The Issue The issues to be determined are whether, with respect to each application filed, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) review and decision-making process in response to the Request for Applications 2020-201 (RFA) was contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the RFA.
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. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing 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 credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. The effect is to reduce the amount that the developer must otherwise borrow. Because the total debt is lower, the housing 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 credits provided by the federal government exceeds supply. The Competitive Application Process Section 420.507(48) authorizes Florida Housing to allocate housing credits and other funding through requests for proposals or other competitive solicitations, and Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to prescribe the competitive solicitation process. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). Applicants for funding request, in their applications, a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally will sell the rights to the future stream of income housing 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 an applicant can receive depends on 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. These are just examples of the factors considered, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Housing credits are made available through a competitive application process that starts with the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is considered to be a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA in this case was issued on August 26, 2020, and responses were due November 5, 2020. The RFA was modified September 11, 2020, and October 12, 2020, but with no change with respect to the response deadline. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $15,275,810 of housing credits to proposed developments in medium-sized counties, and up to an estimated $1,453,730 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 84 applications in response to RFA 2020-201. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board). The Review Committee found 79 applications eligible and five applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 10 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. The federal government enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CCA) in December 2020, and as a result, an additional $3,367,501 in housing credits became available for affordable housing for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay Counties, which were impacted by Hurricane Sally. The staff at Florida Housing recommended using the CCA funding to award housing credits to additional highest-ranking eligible applications in qualified disaster areas, subject to the county award tally, regardless of the county size in RFA 2020-201 and developed a chart listing its CCA funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On January 22, 2021, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee and staff for RFA 2020-201. At approximately 2:50 p.m. that day, all of the applicants in RFA 2020-201 were provided notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration of funding, and that certain eligible applicants were preliminarily selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Notice was provided by posting on the Florida Housing website two spreadsheets: one listing the Board-approved scoring results in RFA 2020-201; and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the January 22, 2021, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 24 applicants, including The Villages, Pinnacle at Hammock Springs, and Rosemary Place. Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceedings. All Intervenors have been properly recognized as such. The terms of RFA 2020-201 were not challenged. RFA 2020-201 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 listed in Section 5.A.1. of the RFA, beginning at page 71. Only applications that meet all of the eligibility requirements will be eligible for funding and considered for the funding selection. This challenge does not raise any issues with respect to the point totals awarded to the applicants. The RFA has four funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund five Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a of the RFA, with a preference that three of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(1) of the RFA to be considered submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113, and two of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(2) of the RFA to be considered not submitted in RFA 2019-113. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.5.i 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.10.a(1)(d) of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the SunRail Goal outlined in Section Four, A.5.e.(5) of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process, outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal with one exception: If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, the SunRail Goal will also be considered met. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp.75). At page 76 of Joint Exhibit 1, the RFA also sets forth the sorting order to be used when selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal: The highest scoring applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Priority I Medium County Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order. This will then be repeated for Priority II Applications: First, counties of the Applications that (i) qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal in FRA 2019-113 and (ii) were invited to enter credit underwriting will receive lower preference than other Medium Counties competing for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. This affects the following counties: Brevard, Lee, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, and Volusia. The remaining counties will receive higher 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 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 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. Next, the RFA sets forth the sorting order for selecting applications to meet the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. It then sets for the sorting order after selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal (LGAO Designation) and Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. The RFA includes a funding test where a) small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding ($1,453,730) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount, and b) medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding ($15,275,810) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount. The RFA outlines a specific County Award Tally based on Priority Levels as follows: Priority I County Award Tally As each Priority I Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. Priority II County Award Tally As each Priority II Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority II Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp. 78-79) The RFA outlines the selection process at pages 79-81 as follows: Five Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal Applications that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not Awarded The first three Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not awarded, subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this preference is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this preference, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this preference is met. Applications that were not submitted in RFA 2019-113 The next Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were