six-month shelf life for USDA letters.7/ Furthermore, Mr. Reecy testified that excusing Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns’ noncompliance could lead to FHFC excusing all deviations from all other date requirements in future RFAs. In other words, applicants could essentially rewrite those portions of the RFA, and that would be an unreasonable result. Excusing the noncompliance of Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns could lead to a “slippery slope” in which any shelf- life requirement has no meaning. The letters utilized by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns were slightly more than six months old. But, exactly when would a letter become too old to satisfy the “shelf life” requirement? If three weeks can be excused today, will four weeks be excused next year? St. Elizabeth’s and Marian Towers’ Challenge St. Elizabeth is seeking low-income housing tax credit financing in order to acquire and preserve a 151-unit development for elderly residents in Broward County, Florida. Marian Towers is an applicant for RFA 2015-111 funding seeking low-income housing tax credits to acquire and preserve a 220-unit development for elderly residents in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The same developer is associated with the St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers projects. In its scoring and ranking process, FHFC assigned St. Elizabeth an RA Level of two. RFA 2015-111 requires that Applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter from HUD or the USDA with specific information. That information is then used to establish an RA Level for the proposed development. As noted above, the RFA requires the letter to contain several pieces of information, including: (a) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC; and (b) the total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development is funded. RFA 2015-111 provided that a development with at least 100 rental units would receive an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth included with its application a letter from HUD’s Miami field office stating in pertinent part that: Total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC: 99 units. Total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed Development is funded: 100 units*. The asterisk in the preceding paragraph directed readers of St. Elizabeth’s HUD letter to a paragraph stating that: HUD is currently processing a request from the owner to increase the number of units subsidized under a HAP Contract to 100 by transferring budget authority for the one additional unit from another Catholic Housing Services Section 8 project under Section 8(bb) in accordance with Notice H-2015-03. Because of the foregoing statement from HUD, FHFC concluded that St. Elizabeth did not have 100 units receiving rental assistance as of the application deadline. Accordingly, FHFC used 99 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance when calculating St. Elizabeth’s RA Level, and that led to FHFC assigning an RA Level of two to St. Elizabeth’s application.8/ If St. Elizabeth had been deemed eligible and if FHFC had used 100 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance, then St. Elizabeth would have received an RA Level of one. Given the application sorting order and the selection process outlined in RFA 2015-111, St. Elizabeth (with a lottery number of six) would have been recommended for funding by FHFC, and that outcome would have resulted in Intervenors Isles of Pahokee and Lummus Park losing their funding. St. Elizabeth asserted during the final hearing that the 100th unit had obtained rental assistance financing since the application deadline on December 4, 2015. However, FHFC could only review, score, and calculate St. Elizabeth’s RA Level based on the information available as of the application deadline. While St. Elizabeth argues that the asterisk paragraph sets forth a “condition,” Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Housing) agreed during the final hearing that the asterisk paragraph was more akin to information that was not explicitly required by RFA 2015-111. FHFC did not use that additional information to declare St. Elizabeth’s application ineligible for funding. Despite being assigned an RA Level of two, St. Elizabeth’s application still could have been selected for funding because RFA 2015-111 merely established RA Level as a basis for breaking ties among competing applications. However, too many applicants for RFA 2015-111 had identical scores, and RFA 2015-111’s use of RA Level as a tiebreaker forced St. Elizabeth’s application out of the running. Under the circumstances, FHFC’s treatment of St. Elizabeth’s application was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As noted above, tie- breakers are very important, because there is often very little to distinguish one application for tax credits from another. Given that there was a degree of uncertainty about whether St. Elizabeth’s would have 100 qualifying units, FHFC acted reasonably by assigning St. Elizabeth’s application an RA Level of two for this tie-breaker rather than an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers argue that other applications contained language that indicated a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, those other applications received an RA Level of one. For example, FHFC assigned an RA Level of one to Three Round and Haley Sofge even though their HUD letters stated that both developments would be “subject to a Subsidy Layering Review to be conducted by HUD.” Marian Towers argued that if FHFC does not accept HUD or RD letters containing conditional language about the number of units that will be subsidized, then FHFC should have assigned an RA Level of six to Three Round and Haley Sofge. If Three Round and Haley Sofge had been assigned an RA Level of six, then Marian Towers (with a lottery number of five) would have been recommended for funding. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers cited another instance in which an application received an RA Level of one, even though its application contained a letter from the RD program stating that “USDA Rural Development will consent to the transfer if all regulatory requirements are met.” (emphasis added). However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate that the language cited above applied only to those particular applications rather than to all applications for tax credits. For example, if all applications are subject to a subsidy layering review and compliance with all regulatory requirements, then inclusion of such language in a HUD letter (in and of itself) should not prevent an applicant from being assigned an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers also cited a HUD Letter used in another recent RFA by an applicant that received an RA Level of one. The HUD letter in question contained an asterisk followed by the following statement: “It is HUD’s understanding that two separate applications are being submitted – one for each tower comprising St. Andrew Towers. If funded, HUD will consider a request from the owner to bifurcate the St. Andrew Towers HAP contract in order to facilitate the separate financing of each tower.” However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate why the language quoted directly above should have resulted in the applicant in question being awarded an RA Level less than one. There is no indication that the total number of units receiving rental assistance would change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order awarding funding to Three Round Tower A, LLC; Cathedral Towers, Ltd; Isles of Pahokee Phase II, LLC; SP Manor, LLC; and Pineda Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G.W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has a disability (handicap), and, if so, was denied a reasonable accommodation for his disability by Respondents, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (FFHA), as amended.
Findings Of Fact The record in this discrimination case is extremely brief and consists only of a few comments by Mr. Homer, cross- examination by Respondents' counsel, and Respondents' exhibits. Petitioner resides at Golfside Villas, a condominium complex located in Winter Park, Florida. At hearing, Petitioner asserted that he suffers from a disability, narcolepsy, but he offered no competent evidence to support this claim. Thus, he does not fall within the class of persons protected against discrimination under the FFHA. Golfside is the condominium association comprised of unit owners that is responsible for the operation of the common elements of the property. Hara is the corporate entity that administers the association, while Mr. Michaud, a Hara employee, is the community manager. In September 2016, Mr. Homer became involved in a dispute with Golfside over late fees being charged to his association account and issues concerning ongoing repairs for water damage to his unit that were caused by flooding several years earlier. Because some of his telephone calls were not answered by "Lorie" (presumably a member of management staff), on September 23, 2016, Mr. Homer sent an email to Mr. Michaud, the community manager, expressing his displeasure with how his complaints were being handled. He also pointed out that "I have a disability." The email did not identify the nature of the disability, and it did not identify or request an accommodation for his alleged disability. There is no evidence that Respondents knew or should have known that Mr. Homer had a disability or the nature of the disability. Also, there is no evidence that narcolepsy is a physical impairment "which substantially limits one or more major life activities" so as to fall within the definition of a handicap under the FFHA. See § 760.22(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Here, Petitioner only contends that at times it causes him to speak loudly or yell at other persons. As a follow-up to his email, on September 26, 2016, Mr. Homer spoke by telephone with Mr. Michaud and reminded him to look into the complaints identified in his email. If a request for an accommodation ("work with me") was ever made, it must have occurred at that time, but no proof to support this allegation was presented. Mr. Homer acknowledged that he was told by Mr. Michaud that in the future, he must communicate by email with staff and board members rather than personally confronting them in a loud and argumentative manner. On September 26, 2016, Mr. Michaud sent a follow-up email to Mr. Homer informing him that he must "work with my staff, without getting loud or upset, no matter how frustrated you may be at the time." The email also directed staff to answer Mr. Homer's questions regarding repairs for water damage to his unit, to "look into some late charges on his account," and to "work with Mr. Homer to help him get both his unit and his account in order." On November 15, 2016, Mr. Homer filed his Complaint with the FCHR alleging that on September 26, 2016, Golfside, Hara, and Mr. Michaud had violated the FFHA by "collectively" denying his reasonable accommodation request. Later, a Petition for Relief was filed, which alleges that Gulfside and Hara (but not Mr. Michaud) committed the alleged housing violation. However, the findings and conclusions in this Recommended Order apply to all Respondents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 14th day of December, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) John Homer Unit 609 1000 South Semoran Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32792-5503 Candace W. Padgett, Esquire Vernis & Bowling of North Florida, P.A. 4309 Salisbury Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216-6123 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Suite 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are (1) whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation's (Florida Housing) intended decision to award low- income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in medium-size counties to Grove Manor Phase I, LTD (Grove Manor), JIC Grand Palms, LLC (Grand Palms), Madison Palms, Ltd. (Madison Palms), and RST The Pines, LP (The Pines), was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition; and (2) whether Florida Housing's determination that Brownsville Manor, LP (Brownsville), achieved the maximum available score of 28 points was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504. One of its responsibilities is to award low-income housing tax credits, which developers use to finance the construction of affordable housing. Tax credits are made available to states annually by the United States Treasury Department and are then awarded pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with Florida Housing's issuance of an RFA. On September 3, 2015, Florida Housing issued an RFA in which it expected to award up to an estimated $10,763,426.00 of tax credits for affordable housing developments in medium counties. The RFA also requested proposals for housing developments in small counties, but that portion of the RFA is not at issue. All applicants in this proceeding proposed developments in medium counties. They include Redding (Seminole County), HTG (Hernando County), Brownsville (Escambia), Grove Manor (Polk County), Grand Palms (Manatee County), Madison Palms (Brevard County), and The Pines (Volusia County). Florida Housing retained the right to "waive Minor Irregularities in an otherwise valid Application" filed pursuant to the RFA. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.008. A "minor irregularity" is defined as "a variation or condition of the Application pursuant to this rule chapter that does not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants, and does not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public." Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.002(6). These rules are particularly relevant in this case, as during the scoring process Florida Housing waived minor irregularities for several applicants. Florida Housing's Executive Director appointed a review committee comprised of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring. Ninety-eight applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA, administrative rules, and applicable federal regulations. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed "eligible," based on whether the application complies with various content requirements. Of the 98 applications filed in response to the RFA, 88 were found to be eligible, and ten were found ineligible. All applicants in this case were preliminarily deemed to have eligible applications and received a maximum score of 28 points. The RFA specifies a sorting order for funding eligible applicants. Recognizing that there would be more applications than available credits, Florida Housing established an order for funding for applicants with tied scores using a sequence of five tie breakers, with the last being a lottery number assigned by the luck of the draw. Applications with lower lottery numbers (closer to zero) are selected before those with higher lottery numbers. On January 29, 2016, Florida Housing posted a notice informing the participants that it intended to award funding to eight developments in medium counties, including those of Grove Manor, Grand Palms, Madison Palms, and The Pines. While the applications of HTG, Brownsville, and Redding were deemed to be eligible, they were not entitled to a preliminary award of funding because of their lottery number ranking. The randomly assigned lottery numbers of those applicants are as follows: HTG (14), Brownsville (16), and Redding (17). HTG and Redding timely filed formal written protests. HTG's protest is directed only at Grove Manor's application. Because Grove Manor agreed that its score should be adjusted downward, HTG is the next applicant in the funding range and should be awarded tax credits, assuming it successfully emerges from the credit underwriting process. No party has challenged the scoring of HTG's application. Redding's protest is directed at the applications of The Pines, Madison Palms, Grand Palms, and Grove Manor, who were selected for funding. Redding also contends that Brownsville, which has a lower lottery number, should have been deemed ineligible or assigned a lower score so that it would no longer be in the funding range. In an unusual twist of events that occurred after the posting of the notice on January 29, 2016, Madison Palms and Grove Manor agreed that they are either ineligible or out of the funding range. Therefore, assuming that adequate funds are available, in order for Redding to be awarded credits, it must establish that at least one of its remaining targets (Grand Palms, Brownsville, and The Pines) is ineligible or should be assigned fewer points. No party has challenged the scoring of Redding's application. Under the RFA, applicants are awarded points in three categories: general development experience, local government contributions, and proximity to services. Depending on whether family or elderly units are being proposed, to obtain proximity to service points, an applicant may select among several types of community services, including transit, a grocery store, a medical facility, a pharmacy, or a public school. Redding has challenged the number of proximity points awarded to The Pines for proximity to a medical facility and public school, Grand Palms for proximity to a pharmacy, and Brownsville for proximity to a public bus transfer stop. Based on Florida Housing's preliminary review of the applications, all three achieved a total proximity score of 18 points. The RFA requires that an applicant submit a Surveyor Certification Form with its application. The form identifies a Development Location Point (DLP), which is representative of where the development is located and must be on or within 100 feet of an existing residential building or a building to be constructed. The DLP is represented by a latitude and longitude coordinate. The distance from the DLP to the selected service is how the proximity points are awarded. The services on which an applicant intends to rely must also be identified on the form, along with the location of the service, as well as the latitude and longitude coordinates for each service. The RFA requires that the coordinates "represent a point that is on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the building where the service is located." Jt. Ex. 1, p. 25. Redding contends that the coordinates for certain services selected by The Pines, Grand Palms, and Brownsville are not on the "doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the building where the service is located." Accordingly, it argues that the number of proximity points awarded to each applicant must be lowered. The Pines selected a public school that has no doors allowing direct public access to the facility. Instead, the school is a series of buildings and classrooms connected by sidewalks and covered breezeways, making a primary "doorway threshold" problematic. The office is interior to the school. Given this unusual configuration, The Pines placed the coordinates at a student drop-off area in front of the school, where students then walk under the covered breezeways to their classrooms, and members of the public walk to offices and/or classrooms. Even if Redding's desired point for the coordinates was used, there would be no difference in the awarded proximity points, as the change in distance would be minimal. The coordinates for The Pines' medical facility are approximately 90 feet from the door that provides direct public access. This was due to an error by the surveyor, who used the back of the facility, rather than the front doorway threshold. Even if the front door had been used for the threshold, The Pines would still be entitled to the same amount of proximity points, as the change in distance would be minimal and not change the scoring. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Brownsville selected a public bus transfer stop for its transit service. Due more than likely to a digital error in one of the satellites used to pinpoint the spot, the coordinates were approximately 150 feet from the canopy where passengers load and unload. Even if the correct point had been used, it would not change the amount of proximity points awarded to Brownsville. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Finally, Grand Palms selected a pharmacy for one of its services. During the process of locating the doorway threshold at the pharmacy, a traverse point was established 70 feet east of the doorway threshold. This was necessary because of an overhang above the doorway threshold. A measurement was then made from the traverse point to the doorway threshold. By mistake, the coordinates on the form represented the location of the traverse point, instead of the doorway threshold of the pharmacy. However, this 70-foot error did not affect the distance from the pharmacy to the DLP or the points awarded to Grand Palms for proximity to a pharmacy. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Florida Housing determined that the coordinates used by The Pines, Brownsville, and Grand Palms yielded the same proximity point score had they been located at the "doorway threshold" and/or "embark/disembark location" as defined in the RFA. Because there is no language in the RFA that provides direction on how to treat these types of minor errors, or mandates that Florida Housing treat them as a non-waivable item, Florida Housing considers them to be a minor irregularity that can be waived. In sum, the deviations were immaterial, no competitive advantage was realized by the applicants, and they were entitled to the proximity points awarded during the preliminary review. Redding also contends that Brownsville is ineligible for funding because it failed to comply with a material requirement in the RFA. In its application, Brownsville stated that it intends to place an 87-unit development on a "scattered site" consisting of two parcels (Site I and Site II) with an intervening roadway (North X Street) between them. The RFA defines a development which consists of a scattered site "to mean a single point on the site with the most units that is located within 100 feet of a residential building existing or to be constructed as part of the required Development." Jt. Ex. 1, p. 25. Stated another way, if multiple parcels are used for the development, the DLP must be located on the site which contains the majority of the residential units. Florida Housing considers this to be a material, non-waivable requirement of the RFA. In Brownsville's Surveyor Certification Form, the DLP is located on Site I, a 1.49-acre parcel that is zoned Commercial and lies west of Site II. In making its preliminary decision to award funding to Brownsville, Florida Housing relied upon the validity of the DLP as of the application deadline and assumed that Site I would have the majority of the units. It had no way to verify the accuracy of that information during the initial scoring process. The RFA requires an applicant to attach to its application a form entitled, "Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations." Brownsville's verification form was signed by Horace L. Jones, Director of Development Services for Escambia County, who confirmed that the intended use of the property was consistent with local zoning regulations. The verification forms do not include any information regarding the number of units on each parcel of the site. Florida Housing defers to the local government in determining whether local zoning requirements will be met. Mr. Jones later testified by deposition that Escambia County zoning regulations allow only "25 dwelling units per acre" on Site I. Therefore, on a 1.49-acre parcel, the maximum number of units allowed is 36, or less than a majority of the 87 units. Because Brownsville did not comply with a material requirement of the RFA for a scattered site, Florida Housing now considers the DLP for proximity purposes to be invalid. Had it concluded otherwise, Brownsville would be given a competitive advantage over the other applicants. Brownsville contends, however, that during the County site review process, it will utilize a procedure by which the County can consider the two parcels as a "Single Unified Development" and "cluster" the dwelling units. Although the County has a process to allow the transfer of density from one parcel to another, Brownsville had not started this process as of October 15, 2015, the due date for all applications and the cutoff date for any changes. Also, this process would entail a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners (Board), and there is no guarantee that the Board would approve the density transfer. In fact, Mr. Jones testified that he was not sure if the density transfer was even a viable option. Therefore, the application of Brownsville contains a material deviation from the RFA and is not eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order rescinding the preliminary award to Grove Manor Phase I, Ltd. and Madison Palms, Ltd.; determining that Brownsville Manor, LP, is ineligible for funding; and designating HTG Hammock Ridge, LLC, and Redding Development Partners, LLC, as the recipients of tax credits being made available for developments in RFA 1015-106. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Kate Fleming, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Betty C. Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 340 1725 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308-1591 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1706 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive an allocation of affordable housing funds from the Florida Housing Finance Corporation as a result of the alleged improper scoring of another applicant's application during the 2001 funding cycle.