not submitted in 2019-113, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this Goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are not eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this Goal. One Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Two Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal The next two Applications select [sic] for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are no eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this goal. One Application that Qualifies for the SunRail Goal If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal described in a. above or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal described in b. above also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, this Goal will be considered met without selecting an additional Application. If none of the Applications selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization also qualify for the SunRail Goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I 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 Priority I Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Priority I Application can meet the Small County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded Small County Priority II Application can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Applications 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 Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I 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 Priority I Applications. If Medium County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority I Applications can meet the Medium County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority II Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test. 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. After the description of the sorting process, the RFA specifies: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or provisions outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 84 applications for RFA 2020-201 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. The Fletcher Black Application During the scoring process, Florida Housing determined that the Fletcher Black application was eligible for funding, but ineligible for the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black was not selected for preliminary funding. If Fletcher Black’s application was eligible for the LGAO Designation, it would have been selected for funding. It would have been selected as the second of the three developments selected for the LGAO Priority I applications that qualified for the preference for those development applications submitted in RFA 2019-113, but not awarded as outlined on pages 69-70 of the RFA. Additionally, if Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, then The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs will be displaced from funding. In order to qualify for the LGAO Designation and Goal, applicants must “demonstrate a high level of Local Government interest in the project via an increased amount of Local Government contributions in the form of cash loans and/or cash grants.” The RFA outlines the types and amounts of contributions from Local Governments that will be accepted to meet the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black’s proposed development is in Bay County. Therefore, Fletcher Black would be required to demonstrate a contribution of at least $340,000 to be considered for the LGAO Designation. The RFA at page 67 expressly limits the number of applications from the same government jurisdiction as follows: Limit on the number of Applications within the same jurisdiction A proposed Development may only qualify where a jurisdiction (i.e., the county or a municipality) has contributed cash loans and/or cash grants for any proposed Development applying for this RFA in an amount sufficient to qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. A Local Government can only contribute to one Application that qualifies for the Local Government Area of Opportunity Designation, regardless of how the contribution is characterized. Any single jurisdiction may not contribute cash loans and/or cash grants to more than one proposed Development applying for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. If multiple Applications demonstrate Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding from the same jurisdiction and those Applications qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, then all such Applications will be deemed ineligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, regardless of the amount of Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding or how the contribution is characterized. However, Local Governments may pool contributions to support one Application (i.e., the county and the city may provide contribution to the same Development and each Local Government will submit its own form as an Attachment to the Application). Page 68 of the RFA describes the requirements for demonstrating LGAO funding: In order to be eligible to be considered Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding, the cash loans and/or cash grants must be demonstrated via one or both of the Florida Housing Local Government Verification of Contribution Forms (Form Rev. 07-2019), called “Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan” form and/or the “Local Government Verification of Contribution -- Grant” form. The forms must meet the Non-Corporation Funding Proposal Requirements outlined in 10.b.(2)(a) above, the qualifying funding must be reflected as a source on the Development Cost Pro Forma, and the applicable form(s) must be provided as Attachment 16 to the Application. Applications are not required to reflect the value (difference between the face amount and the net present value of the payment streams) on any Local Government Verification Forms. Similarly, Section 10.b.(2)(a) of the RFA specifies that, Note: Eligible Local Government financial commitments (i.e., grants and loans) can be considered a source of financing without meeting the requirements above if the Applicant provides a properly completed and executed Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Form 0702019) and/or the Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form (Form 07-2019). Fletcher Black submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Grant Form) from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000. Fletcher Black’s Grant Form was executed by Greg Bridnicki, as the Mayor of Panama City and “Approved as to Form and Correctness” by Nevin Zimmerman, City Attorney. Fletcher Black’s request for funding from Panama City was placed on the agenda for the City of Panama City City Commission’s August 25, 2020, meeting, and approved by the City Commission, which authorized Mr. Bridnicki to sign the Grant Form. Fletcher Black had obtained a similar LGAO Form in the previous year using the same established process. Fletcher Black did not submit any documentation in the RFA Application regarding the process used to gain approval of the grant. However, no party identified any requirement in the RFA that such a description must be included in the Application. Fletcher Black cannot be faulted for not supplying something that is not required. Another Applicant, Panama Manor App. No. 2021-074C, submitted a Grant Form from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000 executed by Michael Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s title is listed as the Director of Community Development/CRA/CDBG/SHIP. During the scoring process, Florida Housing’s scorer found that since both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor submitted documentation for the LGAO Designation from the same jurisdiction, the City of Panama City, according to the terms of the RFA, both applications were deemed ineligible for