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing and the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership that is engaged in the business of developing affordable housing projects. FHFC is a statutorily-created public corporation. It is the State's designated "housing credit agency," and it is responsible for the allocation of tax credits and the distribution of other funds for the development of affordable housing projects. FHFC is administratively housed in the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and it is governed by a nine-member board. Eight members of the board are appointed by the Governor; the ninth member of the board is the Secretary of DCA, who serves in an ex officio capacity. FHFC Programs The programs administered by FHFC include the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits Program (Housing Credits Program). The funds from the SAIL Program are used to provide low-interest loans to developers. The funds come from various sources of state revenue, and the loans are typically secured by a second mortgage on the property on which the affordable housing project is developed. The Housing Credits Program is governed by federal law, namely Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. The program provides dollar-for-dollar federal tax credits to developers that can be used over a 10-year period so long as the related affordable housing project satisfies the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code throughout that period. The tax credits can be, and often are sold or "syndicated" by the developer in order to generate the funds necessary to construct the project. Each state receives an annual allotment of tax credits from the federal government to be used in its Housing Credits Program. For 2001, Florida's allocation of tax credits was approximately $23.9 million, of which approximately $20.7 million was available for allocation. FHFC received requests totaling approximately $81.3 million in the 2001 funding cycle for the available $20.7 million in tax credits Some of the available tax credits are apportioned by FHFC into a "set-aside" for projects in small counties. Only projects located in small counties compete for the tax credits in the small county set-aside. For 2001, the small county set-aside was $1,739,586.90, and FHFC received requests for those funds totaling approximately $5.5 million. FHFC Evaluation Process Because the funds requested from the SAIL Program and the Housing Credits Program typically exceed the available funds (as was the case in 2001), FHFC has established a competitive application process through which the applications are evaluated, scored, and ranked. The applications are first reviewed for all of the "threshold" items identified in the application forms and FHFC’s rules. If an application does not have all of the threshold items, it is rejected. By contrast, the failure to include non- threshold items or the failure to provide complete, consistent, and accurate information in the format and location prescribed in the application forms results in the application not receiving the full amount of points available or the imposition of a penalty that reduces the overall score given to the application. Next, FHFC staff reviews all of the applications that were not rejected for omitting a threshold item. That review results in a “preliminary score” for each application, which is provided to all of the applicants. Then, there is a 10-day period in which applicants may challenge FHFC's preliminary scoring of their application or the preliminary scoring of any other applicant's application. Such a challenge is called a Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE). FHFC provides each applicant the NOPSEs relating to its application as well as a statement of FHFC's position on the NOPSE. The applicants are then given a period of time -- referred to as the "cure period" -- to submit additional documentation, revised forms or other information they deem appropriate to address the issues raised in the NOPSEs, FHFC's comments on the NOPSEs, and/or FHFC's preliminary scoring of the application. The additional submittals are referred to as "cures." After the cures are submitted, the applicants again have an opportunity to bring deficiencies in competing applications to FHFC's attention. The mechanism for doing so is a Notice of Alleged Deficiency (NOAD). After reviewing the cures and any NOADs, FHFC staff prepares a revised score for each application. This score is referred to as the “pre-appeal score.” Along with the pre-appeal scores, each applicant is given notice of its right to challenge its score through a formal administrative proceeding at the Division or through an informal proceeding before a hearing officer appointed by FHFC. Most applicants opt for an informal hearing because, as a result of the time constraints imposed by the funding cycle, those who opt for a formal hearing will not be funded until a subsequent cycle if they prevail at the hearing. After all of the informal hearings are completed and any scoring adjustments are made based upon the results of those hearings, the applications are ranked based upon their “post- appeal scores.” The post-appeal scores and rankings are approved by the FHFC board and are used to award the available funds. The standards and procedures for ranking applications for tax credits are set forth in the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). The QAP is required by the Internal Revenue Code and it is adopted and incorporated by reference in FHFC's rules. Among other things, the QAP establishes the priority of applications which receive the same scores. That priority is established through two "tie-breakers." The first tie-breaker is whether the application is in Group A or Group B, and the second tie-breaker is a random lottery number assigned to the application prior to the final rankings. The group into which the application falls is determined based upon the Corporation Funding per Set-aside Unit (CFSU) amount identified on Form 10 of the application. Group A includes the 65 percent of the applications that have the lowest CFSU amounts. Applications in Group A receive priority over applications in Group B in the event that the applications receive the same final score. For applications in the same group with the same score, priority is given to the application with the lower lottery number. 2001 Combined Cycle Generally The 2001 funding cycle was referred to as a "combined cycle" because it combined the SAIL Program, the Housing Credits Program, and another program not implicated in this case called the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME Program), into a single application and review process. The application package for the 2001 Combined Cycle included 23 numbered forms, not all of which were applicable to every applicant. The applications submitted in the 2001 Combined Cycle, including those submitted by Petitioner and TWC, were reviewed and scored in accordance with the procedures described above. Relevant Forms Form 1 of the application is entitled "Applicant and Development Data." Page 10 of Form 1 includes the following statements: The Applicant and all Financial Beneficiaries understand and agree that full points will be awarded only in the event that all information required by each form is provided in accordance with the Application requirements. Failure to provide complete, consistent and accurate information in the format and location prescribed by the Application will result in a REDUCTION OF POINTS OR REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION as indicated on each form. Only information contained within the Application will be considered for purposes of points awarded or appealed. . . . . Form 5 of the application is entitled "Local Government Contributions." Page 1 of Form 5 states that: Each applicable verification form must have an Original signature by one of the designated signatories indicated on the appropriate verification form. Zero points will be awarded if Applicant uses the incorrect form or if the form is not signed by one of the designated signatories. Separate verification forms are included in Form 5 for the different types of local government contributions. There are separate verification forms for grants (Form 5, page 6), fee waivers (Form 5, page 7), loans (Form 5, page 8), tax exempt bond financing (Form 5, page 9), “other contributions” (Form 5, page 10), and exemptions from ad valorem taxation (Form 5, page 11). The verification form for fee waivers states that “[n]o credit will be given for fee waivers unless the computations by which the total amount of each waiver is determined accompanies this verification form in the Application.” That same language is not included on the verification form for "other contributions”; however, that verification form includes a sentence stating that “[t]he amount of this contribution was calculated as shown behind the tab labeled ‘Form 5, Exhibit .’” The verification form for “other contributions” also includes the following statement: THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, COUNTY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR, CHAIRPERSON OF THE CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION OR CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. . . . . OTHER SIGNATORIES ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE APPLICANT WILL NOT RECEIVE CREDIT FOR THIS CONTRIBUTION IF THE VERIFICATION FORM IS IMPROPERLY SIGNED AND/OR DOES NOT HAVE AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. Form 6 of the application is entitled "Local Government Planning Efforts." Pages 2 and 3 of Form 6 are the verification forms for any affordable housing incentives being offered for the project by the applicable local government. Both pages include the following statement: This form must be signed by the MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, COUNTY MANAGER/ADMINISTRATOR, OR CHAIRPERSON of the CITY COUNCIL/COMMISSION OR CHAIRPERSON of the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. OTHER SIGNATORIES ARE UNACCEPTABLE. ZERO POINTS WILL BE AWARDED. . . . . The application and all of these forms are adopted and incorporated by reference in FHFC's rules. Applications Submitted by Petitioner and TWC Petitioner submitted an application for an allocation of $561,000 in tax credits and for an award of funding under the SAIL Program for its proposed Ochlocknee Pointe development in Gadsden County. Petitioner's application was designated by FHFC as No. 01-131CS. A competing application for $890,000 in tax credits was filed by TWC for its proposed Windsong II development in Columbia County. TWC's application did not seek funding under the SAIL Program. TWC’s application was designated by FHFC as No. 01-125C. Neither Petitioner nor TWC applied for funds under the HOME Program. Because of their locations, the applications submitted by Petitioner and TWC were competing for the tax credits available in the small county set-aside. There were also seven other applicants competing for the tax credits in the small county set-aside. Alleged Deficiencies in TWC's Application and Initial Scoring by FHFC Staff Form 5 of TWC's original application indicated that the project had not received any local government contributions. As a result, the original application did not include any executed local government contribution verification forms. Form 6 of TWC's original application did not identify any affordable housing incentives being offered by the local governments. As a result, the original application did not include any executed verifications forms for such incentives. As part of its cure submittals, TWC submitted a revised Form 5 and a revised Form 6. The revisions were made because TWC had received verification of local government contributions and affordable housing incentives. The revisions included executed verification forms for Form 5 (page 10)1 and for Form 6 (pages 2 and 3). The verification forms at issue in this proceeding were executed by Dale Williams; the title listed for Mr. Williams was County Coordinator. A letter signed by Mr. Williams was included along with the “other contributions” verification form (Form 5, page 10). The letter was on the letterhead of the Board of County Commissioners of Columbia County and includes the words "County Coordinator" under Mr. Williams name and signature. The letter was designated as and included in the cure submittal behind a tab marked "Form 5, Exhibit A." The letter states that "Columbia County will provide the installation of roadway turn lanes at Branford Highway to service Windsong II Apartments for a contribution equivalent to a total value of $102,000." The letter does not include any calculations showing how the “total value of $102,000” was computed, and no such calculation was included elsewhere in TWC's cure submittals. There is nothing in TWC’s cure submittals that explained the nature of the County Coordinator position or stated that Columbia County does not have a County Manager/Administrator designated as such. TWC was not awarded four points on Form 6 because County Coordinator was not specifically listed along with “City Manager, County Manager/Administrator, or Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners” as an authorized signatory for that form. For that same reason, TWC also was not awarded any points on Form 5 for the $102,000 local government contribution referred to in Mr. Williams' letter. That contribution was worth 7.64 points. TWC was also penalized 1.5 points