the LGAO Designation. The Grant Form submitted by both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor contains the following instruction regarding who is authorized to sign the form on behalf of the local government: This certification must be signed by the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approvals, Mayor, City Manager, County Manager/ Administrator/ Coordinator, Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners. … One of the authorized persons named above may sign this form for certification of state, federal or Local Government funds initially obtained or derived from a Local Government that is directly administered by an intermediary such as a housing finance authority, a community reinvestment corporation, or a state-certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Other signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed. To be considered for points, the amount of the contribution stated on this form must be a precise dollar amount and cannot include words such as estimated, up to, maximum, not to exceed, etc. Michael Johnson was not authorized by the City of Panama City to sign the Grant Form. Greg Bridnicki, as Mayor of Panama City, is an authorized signatory. Panama Manor’s request was not submitted to the City Commission for approval. Because the Grant Form was improperly signed, Panama Manor should not, by the terms of the RFA, receive credit for the LGAO Designation. Had Panama Manor’s application received the LGAO Designation, it would not have been selected for funding because its lottery number was too high. Michael Johnson is the Director of Community Development for the City of Panama City. While he is an employee for the City of Panama City, he also performs duties for Bay County through an interlocal agreement between the city and the county. The Grant Form submitted for Panama Manor stated on its face that it was signed on behalf of the City of Panama City, but Mr. Johnson testified that the form was supposed to reflect that it was for Bay County. Mr. Johnson testified that over the last 17 years, he has executed approximately 40 forms for applications for funding from Florida Housing. He acknowledged that there are multiple types of forms that may need signatures from city or county officials to complete a Florida Housing application, such as zoning forms and infrastructure-verification forms, as well as local government contribution forms. Since Florida Housing changed its process to use RFAs in 2013, Mr. Johnson could not recall if he signed the Grant Forms or whether the city manager did. He could not confirm signing a single Grant Form for either the city or the county since 2013. Mr. Johnson believed that he had the authority to sign Grant Forms on behalf of both the city and the county. Mark McQueen, the City of Panama City city manager and Mr. Johnson’s boss, does not share his belief. According to Mr. McQueen, whose testimony is credited, Panama City committed only to the Fletcher Black property, took no official action with respect to Panama Manor’s application, and Mr. Johnson was not authorized to sign the Grant Form committing funds on behalf of the City. When Mr. Johnson realized that the Panama Manor Grant Form stated that it was signed on behalf of Panama City as opposed to Bay County, he called the legal department for Florida Housing to explain the error. He testified that he spoke with several people at Florida Housing, including Jean Salmonson, David Weston, and someone in the multi-family development section. Mr. Johnson was not sure of the dates when these telephone calls were made, but it appears that the telephone calls were after the submission of the applications but before the posting of funding selections. Marissa Button is Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs. She testified that Florida Housing is aware of the contention that the form submitted by Panama Manor was signed in error and should have reflected that it was signed on behalf of Bay County. She was also aware that according to Mr. McQueen, Mr. Johnson did not have the authority to sign a Grant Form on behalf of the City of Panama City. She stated: Q. How does that information impact Florida Housing’s scoring decision? A. This --at this juncture it does not impact Florida Housing’s scoring determination as to the Panama Manor or Fletcher Black being designated as LGAO goal. … We take the requirement of the RFA specifically references the – the submission of what – when there’s a submission of multiple applications from the same jurisdiction, and so we, Florida Housing, consider that as of – as of the application deadline what this applicant has submitted is a form executed on behalf of the City of Panama City. To change the designation, which I understand from Mr. Johnson’s testimony it was a mistake, he intended to issue on behalf of Bay County and reflect that, we interpret that to be a – an improper amendment or modification to the application after the application submission. So we do not consider it to change the scoring designation of the – of either the Panama Manor application or the resulting consequence to the Fletcher Black application. * * * Q. Now, Fletcher Black may argue that it’s unfair to treat its application as ineligible for the LGAO designation and goals when the Fletcher Black [application] did not contain an error. What would your response be to that? A. You know, my response is, we score the application in accordance with the terms of the RFA. The applications are responsible for all parts of that – that RFA with regard to their application submission. It’s clear in this RFA that there would be a consequence if other applications were submitted from the same jurisdiction for an LGAO designation. And, unfortunately, that’s the mistake that happened, but the fairness – it is a fair process because we are – we are administering the RFA as it has been, you know – as the terms exist to the public and to the fellow applications that came in for funding. So, I – I do believe it’s unfortunate that that consequence impacts their application; however, it is – it is fair because that’s the consequence if it happens. (T-39-40, 45-46). Panama Manor’s application did not demonstrate local government funding because the Grant Form was not signed by someone with authority to do so. The RFA specifically states that “[o]ther signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed.” Where forms signed by local government officials are challenged, Ms. Button indicated that Florida Housing has in the past relied upon or deferred to local government officials to address the propriety of the forms signed. The issue usually arises with forms related to zoning or other facets encompassed in the Ability to Proceed forms. Here, the credible testimony of local officials is that the Grant Form for Panama Manor was intended to reflect a funding commitment from Bay County and the signator on Panama Manor’s Grant Form was not authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Panama City. It would be contrary to competition if Panama Manor were allowed to amend its application to correct the Grant Form. It is appropriate to disregard Panama Manor’s Grant Form, given the inaccuracies contained therein. If Panama Manor’s application is not selected for the LGAO Designation because of its failure to demonstrate that the City of Panama City is providing local support for Panama Manor’s project, then there is only one application with a valid Grant Form from the City of Panama City, and that is Fletcher Black. Ms. Button testified that it would provide a competitive advantage to Fletcher Black if Fletcher Black were considered for the LGAO Designation. However, she stated that applicants are responsible for all parts of their application submission. Fletcher Black did not make an error in its application and is not requesting that it be amended in any way. It