on Form 5 because no documentation was provided showing how the "total value of $102,000" was calculated for the local government contribution described in Mr. Williams' letter. These scoring determinations were made by Debra King, the FHFC staff person who reviewed TWC’s application and cure submittals, and they were concurred in by Ms. King’s “scoring partner.” Scoring Appeals by Petitioner and TWC FHFC completed the scoring process for the 2001 Combined Cycle on August 1, 2001, when it advised the applicants of their pre-appeal scores. TWC's pre-appeal score was 608.86, which included the penalty and point reductions described above. Petitioner's pre-appeal score was 620.5, which included a 1.5 point penalty for Petitioner’s failure to specify a unit of measurement on Form 7. TWC and Petitioner both requested informal hearings to challenge their pre-appeal scores. Those hearings, which are commonly referred to as “scoring appeals,” were conducted by hearing officers appointed by FHFC. At the informal hearing on TWC’s scoring appeal, FHFC conceded that Mr. Williams was an authorized signatory for Forms 5 and 6 because, as the "County Coordinator," Mr. Williams was the de facto County Manager/Administrator for Columbia County. FHFC also conceded that documentation relating to the computation of the $102,000 in roadway improvement being contributed by Columbia County was not necessary because it was a lump-sum contribution. FHFC agreed to re-score TWC's application in light of those concessions. The concession that Mr. Williams was an authorized signatory was based upon FHFC staff's review of the job description for the County Coordinator position and the organizational chart for Columbia County attached to TWC's Petition for Informal Administrative Hearing as well as phone calls that FHFC staff made to Columbia County after receiving that information to confirm that the county did not have a County Manager/Administrator designated as such. The concession that a document showing how the local government contribution was calculated was based upon FHFC staff’s review of excerpts from prior applications that were attached to TWC’s Petition for Informal Administrative Hearing. Those applications apparently received full points for their “other contributions” even though they did not include detailed calculations for the contributions; however, almost all of the excerpts showed at least a general breakdown of the items which made up the total shown on the verification form. As a result of FHFC's concessions, the hearing officer concluded that the TWC’s scoring appeal was "moot" and she issued a Recommended Order which contained no findings of fact or conclusions of law. The hearing officer's Recommended Order, which FHFC adopted in toto as its Final Order, recommended that TWC's application "be rescored to reflect the removal of the 1.5-point penalty to Form 5; to add 7.64 points to Form 5; and to add 4 points to Form 6." The net effect of that rescoring was that TWC's application received a post-appeal score of 622. Petitioner did not fare as well in its scoring appeal. The hearing officer made the following findings of fact with respect to the 1.5-point penalty assessed based upon Petitioner's failure to specify the unit of measure on Form 7: Form 7, Page 11, is entitled "Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulation." On Page 11 of Form 7, there is a requirement to state the "Size of Parcel (acreage, number of lots, or square footage)." In its Revised Page 11 of Form 7 [Petitioner], in response to that requirement entered the numbers "9.99" without any accompanying unit of measure. It is clear from a review of other pertinent parts of the application that the appropriate unit of measure to accompany the number "9.99" is "acres." Further, its [sic] reasonable to conclude on the face of [Petitioner's] Revised Page 11 of Form 7, when read in conjunction with the entire application . . . , that the number "9.99" refers to acres. (Citations omitted). Despite those findings, the hearing officer recommended that the 1.5-point penalty be affirmed. That recommendation was based primarily on the following conclusion of law: The instructions on Page 11 of Form 7 require a unit of measure be appended to the number of units placed in the answer blank. While it may be true that such a result is particularly frustrating to the applicant in light of the reality that its omission has created no confusion or inconsistency nor diminished the accuracy of the application, [FHFC] has nevertheless adopted rules requiring strict compliance with regard to providing complete information in the format and location prescribed by the instructions on the forms. That rule cannot be ignored. Thus, the failure of [Petitioner] to include a unit of measure on its Revised Page 11 of Form 7 is an error that does result in a single 1.5-point penalty. FHFC adopted the hearing officer's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation in toto as its Final Order, and Petitioner did not seek judicial review of the Final Order. As a result, Petitioner's pre-appeal score of 620.5 became its post-appeal score. Petitioner's application was in Group B, and its lottery number was 68. TWC's application was in Group A, and its lottery number was 27. Thus, in the event that Petitioner and TWC received the same final score, priority for funding would be given to TWC. If Petitioner's application had received a higher score than TWC's application, then Petitioner's application would have been in the "funding range" and Petitioner would have received an allocation of tax credits for its project. If Petitioner had received the tax credits, it would have also received SAIL funding. The record does not reflect the total amount of tax credits and SAIL funding that Petitioner would have received; however, if TWC's application was moved below Petitioner's application on the final funding list (Exhibit R2), then $339,164.90 in tax credits would have been available to Petitioner after the higher-ranked applicants were fully funded.2 Additional Facts Established at the De Novo Final Hearing in this Case The $102,000 “total value” for the roadway improvements referred to in Mr. Williams' letter is reasonable. Indeed, the itemized cost-estimate prepared by professional engineer Greg Bailey in the design phase for the improvements was $106,064. The $102,000 in roadway improvements cannot be characterized as a lump-sum contribution. As Mr. Bailey’s cost- estimate shows, the improvements include 16 components such as paving, grading, and drainage; and a cost-per-unit and an estimated quantity is listed for each component. At the time Mr. Bailey prepared the cost-estimate, he was working for C&W Land Trust. Accordingly to one of the documents in TWC’s application (Form 7, Exhibit A), C&W Land Trust was the landowner from whom TWC acquired the property where its Windsong II project will be located. Mr. Bailey provided the cost-estimate to the county engineer for Columbia County for his use in evaluating bids submitted for the construction of the roadway improvements. The county engineer forwarded a memo to Mr. Williams on June 14, 2001, stating that the construction cost for the improvements “is estimated to be $102,000.00.” Requiring documentation to support the calculation of a local government contribution is important because it helps prevent an applicant from “gaming” the system in order gain an advantage in the scoring of its application. For example, where the contribution is based upon a per-unit amount, the calculations help to ensure that the number of units committed by the applicant as a basis for the local government contribution is the same number of units committed by the applicant in the application to FHFC. Documentation showing the calculation of the $102,000 local government contribution referenced in Mr. Williams letter is equally important because without such documentation there was no way for FHFC to determine during its review whether that figure is a reasonable estimate of the cost of the roadway improvements which are being contributed by Columbia County. It is necessary for FHFC to be able to make such a determination because the points awarded to the applicant for the contribution are based in large part on the amount of the contribution. At the time that TWC submitted the verification forms and letter signed by Mr. Williams, Columbia County did not have a position called County Manager or County Administrator. The County Coordinator position was the de facto County Manager/Administrator. The County Coordinator was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to "administer all programs and to ensure that County government operates efficiently and effectively." The County Coordinator reported directly to the Board of County Commissioners and, among other duties, the position supervised all department heads (except the head of Public Works Department) and provided "direction, leadership and supervision to all County Department heads." Presently, Columbia County has a County Manager and Mr. Williams serves in that position. The job duties for the County Manager position are virtually identical to those of the County Coordinator position. Indeed, even though text of the position description no longer excepts the Public Works Department from Mr. William’s supervision, the county’s organizational chart still shows the Public Works Department outside of Mr. Williams chain of command.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation issue a final order which determines that Petitioner is entitled to an allocation/award of tax credits and SAIL funds in the next available cycle. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 30th day of March, 2004.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a portion of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a limited partnership and developer of affordable housing in Florida. The Petitioner is seeking to construct a 116-unit affordable housing family apartment complex ("Elmwood Terrace") in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner has standing to initiate and participate in this proceeding. The Respondent is a public corporation organized under Chapter 420, Florida Statutes (2010), to administer state programs that provide financial support to developers seeking to construct affordable housing. Such support is provided through a variety of mechanisms, including the use of federal tax credits. The federal tax credit program was created in 1986 to promote the construction and operation of privately-developed affordable housing. The tax credits relevant to this proceeding provide a dollar-for-dollar credit against federal tax liabilities for a period of ten years. The Respondent is the designated Florida agency responsible for distribution of the federal tax credits. The tax credits are awarded pursuant to a "Qualified Allocation Plan" (QAP) that must be annually approved by the Governor and adopted as an administrative rule by the Respondent. As a matter of course, developers receiving the federal tax credits sell them through syndicators for discounted cash. The sale of the tax credits generates debt-free cash equity for developers. Developers seeking financial support to build affordable housing units submit applications to the Respondent during an annual competitive process known as the "Universal Cycle." Every three years, the Respondent commissions a study (the "Shimberg Report"), which measures, within each Florida county, the number of "cost-burden" renters earning 60 percent or less of an area's median income (AMI) who pay more than 40 percent of their income in rent. The AMI is determined by the federal government. The cost-burden households are further classified into four groups: families, the elderly, farm workers, and commercial fishermen. The Shimberg Report also assesses needs related to homeless people in the state. Developers seeking to obtain affordable housing financing are required to set aside a portion of the proposed units for income-limited residents. Access to affordable housing units is generally targeted towards persons receiving no more than 60 percent of the AMI. The Universal Cycle process allows the Respondent to target specific housing deficiencies in terms of geographic availability and population demographics and to preserve the stock of existing affordable housing. During the Universal Cycle process, the Respondent identifies areas where additional affordable housing is unnecessary, to discourage additional development in weak markets and to encourage development in those locations where there is a lack of access to affordable housing. The Respondent classifies areas where there is little need for additional affordable housing as "Location A" areas. Each application filed during the Universal Cycle is evaluated, scored, and competitively ranked against other applications filed during the same Universal Cycle. After the Respondent completes the competitive ranking of the applications submitted in the Universal Cycle, the applicants are provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the evaluation and scoring of the proposals. Applicants may also cure