is asking that the application be considered as submitted, just as other applications are considered. Florida Housing’s decision to find Fletcher Black ineligible for the LGAO Designation is clearly erroneous, in light of the clear demonstration that Panama Manor did not demonstrate a local funding commitment from the City of Panama City, and Fletcher Black is the only entity that did so. The Rosemary Place Application Florida Housing deemed the Rosemary Place application to be eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Rosemary Place for funding. One of the requirements for eligibility under the RFA is that applicants 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. The RFA specifies at pages 39-40 that an eligible contract must meet the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021; It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant: and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The RFA notifies applicants that Florida Housing’s review of the Site Control documents is limited. At page 40, 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 requirement 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 it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. The RFA also requires that, for the purpose of demonstrating Site Control, “documentation must include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” A “scattered site” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(106) as “a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition ‘contiguous’ means touching at a point or along a boundary. …” Rosemary Place submitted a properly completed and executed Site Control Form which was accepted by Florida Housing during its review, scoring, and ranking process. As an attachment to its Site Control Form, Rosemary Place attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement (Rosemary Place Agreement) between Kyle McDorman as the Seller and RM FL XX Prime, LLC (the applicant entity for Rosemary Place) as the Purchaser. The Rosemary Place Agreement has a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021, and states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The Rosemary Place Application identified the address of the proposed development as “690’ N of intsctn of 331-Bus & Azalea Dr on W side of 331- Bus; within city limits of Freeport, FL (Walton County).” (J-16, page 5). The Development Location Point, consisting of latitude and longitude coordinates was correctly identified, and the Rosemary Place Application stated that the proposed development did not consist of scattered sites. Exhibit A of the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement identifies the property as follows: That Thirteen (13.0) Acres situated in the City of Freeport, FL (Distrct 2); Section 10, Township 1S, Range 19, and which is part of Walton County, FL Parcel 10-1S-19-23000-009-0020 which is further described in the land records of Walton County, FL as 210FT SQ FT IN THE SE/C OF THE W1/2 OF THE NE1/4 OF SW1/4 IN SEC 10-1S-19W, 204-184, 1204-279, 2660- 2976, 3084-4417 and which is recorded in that Warranty Deed from Grantor Aaron M and Rachel N Sloan Elkins to Grantee Kyle J. McDorman which Warranty Deed is recorded in the land records of Walton County, FL at Book 3084 and Page Number 4417. The Property is further described and identified as the shaded area denoted with an X in the image below. Based on the Walton County Property Appraiser map, the shaded area denoted with an X is contained within Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000, which is owned by the Seller, Kyle McDorman, as opposed to Parcel No. 10- 1S-19-23000-009-0020. Timshell contends that the shaded area denoted with an X overlaps parcels outside of Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000. Timshell contends that the submitted Site Control documentation submitted by Rosemary Place is not consistent with the requirements of the RFA because of the uncertainty of the property that is actually being purchased and where the proposed Development site is actually located. Timshell also contends that the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement, as written and submitted to Florida Housing, denotes scattered sites which were not disclosed by Rosemary Place in its application. Rosemary Place contends, and Florida Housing agrees, that the shaded area denoted with an X on Exhibit A to the Rosemary Place Agreement sufficiently identifies the property being purchased through the agreement as the Development site. Moreover, the visual depiction of the property is consistent with the written description of the development location in the Rosemary Place Application at J-16, page 5. The Rosemary Place Application does not depict scattered sites. Even assuming that the parcel number included in Exhibit A were part of the purchase reflected in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, an eligible contract may involve the purchase of multiple properties or a larger parcel of property than will be developed. What is most important is that the documents show where the development will be located, which Rosemary Place’s application demonstrates, and that the applicant will have control over the location. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing did not consider the Rosemary Place Application to be proposing a scattered sites development. Rosemary Place affirmatively stated that it was not proposing a scattered sites development; did not list coordinates for scattered sites; and did not identify the location of scattered sites on other forms required by the RFA. Exhibit A to the Purchase and Sale Agreement contains typographical errors in the written description of the property being sold. Stewart Rutledge, who prepared the Purchase and Sale Agreement, testified credibly that parcel numbers are listed on the Walton County Property Appraiser website, and that to see a particular parcel description, the user clicks on the parcel number he or she wants to see. When preparing the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mr. Rutledge mistakenly clicked on the parcel number immediately above the parcel number he wanted, and he did not notice the error. The parcel number reflected in the Purchase and Sale Agreement references another parcel owned by the seller, Kyle McDorman. Florida Housing considered the typographical error within Exhibit A that results in the listing of the wrong parcel number and property description to be a waivable minor irregularity because the error did not result in the omission of any material information; did not create uncertainty that a term of the RFA was met; and did not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. The same could be said for other typographical error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, such as capitalizing the word “property” when it should not have been. Ms. Button also noted that the RFA does not require applicants to submit a land survey of the proposed development site with its application. The RFA states that Florida Housing reserves the right to waive minor irregularities. A minor irregularity is defined in rule 67-60.008 as: those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Timshell presented the testimony of Stephen Rutan, a professional land surveyor. Mr. Rutan believed that, based on the property description in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the proposed development site overlapped with another parcel not owned by the seller. Mr. Rutan did not perform a professional land survey and admitted that the boundary lines in his informational Exhibit (Timshell Exhibit 4) were not completely accurate. Given that the measurements that Mr. Rutan provided were estimates and not the result of a survey, and the testimony by Mr. Rutledge that the parcel identification was the result of a clerical error, Mr. Rutan’s testimony is given little weight, and does not demonstrate that the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement included in Rosemary Place’s application created any real uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met. Florida Housing’s determination that the error in Rosemary Place’s application was a waivable minor irregularity is not clearly erroneous. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove Florida Housing determined that the Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove Applications were eligible for funding but ineligible for the “submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 Preference.” Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove were not selected for preliminary funding. Within the LGAO Designation and Goal, the RFA contained preferences for funding. One of those preferences was for developments that were submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 (the 2019-113 Preference). In order to qualify for the 2019-113 Preference, an Applicant must meet the following requirements: The question at 11.b.(1) of Exhibit A must reflect confirmation that the Development was submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113; The Application in RFA 2019-113 must have provided a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan or Grant form demonstrating the minimum Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Amount outlined in RFA 2019-113; The Development Location Point and latitude and longitude coordinates for all scattered sites stated at question 5. of Exhibit A for the proposed Development must be located on the same site(s) as the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. These coordinates do not need to be identical to the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. All entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical; and The Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 was not invited to enter credit underwriting. Florida Housing scored Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove as qualifying for all requirements of the 2019-113 Preference except for the requirement that “[a]ll entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical.” (Identical Principals Requirement). The Principals disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form for Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove in RFA 2019- 113 were identical to the Principals disclosed in the applications submitted for RFA 2020-201. The plain language of the RFA only requires that the “entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) be identical.” The plain language of the RFA does not require that the Applicant and Developer entities be identical to those listed in the 2019-113 application. Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove met the requirements for the 2019-113 preference. However, even though Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, they would not be selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. The Villages Florida Housing determined that The Villages Application is eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, The Villages has been preliminarily selected for funding. During scoring, Florida Housing reviewed the Villages’ Zoning Form and determined that it met the requirements of the RFA to demonstrate appropriate zoning. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove alleged in their Petitions that The Villages failed to demonstrate Ability to Proceed and appropriate zoning as required by the terms of the RFA. Prior to hearing, Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove withdrew their challenge to The Villages’ eligibility for funding. However, should Florida Housing determine, as recommended, that Panama Manor’s Grant Form did not demonstrate a funding commitment from Panama City, then Fletcher Black would receive funding as opposed to The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs.
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 as to Case No. 21-0515BID, finding that Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, and awarding funding to Fletcher Black, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting; that with respect to Case Nos. 21-0516BID, 21-0517BID, and 21-0518BID, finding that Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, but are not selected for funding; and with respect to Case No. 21-0520BID, finding that the decision to award funding to Rosemary Place was not clearly erroneous, and the error in its application was a minor waivable irregularity. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 14th day of April, 2021. M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent is liable to Petitioner for discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of Petitioner’s alleged disability, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact In June 2016, Gaudina and Grand Lifestyle executed a document, entitled “GLC III/LLLP Lease – Basic Rental Agreement or Residential Lease” (lease), in which Gaudina leased from Grand Lifestyle a residence at 3346 East Dale Street, Leesburg, Florida, in the Lakeside Village mobile home park (premises). The lease provided that Gaudina pay to Grand Lifestyle $656.00 per month to lease the premises. The lease further provided that at the end of three consecutive years of living at the premises, Grand Lifestyle would provide Gaudina the option of purchasing the premises for $1,000.00. Gaudina testified that his primary residence is in Colorado, but that he wished to lease the premises so that he had a residence when he visited his wife, who lived nearby in Lake County, Florida. As he did not reside permanently at the premises in Leesburg, Gaudina subleased the premises to another individual, possibly in violation of the lease. That individual reported to Gaudina numerous issues with the premises, which Gaudina testified he brought to the attention of Grand Lifestyle.2/ Both parties testified that they sought various remedies in other courts concerning these issues. The undersigned finds that these issues are not relevant to Gaudina’s allegations concerning discrimination under the Florida FHA. Gaudina testified that he possesses a disability that requires use of an emotional support animal. The only evidence Gaudina submitted in support of this contention was a letter, dated February 24, 2015, from Emilia Ripoll, M.D. (Ripoll), located in Boulder, Colorado, and a “Health Care Provider Pet Accomodation Form,” also from Ripoll. This letter states: Mr. Jan Gaudina is currently my patient and has been under my care since 1998. I am intimately familiar with his history and with the functional limitations imposed by his medical condition. Due to his diagnosis of bladder cancer and bilateral ureter cancer, Jan has certain emotional limitations including stress which may cause his cancer to recur. In order to help alleviate these difficulties, and to enhance his ability to cope and live independently, I have prescribed Jan to obtain his pet for emotional support. The presence of this animal is necessary for the mental health of Jan. The Health Care Accomodation Form prescribed the use of Gaudina’s dog, a golden retriever, as an emotional support animal. Gaudina did not present the testimony of Ripoll or any other health care provider concerning his alleged disability. The letter and form, which are inadmissible hearsay that Gaudina failed to corroborate with admissible non-hearsay evidence, attempt to establish that Gaudina required an emotional support animal to prevent a recurrence of cancer. The undersigned cannot consider these documents to support a finding that Gaudina is disabled and in need of an emotional support animal. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.213(3).3/ Therefore, the undersigned finds that Gaudina has failed to establish that he suffers from a disability that requires the accommodation of his golden retriever as an emotional support animal. Principe, the owner of Grand Lifestyle, testified that the prospectus for the premises restricted pet ownership to pets that weigh less than 20 pounds. The parties acknowledged that a golden retriever weighs in excess of 20 pounds. Principe testified that, during a telephone conversation, Gaudina asked whether he could bring his golden retriever to the premises, but never mentioned his alleged disability. Principe also testified that he asked Gaudina whether Gaudina’s golden retriever was a trained service dog. Gaudina testified that his golden retriever was not a “service dog,” as defined under section 413.08, Florida Statutes.4/ Principe further testified that Gaudina rarely visited the premises. Gaudina testified that, in total, he visited the premises in Leesburg three or four times over the period of approximately one year. Gaudina presented no credible evidence that he qualifies as a person who is disabled for the purposes of the Florida FHA. Further, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record upon which the undersigned could make a finding of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of Petitioner’s alleged disability, in violation of the Florida FHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Jan Gaudina, did not prove that Respondent, Grand Lifestyle Communities III/IV, LLLP, committed discrimination in the sale or rental of housing because of Petitioner’s alleged disability, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, and dismissing his Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), decision to award funding, pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-111 (“the RFA”), to HTG Sunset, LLC (“Sunset Lake”); HTG Creekside, LLC (“Oaks at Creekside”); and Harper’s Pointe, LP (“Harper’s Pointe”), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the decision is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Madison Oaks is the Applicant entity for a proposed affordable housing development to be located in Osceola County, Florida. Petitioner Sterling Terrace is the Applicant entity for a proposed affordable housing development to be located in Hernando County, Florida. American Residential and Sterling Terrace are Developer entities as defined by Florida Housing in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(28). Sunset Lake, Oaks at Creekside, and Harper’s Pointe are all properly registered business entities in Florida in the business of providing affordable housing. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and, for the purposes of these proceedings, an agency of the State of Florida. Through the RFA, Florida Housing proposes to award an estimated $10,978,942 in Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments located in medium and small counties (“affordable housing tax credits”). The RFA outlines a process for selecting developments for funding. Section Five B. outlines the Selection Process, and subsection 2. is the Application Sorting Order. On November 5, 2017, Florida Housing received 167 applications in response to the RFA. Madison Oaks, Sterling Terrace, Sunset Lake, Oaks at Creekside, and Harper’s Pointe timely submitted applications seeking funding to assist in the development of multi-family housing in medium counties. Florida Housing selected a review committee to score all submitted applications. The review committee issued a recommendation of preliminary rankings and allocations, and the Board of Directors of Florida Housing approved these recommendations on May 4, 2018. The Board found that the parties to this proceeding all satisfied the mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding, but awarded funding to Intervenors based upon the ranking criteria in the RFA. If Sterling Terrace can demonstrate that any two of the three Intervenors should not have been recommended for funding, it and Blue Sunbelt, LLC, will displace them as applications selected for funding. If Madison Oaks can demonstrate that all three Intervenors should not have been recommended for funding, Sterling Terrace and Blue Sunbelt, LLC, will displace them as applications selected for funding. Sunset Lake Section Four A.5.e.(3) of the RFA allows applicants to receive up to four points for proximity to certain community services. The RFA provides that applicants in medium counties must receive at least seven points to be eligible for funding, and at least nine points to be eligible for a Proximity Funding Preference. One of those community services is public schools, which are defined as follows: A public elementary, middle, junior and/or high school, where the principal admission criterion is the geographic proximity to the school. This may include a charter school, if the charter school is open to appropriately aged children in the radius area who apply, without additional requirements for admissions such as passing an entrance exam or audition, payment of fees or tuition, or demographic diversity considerations. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. (emphasis added). Sunset Lake identified the Jewett School of the Arts (“Jewett School”) as a public school, received four points for proximity, and as a result, was eligible for the Proximity Funding Preference. The Jewett School is a magnet school within the Polk County Florida School District. The Jewett School was in existence and available for use by the general public as of the application deadline. Petitioners maintain the Jewett School does not meet the definition of “public school.”4/ If the Jewett School does not meet the definition of a “public school,” Sunset Lake would not be entitled to four points for proximity to community services. As a result, it would have a total of seven points for proximity, and while it would remain eligible, it would lose the Proximity Funding Preference. As a result, Sunset Lake would not have been ranked as highly and would not have been recommended for funding. The Jewett School does not meet the RFA definition of “public school” because geographic proximity to the school is not the principal admission criterion. Although a student must live in Polk County Schools’ Magnet Zone B to apply for admission to the Jewett School, the principal admission criteria is a random lottery process. Geographic location within the Polk County magnet school zones is a threshold issue which qualifies a student to apply for admission. However, the magnet school decision-making process entails a subsequent elaborate demographic diversity analysis, sorting based on the outcome of that analysis, and, ultimately, a random lottery drawing which determines final admission. The Jewett School admission process is contrary to Florida Housing’s primary purpose of awarding proximity points to proposed housing developments--to ensure the intended residents can, in fact, use the services in proximity to the development. Sunset Lake is not entitled to four points for proximity to community services and should not be awarded Proximity Funding Preference. As a result, Sunset Lake should not have been ranked as highly and should not have been recommended for funding. Oaks at Creekside Oaks at Creekside identified the Manatee Charter School (“Manatee School”) as a public school, received three points for proximity, and, as a result, was eligible for funding but not for the Proximity Funding Preference. The Manatee School is a charter school located in Bradenton, Florida. The Manatee School was in existence and available for use by the general public as of the application deadline. Petitioners maintain the Manatee School does not meet the definition of a “public school.”5/ If the Manatee Charter School does not meet that definition, then Oaks at Creekside is not entitled to three points for proximity. As a result, it would have only six total proximity points, and would not be eligible for funding. Florida