defects in their own proposals. After the close of the review and comment period, the Respondent publishes a revised competitive ranking of the proposals. Developers may challenge the second ranking through an administrative hearing. After the second ranking process is final, developers achieving an acceptable score receive preliminary funding commitments and proceed into a "credit underwriting" evaluation process. The credit underwriting process is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. The Respondent selects an independent credit underwriter who reviews each proposal according to requirements set forth by administrative rule (the "Credit Underwriting Rule"). The cost of the credit underwriting review is paid by the developer. The credit underwriter considers all aspects of the proposed development, including financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning verification, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. The responsibility for the market study is assigned by the credit underwriter to an independent market analyst. The credit underwriter prepares a report for each applicant invited into the process. The reports are submitted to the Respondent's nine-member, statutorily-created Board of Directors (Board). The Board approves or denies each application for financial support. The Petitioner applied for funds for the Elmwood Terrace project during the 2007 Universal Cycle. The Petitioner's application received a perfect score, maximum points, and was allocated tax credits in the amount of $1,498,680. The Petitioner thereafter entered the credit underwriting process. The credit underwriting analysis was performed by Seltzer Management Group (SMG). SMG contracted with a market analyst, Vogt, Williams & Bowen Research, Inc. (VWB), to prepare the required market study. The affordable units at Elmwood Terrace were initially intended for persons receiving incomes no more than 60 percent of the AMI. The VWB research indicated that the Elmwood Terrace project would adversely affect the existing affordable housing developments, if the Elmwood Terrace units were available to the 60 percent AMI population. The existing affordable housing developments, also serving the 60 percent AMI population, included two developments that had participated in the Respondent's "Guarantee Fund" program, addressed elsewhere herein. VWB determined that the impact of the Elmwood Terrace project on the existing developments could be ameliorated were some of the Elmwood Terrace units targeted during "lease-up" to persons at income levels of not more than 50 percent of the AMI. The lease-up period is the time required for a new development to reach anticipated occupancy levels. The issue was the subject of discussions between the Petitioner, VWB, and SMG. To resolve the anticipated negative impact on the existing affordable housing developments, the Petitioner agreed to target the 50 percent AMI population. In September 2008, the credit underwriter issued his report and recommended that the Petitioner receive the previously-allocated tax credits. On September 22, 2008, the Respondent's Board accepted the credit underwriting report and followed the recommendation. In the fall of 2008, after the Petitioner received the tax credits, the nation's economic environment deteriorated considerably. As a result, the syndicator with whom the Petitioner had been working to sell the tax credits advised that the sale would not occur. The Petitioner was unable to locate an alternate purchaser for the tax credits. The Petitioner considered altering the target population of the project in an attempt to attract a buyer for the tax credits, and there were discussions with the Respondent about the option, but there was no credible evidence presented that such an alteration would have resulted in the sale of the Petitioner's tax credits. Lacking a buyer for the tax credits, the Petitioner was unable to convert the credits to cash, and they were of little value in providing funds for the project. The Petitioner was not alone in its predicament, and many other developers who received tax credits in the 2007 and 2008 Universal Cycles found themselves unable to generate cash through the sale of their tax credits. In early 2009, Congress adopted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111-5), referred to herein as ARRA, which incorporated a broad range of economic stimulus activities. Included within the ARRA was the "Tax Credit Exchange Program" that provided for the return by the appropriate state agency of a portion of the unused tax credits in exchange for a cash distribution of 85 percent of the tax credit value. The State of Florida received $578,701,964 through the Tax Credit Exchange Program. The ARRA also provided additional funds to state housing finance agencies through a "Tax Credit Assistance Program" intended to "resume funding of affordable housing projects across the nation while stimulating job creation in the hard-hat construction industry." On July 31, 2009, the Respondent issued a Request for Proposals (RFP 2009-04) to facilitate the distribution of the ARRA funds. The Respondent issued the RFP because the 2009 QAP specifically required the Respondent to allocate the relevant federal funds by means of a "competitive request for proposal or competitive application process as approved by the board." The 2009 QAP was adopted as part of the 2009 Universal Cycle rules. Projects selected for funding through the RFP would be evaluated through the routine credit underwriting process. Participation in the RFP process was limited to developers who held an "active award" of tax credits as of February 17, 2009, and who were unable to close on the sale of the credits. The RFP included restrictions against proposals for development within areas designated as "Location A." Although the location of the Elmwood Terrace project had not been within an area designated as "Location A" during the 2007 Universal Cycle process, the Respondent had subsequently designated the area as "Location A" by the time of the 2009 Universal Cycle. The RFP also established occupancy standards for projects funded under the RFP that exceeded the standards established in the Universal Cycle instructions and an evaluation process separate from the Universal Cycle requirements. Although the restrictions in the RFP would have automatically precluded the Petitioner from being awarded funds, the Petitioner submitted a response to the RFP and then filed a successful challenge to the RFP specifications (DOAH Case No. 09-4682BID). In a Recommended Order issued on November 12, 2009, the Administrative law Judge presiding over the RFP challenge determined that certain provisions of the RFP, including the automatic rejection of Location A projects, the increased occupancy standards, and the RFP evaluation criteria, were invalid. The Respondent adopted the Recommended Order by a Final Order issued on December 4, 2009, and invited the Petitioner into the credit underwriting process by a letter dated December 9, 2009. The credit underwriter assigned to analyze the Petitioner's project was SMG, the same credit underwriter that performed the original analysis of the Petitioner's project during the 2007 Universal Cycle. SMG retained Meridian Appraisal Group, Inc. (Meridian), to prepare the required market study. The Respondent was not consulted regarding the SMG decision to retain Meridian for the market analysis. The decision to retain Meridian for the market analysis was entirely that of SMG. The Respondent did not direct SMG or Meridian in any manner regarding the assessment or evaluation of any negative impact of the proposed project on existing affordable housing developments. Meridian completed the market study and forwarded it to SMG on January 26, 2010. The Meridian market analysis included a review of the relevant data as well as consideration of the actual economic conditions experienced in Lee County, Florida, including the extremely poor performance of the existing housing stock, as well as significant job losses and considerable unemployment. The Meridian market analysis determined that the Elmwood Terrace development would have a negative impact on two existing affordable housing apartment developments that were underwritten by the Respondent through a Guarantee Fund created at Section 420.5092, Florida Statutes, by the Florida Legislature in 1992. The existing Guarantee Fund properties referenced in the SMG recommendation are "Bernwood Trace" and "Westwood," both family-oriented apartment developments within five miles of the Elmwood Terrace location. The Guarantee Fund essentially obligates the Respondent to satisfy mortgage debt with the proceeds of Florida's documentary stamp taxes, if an affordable housing development is unable to generate sufficient revenue to service the debt. Because the Guarantee Fund program essentially serves to underwrite the repayment of mortgage debt for a "guaranteed" affordable housing development, the program increases the availability, and lowers the cost, of credit for developers. The Guarantee Fund program has participated in the financing of more than 100 projects, most of which closed between 1999 and 2002. Since 2005, the Respondent has not approved any additional Guarantee Fund participation in any affordable housing developments. The Respondent's total risk exposure through the Guarantee Fund is approximately 750 million dollars. Prior to October 2008, no claims were made against the Guarantee Fund. Since November 2008, there have been eight claims filed against the Guarantee Fund. Affordable housing financing includes restrictions that mandate the inclusion of a specific number of affordable housing units. Such restrictions are eliminated through foreclosure proceedings, and, accordingly, access to affordable housing units can be reduced if a development fails. Presuming that the eight claims pending against the Guarantee Fund eventually proceeded through foreclosure, as many as 2,300 residential units could be deducted from the stock of affordable housing. When there is a claim on the Guarantee Fund, the Respondent has to assume payment of the mortgage debt. The claims are paid from the Guarantee Fund capital, which is detrimental to the Respondent's risk-to-capital ratio. The risk-to-capital ratio is presently four to one. The maximum risk-to-capital ratio acceptable to rating agencies is five to one. The eight claims against the Guarantee Fund have ranged between ten and 18 million dollars each. The Respondent's bond rating has declined because of the eight claims. A continued decline in the Respondent's bond rating could result in documentary stamp tax receipts being used for payment of Guarantee Fund claims and directed away from the Respondent's programs that are intended to support the creation of affordable housing. In an effort to prevent additional claims against the Guarantee Fund, the Respondent has created the "Subordinate Mortgage Initiative" to provide assistance in the form of two- year loans to troubled Guarantee Fund properties. When preparing the 2010 market study, Meridian did not review the VWB market analysis performed as part of the 2007 application. Although the Petitioner has asserted that Meridian should have reviewed the 2007 VWB analysis, there is no evidence that Meridian's decision to conduct an independent market study without reference to the prior market review was inappropriate. On February 8, 2010, SMG issued a recommendation that the Petitioner's funding request be denied "because of the proposed development's potential financial impacts on developments in the area previously funded by Florida Housing and an anticipated negative impact to the two Guarantee Fund properties located within five miles of the proposed development." There is no evidence that the Meridian analysis was inadequate or improperly completed. There is no evidence that the SMG's reliance on the Meridian analysis was inappropriate. For purposes of this Order, the Meridian analysis and the SMG credit underwriting report have been accepted. Elmwood Terrace, a newer development with newer amenities, would compete for residents with the Bernwood Trace and Westwood developments. The financing for Bernwood Trace and Westwood was premised on projections that the affordable housing units would be leased to the 60 percent AMI population; however, the developments have been unable to maintain full occupancy levels, even though a number of units in the two properties are leased at reduced rates based on 50 percent AMI income levels. A rent reduction implemented by an existing development, whether based on economic conditions or resulting from competition, constitutes a negative impact on the development. There is no credible evidence that the occupancy rates are attributable to any difficulty in management of the two developments. It is reasonable to conclude that the leasing issues are related to economic conditions present in Lee County, Florida. In January 2010, VWB conducted an alternative market analysis. The VWB analysis was not provided to SMG or to the Respondent at any time during the credit underwriting process. Based on the 2010 VWB analysis, the Petitioner asserted that economic conditions in Lee County, Florida, have improved since the first credit underwriting report was completed in 2008 and that the improvement is expected to continue. There is no noteworthy evidence that economic conditions have improved or will significantly improve in the Lee County, Florida, market in the predictable future, and the VWB analysis is rejected. The Petitioner offered to mitigate any negative impact on the Guarantee Fund properties by committing affordable units to 50 percent AMI income levels. Given the existing economic and rental market conditions in Lee County, Florida, the evidence fails to establish that the offer would actually alleviate the negative impact on the affected Guarantee Fund developments. The 2010 VWB analysis states that there is substantial unmet demand for housing at 50 percent AMI and that there will be no impact on the Guarantee Fund units if the Elmwood Terrace units were set aside for such individuals. There is no credible evidence that there is a substantial and relevant unmet affordable housing demand in Lee County, Florida. The VWB analysis is rejected. Following the completion of each annual Universal Cycle process, the Respondent actively solicits feedback from developers and the public and then amends the Universal Cycle requirements to address the issues raised, as well as to reflect existing affordable housing needs and general concerns of the Board. The amendments are applicable for the following Universal Cycle. In 2009, the Respondent amended subsection (10) of the Credit Underwriting Rule as part of the annual revisions to the Universal Cycle process. The relevant amendment (referred to by the parties as the "Impact Rule") added this directive to the credit underwriter: The Credit Underwriter must review and determine whether there will be a negative impact to Guarantee Fund Developments within the primary market area or five miles of the proposed development, whichever is greater. The amendment was prompted by the Respondent's experience in the fall of 2008 when considering two separate applications for affordable housing financing. The potential negative impact of a proposed development on an existing Guarantee Fund property was central to the Board's consideration of one application, and the Board ultimately denied the application. In the second case, the Board granted the application, despite the potential negative impact on a competing development that was not underwritten by the Guarantee Fund. The intent of the language was to advise developers that the existence of Guarantee Fund properties within the competitive market area would be part of the credit underwriting evaluation and the Board's consideration. Notwithstanding the language added to the rule, the credit underwriter is charged with reviewing the need for additional affordable housing. Even in absence of the added language, consideration of any negative impact to competing developments based on inadequate need for additional affordable housing would be appropriate. In rendering the 2010 credit underwriting report on Elmwood Terrace, the credit underwriter complied with the directive. Prior to determining that the Petitioner's funding application should be denied, the Respondent's Board was clearly aware of the Petitioner's application, the credit underwriting report and market analysis, and the economic conditions in Lee County, Florida. There is no credible evidence of any need for additional affordable housing in Lee County, Florida. There is no credible evidence that the Lee County, Florida, market can sustain the addition of the units proposed by the Petitioner without adversely affecting the financial feasibility of the existing Guarantee Fund developments. The Board was aware that the Elmwood Terrace development could attract residents from the nearby Guarantee Fund properties and that local economic conditions threatened the financial viability of the properties. Given current economic conditions, approval of the application at issue in this proceeding would reasonably be expected to result in a negative impact to existing affordable housing developments. The protection of Guarantee Fund developments is necessary to safeguard the resources used to support the creation and availability of affordable housing in the state.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Housing's proposed action to deem Madison Landing eligible for an award of housing tax credit funds, as contemplated under Request for Applications 2020-202 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties ("the 2020 RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules or policies, or the 2020 RFA specifications. The standard of proof is whether Florida Housing's proposed action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, whose address is 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and for the purposes of these proceedings, an agency of the State of Florida. Madison Landing is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $1,950,000 in competitive housing credits in in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-021C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. Madison Park is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,881,960 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-004C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. WRDG is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,375,000 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-025C, was deemed eligible and was preliminarily selected for funding by Florida Housing. Florida Housing administers various affordable housing programs, including the Housing Credit Program, pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC" or "the Code") and section 420.5099, under which Florida Housing is designated as the Housing Credit agency for the State of Florida within the meaning of Section 42(h)(7)(A) of the IRC, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60. Florida Housing has established, by rule, a competitive solicitation process known as the Request for Applications ("RFA") to assess the relative merits of proposed developments, pursuant to chapters 67-48 and 67-60. An RFA sets forth the information required to be provided by an Applicant, which includes a general description of the type of projects that will be considered eligible for funding and delineates the submission requirements. While there are numerous references to Florida Housing's rules throughout the RFA, RFAs themselves are not adopted or incorporated by rule. Florida Housing issues many RFAs each year. Although an issued RFA may be similar to these issued in previous years, each RFA is unique. The RFA process begins when Florida Housing requests the Florida Housing Board of Directors ("the Board") to approve Florida Housing's plan for allocating its resources through the various RFAs. If the plan is approved by the Board, Florida Housing begins working on each individual RFA. Florida Housing posts draft documents to its website for public review, such as a draft of the RFA, and holds a workshop in which the RFA is discussed in detail, highlighting language that changed from the previous year. The public is given the opportunity to ask questions and submit written comments for further suggestions and/or additional edits prior to the RFA's issuance. Marisa Button, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, credibly and persuasively testified that Questions and Answers are provided as guidance, but do not provide new requirements to override the terms of an RFA. In the event of an inconsistency between Questions and Answers and another form of guidance for applicants, Florida Housing has maintained the position that the least restrictive guidance controls. Rule 67-60.006 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he failure of an Applicant to supply required information in connection with any competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter shall be grounds for a determination of non-responsiveness with respect to its Application." By applying, each Applicant certifies that: Proposed Developments funded under this RFA will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, inclusive of all Exhibits, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C. and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. On August 26, 2020, Florida Housing issued the 2020 RFA, proposing to provide an estimated $18,669,520 of Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. Modifications to the 2020 RFA were made on September 11 and October 12, 2020. The Application Deadline for the 2020 RFA was October 20, 2020. On or about October 20, 2020, 35 applications were submitted in response to the 2020 RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Board. The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible and one application ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the 2020 RFA, eight applications were recommended for funding. In accordance with the funding selection process set forth in the 2020 RFA, one application was selected from each of Duval, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange counties; two applications were selected from Broward County; and one application (WRDG) was selected from any of these counties. On December 4, 2020, the Board approved these recommendations. On December 17, 2020, Madison Landing timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0146BID. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and MHP FL II, LLC. On January 13, 2021, Madison Landing dismissed all of its allegations against MHP FL II, LLC. On December 17, 2020, Madison Park timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0147BID. An amended petition was filed on January 13, 2021. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and Madison Landing. On January 26, 2021, all parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Findings of Fact in which WRDG conceded that its application should have been found ineligible. WRDG is ineligible for funding under the 2020 RFA. With WRDG ineligible for funding, Madison Landing would be selected for funding in place of WRDG. If both WRDG and Madison Landing were found to be ineligible for funding, Madison Park would be selected for funding in place of WRDG and Madison Landing. No other Applicant selected for funding will be impacted regardless of the outcome of this case. No challenges were made to the terms of the 2020 RFA. Madison Landing's application includes an executed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form, which provides, "The Applicant, the Developer and all Principals are in good standing among all other state agencies and have not been prohibited from applying for funding." The phrase "good standing among all other state agencies" is not defined; and no evidence was presented as to the definitive meaning of the phrase. No evidence was presented that Madison Landing's Principals are not in good standing with any state agency or have been prohibited from applying for funding. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.a. provides that Applicants must disclose the name of the Applicant entity and provide evidence that it is legally formed: (2) The Applicant must be a legally formed entity [i.e., limited partnership, limited liability company, etc.] qualified to do business in the state of Florida as of the Application Deadline. Include, as Attachment 2 to Exhibit A, evidence from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, that the Applicant satisfies the foregoing requirements. Such evidence may be in the form of a certificate of status or other reasonably reliable information or documentation issued, published or made available by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Rule 67-48.002(9) (6/23/2020), defines "Applicant" as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a 'legal entity' means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.c. provides that Applicants must disclose Principals of both the Applicant and Developer entities. The 2020 RFA provides in pertinent part: c. Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer (5 points) (1) Eligibility Requirements To meet the submission requirements, upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 05-2019) ("Principals Disclosure Form") as outlined in Section Three above. Prior versions of the Principal Disclosure Form will not be accepted. To meet eligibility requirements, the Principals Disclosure Form must identify, pursuant to Subsections 67-48.002(94), 67-48.0075(8) and 67- 48.0075(9), F.A.C., the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. For Housing Credits, the investor limited partner of an Applicant limited partnership or the investor member of an Applicant limited liability company must be identified on the Principal Disclosure Form. Rule 67-48.002(94) defines "Principal" as follows: (94) "Principal" means: For a corporation, each officer, director, executive director, and shareholder of the corporation. For a limited partnership, each general partner, and each limited partner of the limited partnership. For a limited liability company, each manager and each member of the limited liability company. For a trust, each trustee of the trust and all beneficiaries of majority age (i.e., 18 years of age) as of the Application Deadline. Page 10 of 22. For a Public Housing Authority, each officer, director, commissioner, and executive director of the Authority. The requirement to provide evidence that the Applicant is a legally formed entity, as well as the requirement to provide a Principals for Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form, are identified as "Eligibility Items." Section Five A.1. of the 2020 RFA states that "only Applications that meet all of the following Eligibility Items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection." Madison Landing submitted Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form(s) with its application. Both forms were approved during the Advance Review Process. On the Principals of the Applicant form, Madison Landing II, LLC, was identified as the Applicant entity. The Principals of the Applicant entity were identified as Patrick E. Law, Manager; Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, Non-Investor Member; and Patrick E. Law, Investor Member. Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, filed Articles of Organization for Florida Limited Liability Company with the Florida Division of Corporations on January 5, 2021, with an effective date of December 31, 2020. The 2020 RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline; however, there is no explicit requirement in the 2020 RFA that each Principal of the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline. Ms. Button testified that her initial view was that the failure of Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, to incorporate by the application deadline should render the application ineligible. However, upon further research, she changed her position, believing that Florida Housing was precedentially bound by a previous final order, which found that an application was eligible under similar legal and factual circumstances. The previous case, on which Florida Housing relied, was decided before Florida Housing adopted the current RFA procedures for awarding funding. Ms. Button testified, however, that while some of the processes followed during the Universal Cycle, in place at that time, were different than the RFA process, the requirements for disclosure of Principals were essentially the same. Florida Housing allows interested parties to submit written questions to be answered by Florida Housing staff for each RFA that is issued. The Question-Answer period is referenced specifically within each RFA. The following Question and Answer are posted on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-111: Question 12: Do the entities listed on the Principal Disclosure Form have to be active as of the stamped "Approved" date or as of the Application Deadline? Answer: As of the Application Deadline. The Applicant may upload a Principals Disclosure Form stamped "Approved" during the Advance Review Process provided (a) it is still correct as of the Application Deadline, (b) it was approved for the type of funding being requested (i.e., Housing Credits or Non-Housing Credits) The same Question and Answer above are on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-110; RFA 2018-112; and RFA 2018-113. The same Question and Answer, however, do not appear in Questions and Answers for the 2020 RFA at issue in this case. Although Questions and Answers from past RFAs remain on the Florida Housing website, they are discrete to the specific RFA for which they were issued. Rule 67-48.002(9) (7/2018) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporations programs. For purposes of rules 67-48.0105. 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a legal entity means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company with a management and ownership structure that consists exclusively of all natural persons by the third principal disclosure level. For Applicants seeking Housing Credits, the Housing Credits Syndicator/Housing Credit investor need only be disclosed at the first principal level and no other disclosure is required. The terms "first principal disclosure level" and "third principal disclosure level" have the meanings attributed to them in the definition of "Principal." Rule 67-48.002(9) (11/2011) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legally formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a request for proposal for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67-48031, F.A.C., Applicants also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, did not demonstrate that it was a legally- formed entity as of the Application Deadline, and therefore, Madison Landing's Principal Disclosure Form did not satisfy the 2020 RFA's requirements. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's application should be deemed ineligible for funding as a result. Based on the weight of the credible evidence and the language of the 2020 RFA and the governing law, the undersigned finds that Florida Housing did not contravene the 2020 RFA, or any other applicable authority, through the process by which it determined that Madison Landing's application was eligible for the award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: (1) finding the application of WRDG ineligible for funding; (2) finding the application of Madison Landing eligible for funding; and (3) dismissing the protest of Madison Park. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2021. J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-231 Tallahassee, Florida 32312
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Riverside Village Partners, LTD. (Riverside or Petitioner), has, or had at the time of application, a present plan to convert its proposed development to any use other than affordable residential rental property; (2) whether Provincetown Village Partners, LTD. (Provincetown or Petitioner), has, or had at the time of application, a present plan to convert its proposed development to any use other than affordable residential rental property; (3) whether Riverside irrevocably committed to set aside units in its proposed development for a total of 50 years; and (4) whether Provincetown irrevocably committed to set aside units in its proposed development for a total of 50 years.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Provincetown Village Partners, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with its business address at 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, Florida 32751, and is in the business of providing affordable housing units. Petitioner, Riverside Village Partners, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with its business address at 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, Florida 32751, and is in the business of providing affordable housing units. Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Housing), is a public corporation that administers governmental programs relating to the financing and refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida pursuant to Section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2003). Florida Housing's Financing Mechanisms To encourage the development of affordable rental housing for low-income families, Florida Housing provides low-interest mortgage loans to developers of qualified multi-family housing projects. In exchange for an interest rate lower than conventional market rates, the developer agrees to "set-aside" a specific percentage of the rental units for low-income tenants. Through its Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (MMRB) program, Florida Housing funds these mortgage loans through the sale of tax-exempt and taxable bonds. Applicants then repay the loans from the revenues generated by their respective projects. Applicants who receive MMRB proceeds are required to execute a Land Use Restriction Agreement (LURA or Land Use Restriction Agreement), which is recorded in the official records of the county in which the applicant’s development is located. Through the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, Florida Housing funds low-interest mortgage loans to developers from various sources of state revenue, which are generally secured by second mortgages on the property. Applicants who receive SAIL proceeds are required to execute and record a LURA in the county records as with MMRB's Land Use Restriction Agreements. Florida Housing also distributes federal income tax credits for the development of affordable rental housing for low-income tenants; those tax credits are referred to as "housing credits." Generally, applicants who utilize tax-exempt bond financing for at least 50 percent of the cost of their development are entitled to receive an award of housing credits on a non-competitive basis. These non-competitive housing credits are received by the qualified applicant each year for ten consecutive years. Typically, applicants sell this future stream of housing credits at the initiation of the development process in order to generate a portion of the funds necessary for the construction of the development. The Application, Scoring, and Ranking Process Because Florida Housing’s available pool of tax-exempt bond financing and SAIL funds is limited, qualified projects must compete for this funding. To determine which proposed projects will put the available funds to best use, Florida Housing has established a competitive application process to assess the relative merits of proposed projects. Florida Housing’s competitive application process for MMRB and SAIL financing is included with other financing programs within a single application process (the 2003 Universal Application) governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapters 67-21 and 67-48. The 2003 Universal Application form and accompanying instructions are incorporated as Form "UA1016" by reference into Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-21 and 67-48 and by Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.002(97), and 67-48.002(111), respectively. For the 2003 Universal Application cycle, each applicant who completed and submitted Form UA1016 with attachments was given a preliminary score by Florida Housing. Following the issuance of preliminary scores, applicants are provided an opportunity to challenge the scoring of any competing application through the filing of a Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE). Florida Housing considers each NOPSE filed and provides each applicant with notice of any resulting change in their preliminary scores (the NOPSE scores). Following the issuance of NOPSE scores, Florida Housing provides an opportunity for applicants to submit additional materials to "cure" any items for which the applicant received less than the maximum score or for which the application may have been rejected for failure to achieve "threshold." There are certain portions of the application which cannot be cured; the list of noncurable items appears in Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.003(14) (for MMRB applicants) and 67-48.004(14) (for SAIL applicants). Following the cure period, applicants may again contest the scoring of a competing application by filing a Notice of Alleged Deficiencies (NOAD), identifying deficiencies arising from the submitted cure materials. After considering the submitted NOADs, Florida Housing provides notice to applicants of any resulting scoring changes. The resulting scores are known as "pre-appeal" scores. Applicants may appeal and challenge, via formal or informal hearings, Florida Housing’s scoring of any item for which the applicant received less than the maximum score or for any item that resulted in the rejection of the application for failure to meet "threshold." Upon the conclusion of the informal hearings, and of formal hearings where appropriate, Florida Housing issues the final scores and ranking of applicants. Applicants are then awarded tentative MMRB and/or SAIL funding in order of rank; Florida Housing issues final orders allocating the tentative funding and inviting successful applicants in the credit underwriting process. If an applicant who requests a formal hearing ultimately obtains a final order that modifies its score and threshold determinations so that its application would have been in the funding range had the final order been entered prior to the date the final rankings were presented to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board), that applicant’s requested funding will be provided from the next available funding or allocation. The 2003 Application Process On or about April 8, 2003, Riverside, Provincetown, and others submitted applications for MMRB and SAIL financing in the 2003 Universal Application cycle. Riverside requested $3,205,000 in tax-exempt MMRB funding and $1.6 million in SAIL funding to help finance its proposed development, a 34-unit development in Pinellas County, Florida. In its application, Riverside committed to lease all or most of these units to house families earning 60 percent or less of the area median income (AMI). However, depending on which Florida Housing funding source(s) Riverside’s application was deemed eligible to receive, it would commit to lease at least 17 percent of the units to families earning 50 percent or less of AMI, or would commit to lease only a total of 85 percent of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. Provincetown requested $4.5 million in tax-exempt MMRB funding and $2.0 million in SAIL funding to help finance its proposed development, a 50-unit development in Gadsden County, Florida. In its application, Provincetown committed to lease all or most of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. However, depending on which Florida Housing program(s) Provincetown’s application was deemed eligible to receive, it would commit to lease at least 11 percent of the units to families earning 50 percent or less of AMI, or would commit to lease only a total of 85 percent of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. Florida Housing evaluated all applications and notified applicants of their preliminary scores on or before May 12, 2003. Applicants were then given an opportunity to file NOPSEs on or before May 20, 2003. After considering all NOPSEs, Florida Housing notified applicants by overnight mail on or about June 9, 2003, of any resulting changes in the scoring of their applications. Applicants were then allowed to submit, on or before June 19, 2003, cure materials to correct any alleged deficiencies in their applications previously identified by Florida Housing. Applicants were also allowed to file NOADs on competing applications on or before June 27, 2003. After considering the submitted NOADs, Florida Housing issued notice to Provincetown, Riverside, and others of their adjusted scores on or about July 21, 2003. Commitment to Affordability Period Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006, entitled "Development Requirements," lists certain minimum requirements that a development shall meet or that an applicant shall be able to certify that such requirements shall be met. One of these requirements is "The Applicant shall have no present plan to convert the Development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property." Part III.E.3 of the Application provides a line for an applicant to commit to an "affordability period" for its application. This subsection of the application form reads in its entirety: 3. Affordability Period for MMRB, SAIL, HOME, and HC Application: Applicant irrevocably commits to set aside units in the proposed Development for a total of years. Both Provincetown and Riverside filled in the number "50" on the blank line in this subsection of their respective applications. An applicant’s score on its application is determined in part by the length of its affordability period commitment. An applicant who commits to an affordability period commitment of 50 or more years received 5 points; 45 to 49 years, 4 points; 40 to 44 years, 3 points; 35 to 39 years, 2 points; 31 to 34 years, 1 point; and 30 years or less, 0 points. Scoring of Provincetown and Riverside Applications In its preliminary scoring of the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing awarded each applicant the full 5 points on Part III.E.3 of his or her application for the 50-year affordability period commitment. Also, in the preliminary scoring of the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing did not find any threshold failure regarding an alleged present plan to convert the development to a use other than affordable residential rental property. In its preliminary scoring of the Provincetown application, Florida Housing identified an alleged threshold failure related to the validity of the contract for purchase of the site of the proposed development. A subsequent cure submitted by Provincetown regarding the contract for purchase of the site has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer takes the position that the Provincetown application fails threshold for any reason related to site control. In its preliminary scoring of the Riverside application, Florida Housing identified a threshold failure related to documentation of the status of site plan approval, or plat approval, for the proposed development. A subsequent cure submitted by Riverside regarding the status of site plan approval has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer takes the position that the Riverside application fails threshold for any reason related to site plan approval, or plat approval. During the scoring process, Florida Housing received NOPSEs on both the Provincetown and Riverside applications, which asserted that these applicants were proposing transactions that were not financially feasible and would not pass subsequent credit underwriting requirements. The NOPSEs also alleged that the Riverside and Provincetown applications were for townhouses designed with an intent to eventually convert to home ownership in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6). According to that rule, the applicant shall have no present plan to convert the development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property. After reviewing these NOPSEs, but before issuing revised NOPSE scores, Florida Housing determined that it was inappropriate to apply subsequent credit underwriting requirements during the scoring of these applications, and therefore, disagreed with the allegations of the NOPSEs on those grounds. Accordingly, Florida Housing's scoring summaries for Riverside and Provincetown issued, after receipt of the NOPSEs, raised no issues concerning financial feasibility, and it was not placed at issue in this proceeding. Following the filing of NOPSEs, Florida Housing released NOPSE scores for all applicants, including Riverside and Provincetown. The NOPSE scores are reflected on a NOPSE Scoring Summary dated June 9, 2003. For both Provincetown and Riverside, the NOPSE Scoring Summary contained the following statement regarding alleged threshold failure, identifying two separate reasons for the alleged threshold failure: The proposed Development does not satisfy the minimum Development requirements stated in Rule 67-21.006, F.A.C. The Development is not a multifamily residential rental property comprised of buildings or structures each containing four or more dwelling units. Further, the Applicant has a present plan to convert the Development to a use other than as an affordable residential rental property. The first threshold failure noted in the preceding paragraph relates to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(2), which requires that there be four or more residential units per building for projects financed with MMRB. A subsequent cure regarding the design of the proposed developments has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer contends that these applications, as cured, exhibit a threshold failure related to the number of residential units per building. The second threshold failure noted in the NOPSE Scoring Summary and quoted in paragraph 30 above, relates to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6), which requires that applicants "shall have no present plan to convert the Development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property." In response to the NOPSE Scoring Summaries, both Provincetown and Riverside submitted cures to their respective applications. In the cures, Provincetown and Riverside presented their explanations of how they believed their applications, as submitted, demonstrated a 50-year affordability period commitment and included these applicants’ contentions that they had no present plan to convert the developments to a use other than affordable residential rental property. For Provincetown, an issue had also been raised by a NOPSE concerning whether the Provincetown application was entitled to certain "tie-breaker" points for the distance from the proposed development to a public transportation stop. The points awardable to Provincetown for tie-breaker purposes are not in dispute, and Provincetown, if its application is otherwise deemed to meet threshold requirements, would be entitled to 5.0 of a possible 7.5 tie-breaker points. If Riverside's application were deemed to meet threshold requirements and if the 5 points for the affordability period commitment were restored, Riverside would have been within the funding range for applicants within the 2003 Universal Application cycle at the time the Board took final action on the ranking of applications on October 9, 2003. If Provincetown's application were deemed to meet threshold requirements and if the five points for the affordability period commitment were restored, Provincetown would have been within the funding range for applicants within the 2003 Universal Application cycle at the time the Board took final action on the ranking of applications on October 9, 2003. The Sciarrino Letter and Cures After reviewing the NOPSEs filed against the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing received a letter dated June 2, 2003 (Sciarrino letter or letter), from Michael Sciarrino, president of the CED Companies, addressed to Orlando Cabrera, executive director of Florida Housing, with a copy to Kerey Carpenter, deputy development officer of Florida Housing. Michael Sciarrino is a manager of the sole general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 Y, LLC., a Florida limited liability company) of Provincetown. Mr. Sciarrino is also a Class B limited partner of the sole member of the general partner (CED Capital Holdings XVI, LTD., a Florida limited partnership). Michael Sciarrino is a manager of the sole general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 K, LLC., a Florida limited liability company) of Riverside. Mr. Sciarrino is also a Class B limited partner of the sole member of the general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 XVI, LTD., a Florida limited partnership). As manager of the sole general partner of Provincetown and Riverside, Mr. Sciarrino had supervisory authority and editorial control over the processing and preparation of the Provincetown and Riverside applications. The Sciarrino letter was drafted, in part, to respond to the allegations of the NOPSEs filed against Provincetown and Riverside applications and specifically addressed those issues pertaining to Provincetown and Riverside applications. Also, while the letter does not mention Petitioners by name, the description and location of the properties, as detailed in the letter, clearly refer to these applicants. The Sciarrino letter evinces a present plan on the part of Petitioners to convert the proposed developments to a use other than that of affordable residential rental housing. First, the letter describes in detail the economic motivations for the subsequent sale of the units of the proposed development within the 50-year extended affordability period stating that the "residual value potential" of such an arrangement "is the single biggest economic reason for our desire to develop these communities." Next, the letter describes in detail the means by which Petitioners would be relieved of the commitment to a 50-year affordability period as stated in their applications, that is, by seeking a waiver from Board after the 15-year period of tax credit recapture exposure had expired. Third, the letter plainly states that Petitioners had intended to request such relief from the 50-year affordability period in the future. Petitioners' present plan to convert the proposed developments for sale to homeowners during the 50-year extended affordability period is further evident by the fact that the concept of such a conversion existed prior to and at the time the applications were filed. Moreover, the Provincetown and Riverside developments were specially selected to test the concept. On or about June 19, 2003, Petitioners filed cures with Florida Housing addressing the issues raised in the NOPSEs. While the cures presented argument in favor of their respective applications and reiterated Petitioners' commitment to the 50-year extended affordability period for each proposed development, they did not deny that it was their intention to seek relief from this period in the future. Following review of the Sciarrino letter and the cures submitted by Petitioners, Florida Housing rejected both the Provincetown and Riverside applications for failing to meet the mandatory development requirement set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6). The applications also had five points deducted from their scores on the grounds that, under the circumstances, their commitment to an affordability period could not be determined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order that upholds the scoring of the applications of Riverside Village Partners, LTD., and Provincetown Village Partners, LTD.; that rejects the applications of Riverside Village Partners, LTD., and Provincetown Village Partners, LTD.; and that denies the relief requested in the Petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Orlando J. Cabrera, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wellington H. Meffert, II, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