Housing maintains that a charter school must meet both parts of the definition of a public school in order for a proposed development to receive proximity points based on proximity to that school. That means a charter school must (1) use geographic proximity as the primary admission criteria, and (2) be “open to appropriately aged children in the radius area who apply, without additional requirements for admissions such as passing an entrance exam or audition, payment of fees or tuition, or demographic diversity considerations.” Geographic proximity is not the primary admission criterion for the Manatee School. On the contrary, the Manatee School is open for admission regardless of geographic proximity thereto. The Manatee School operates pursuant to a contract with the Manatee County School Board, and is “open to any student residing in the Manatee County School District, students covered in an interdistrict agreement and students as provided for in Section 1002.33(10), Florida Statutes (2010).”6/ The Manatee School operates a “controlled open enrollment” process. The application period opens in early January and closes at the end of February, and the School accepts students from any school district in the state whose parent or guardian can provide transportation to the school, if the school has not reached capacity. This process is sometimes referred to as “school choice” and is mandatory pursuant to section 1002.31, Florida Statutes.7/ The Manatee School has enrolled students throughout Manatee County, as well as from adjoining Sarasota County. Historically, the Manatee School has not reached capacity. Once the School reaches capacity in any one grade level or class, students will be selected by a system-generated, random lottery process. The term “radius area” is not defined in the RFA or in Florida Housing’s rules. Florida Housing introduced no evidence regarding the meaning of the term “radius area” within the definition of “public school.” When questioned about the meaning, Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations, stated she did not know, but “[I] assume it means if the charter school has a radius area. I don’t know.”8/ The term “radius” is defined as “a bounded or circumscribed area.” Merriam-Webster Online, www.merriam- webster.com (2018). The bounded or circumscribed area for admission to the Manatee School is the Manatee County School District, pursuant to its contract. The Manatee School is open to appropriately-aged children in the radius area who apply. The Manatee School does not apply additional requirements for admission, such as passing an entrance exam or audition, payment of fees or tuition, or demographic diversity considerations.9/ The Manatee School does provide admissions preferences to students of active duty military personnel, siblings of a student already enrolled, siblings of an accepted applicant, children of an employee of the School, and children of a charter board member. Each of these preferences is authorized pursuant to section 1002.33(10)(d). The preferences are not additional requirements for admission to the Manatee School. The Manatee School meets the second part of the definition of “public school” for purpose of qualifying Oaks at Creekside to receive proximity points pursuant to the RFA. Harper’s Pointe Madison Oaks argues Harper’s Pointe is ineligible for funding pursuant to the RFA because the Harper’s Pointe development site is a “scattered site,” and Harper’s Pointe did not identify the site as such and comply with the RFA requirement to designate latitude and longitude coordinates for both sites.10/ Rule 67-48.002(105) defines “scattered sites” as follows: (105) “Scattered sites,” as applied to a single Development, means a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition “contiguous” means touching at a point or along a boundary. Real property is contiguous if the only intervening real property interest is an easement, provided the easement is not a roadway or street. All of the Scattered Sites must be located in the same county. Section Four A.5.c. of the RFA states: “The Applicant must state whether the Development consists of Scattered Sites.” Section Four A.5.d. of the RFA requires that applicants provide latitude and longitude coordinates for the Development Location Point and any scattered sites. Section Five A.1. provides that “only items that meet all of the following Eligibility Items will be eligible for funding and consideration for funding selection.” Among the items listed are “Question whether a Scattered Sites Development answered” and “Latitude and Longitude Coordinates for any Scattered Site provided, if applicable.” Harper’s Pointe did not state in its application that the development consists of scattered sites, and did not provide separate latitude and longitude coordinates for scattered sites. Harper’s Pointe’s proposed development site, as identified in its Site Control Documents, consists of land located within a platted tract of property. The plat recorded in Alachua County indicates that the site is bisected by a platted 50-foot street easement running east/west through the property. The parties stipulated the street has never been constructed. Although portions of the east/west easement area show signs of having been improved at some time in the past, the easement area has never been paved, and is currently impassible by car or truck due to vegetation in the easement area. Even if the easement area were improved, there is no roadway to the west of the property to which it would connect. A fence runs along the property line and the property beyond the fence is platted residential lots accessed by Northeast 22nd Street. An existing roadway, Northeast 23rd Avenue, terminates at the eastern property line just south of the east/west easement. The City has placed barriers at that property line prohibiting access to the property from Northeast 23rd Avenue. If the platted street is a “roadway or street” as those terms are used in rule 67-48.002(105), the site would meet the definition of a “scattered site.” Ms. Button testified on behalf of Florida Housing that the property meets the definition of a scattered site because “there is an easement that is a road or a street” that bisects the property. Ms. Button first testified that Florida Housing’s determination did not depend on whether a roadway or street is actually constructed within the easement, but rather, “it goes back to the easement, whether there is an easement that is a roadway or street.” Ms. Button’s testimony seemed logical enough. If the easement were a street easement, access between the northern and southern portions of the development site would be constrained. By contrast, if the easement were a conservation or utility easement, there would be no impairment of access between portions of the development site. However, on cross examination, Ms. Button testified that, in making the determination whether an easement for a road or street existed, Florida Housing would consider a number of other factors, including whether a roadway was actually constructed within the easement, whether there were physical obstructions preventing access to the “prospective” roadway or street, and whether the public had a right to use the “prospective” roadway or street. Ms. Button did not testify with specificity what factors she considered in making the determination that the easement, in this case, was “a roadway or street.” Ms. Button’s direct-examination testimony was conclusory: “Based on the documentation we received, there is an easement that is a road or street.” On direct examination, her determination appeared to be based solely on the plat designation of a street easement. On cross-examination, however, Ms. Button testified that “a street designated . . . on a plat could be evidence of the existence of a scattered site.” (emphasis added). Moreover, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing could consider whether a roadway or street was actually constructed, whether there were obstructions to its use, and whether the public had a right to use the purported roadway. Ms. Button’s testimony that the Harper’s Point development site was a scattered site was equivocal, and the undersigned does not accept it as either reliable or persuasive.11/ There is no physical roadway or street constructed within the easement. While there is some evidence that some portions of the easement area were improved in the past, said improvement was at least 25 years old. The current condition of the property is fairly heavily wooded. To the extent a “path” exists on the property, it is not passable by a standard four- wheeled vehicle. Moreover, there are physical barriers preventing vehicular access to the property from the adjoining street to the east. There is no access to the property from the residential development to the west of the property. There is not an improved area preventing access from the northern to the southern portion of the development site. There is no structure built within the easement which would have to be demolished in order to build the project on the development site as a single parcel. Based on the entirety of the reliable evidence, the Harper’s Pointe development site is not a “scattered site” as defined in the RFA. Madison Oaks failed to prove that Florida Housing’s initial determination to award tax credits to Harper’s Pointe, pursuant to the RFA, was incorrect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing issue a final order finding (1) that its initial scoring decision regarding Sunset Lake was erroneous, and awarding funding to the applicant with the next highest lottery number; and (2) awarding funding to Oaks at Creekside and Harper’s Pointe, pursuant to its initial scoring decision. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2018.
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition for Establishment of the Villages of Westport Community Development District (Petition), dated September 4, 2003. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a proposed activity by Cayo Costa Island Partnership is exempt from permitting.
Findings Of Fact Cayo Costa Island is a bridgeless barrier island situated between Gasparilla Island to the north and Captiva Island to the south. East of Cayo Costa Island is Pine Island, and east of Pine Island is Cape Coral. In the 1960s, Travis Gresham subdivided and commenced development of a portion of Cayo Costa Island. Development included the dredging of canals. Eventually, one or more plat maps were recorded in the public records of Lee County, so that warranty deeds for residential lots referred to such recorded plat maps. There is also a subdivision sales plat map, which may not have been recorded. Not all of the land was subdivided into lots. The sales plat map reserves a considerable amount of land and canals for future development. One of the reserved areas is to the east of the subdivided lots. The location of the proposed dock is in the extreme southwest corner of this unplatted area. The dock would be located at the western end of a relatively wide manmade canal, which measures 2000 feet long and 105 feet wide. The east end of the canal terminates in Pine Island Sound. Petitioner and her late husband purchased from Mr. Gresham lot 16 in block 1 over 30 years ago, and they moved onto the island almost 20 years ago. The lot does not abut the canal, nor the upland adjacent to the subject dock. She has permanently resided on the island continuously since 1976. In 1984, she and her husband conveyed their property by warranty deed to the State of Florida, reserving a life estate. Petitioner's husband and some friends constructed the subject dock at the end of the canal in September 1978. A couple of years later, another nearby resident named Carl Noah substantially enlarged the dock. On March 16, 1993, Mr. Noah conveyed by warranty deed his real property to Paul Faust. At the same time, Mr. Noah gave Mr. Faust a quitclaim deed for "boat docks constructed by [Mr. Noah] to be used with the [residential] structure." After purchasing the property from Mr. Noah, Mr. Faust was contacted by Petitioner, who told him that she had previously owned the dock and that Mr. Noah had shared it with her. Mr. Faust agreed to share the dock with her, for as long as he owned it. There are no recorded easements concerning the use of the dock. On the sales plat map, the west end of the canal is clearly separated from the subdivided area by a road, which is named Harbor Drive. However, Harbor Drive was never constructed and there is no physical evidence of the proposed road. Petitioner's late husband and his friends who helped build the dock mistakenly believed that the west end of the canal terminated at Harbor Drive. Undoubtedly, other persons were similarly confused, including the property assessor, who had never assessed the property that separates the west end of the canal from Harbor Drive. However, in May 1993, Noel Andress, one of the partners of Cayo Costa Island Partnership, obtained a warranty deed from Mr. Gresham for a triangular- shaped piece of land running north just to the existing dock from the intersection of Harbor Drive and an actual road known as La Costa Drive. Mr. Andress quitclaimed the triangular-shaped parcel, which is described by metes and bounds, to Cayo Costa Island Partnership on January 13, 1994. After Mr. Andress acquired the triangular-shaped parcel, he directed his attorney to write Petitioner and Mr. Faust and inform them to remove their personal property from the real property that Mr. Andress had recently acquired. Mr. Faust is contesting this matter in court. Unfortunately, the record does not include the application or applications submitted by Cayo Costa Island Partnership. Mr. Andress testified that he submitted an application in February or March of 1993. The proposed dock, which would replace the dock built by Mr. Sellars and Mr. Noah, would serve a single family. The proposed dock would consist of two sections: a 5' by 92' main section and a 6' by 10' walkway to the upland area. Thus, the total area of the dock would be 520 square feet. The application reportedly provides that Cayo Costa Island Partnership would use turbidity barriers during construction. The location of a 92-foot dock running parallel to the end of a 2000- foot long undeveloped canal presents no impediment to navigation. There is no reason to infer an adverse impact to flood control or, as long as turbidity barriers are used, a violation of water quality standards. By letter dated June 15, 1994, the Department of Environmental Protection acknowledged receipt of the application, as well as additional drawings and documents submitted on April 8, 1994. Based on these materials, the letter states that the proposed project "appears to qualify as an activity which is exempt from the need for a Department wetland resource permit under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-312.050(1)(h)."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of Petitioner. ENTERED on November 22, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 22, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings A-C: rejected as not findings of fact. A1: rejected as not finding of fact and irrelevant, except for last sentence, which is adopted or adopted in substance. A2-end: rejected as irrelevant, recitation of evidence, subordinate, and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Cayo Costa's Proposed Findings 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-23: rejected as subordinate, recitation of testimony, and unnecessary. 24-31: adopted or adopted in substance. 32-33: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Mathews Trescott Pepper Law Firm 1505 S.E. 40th St. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Mary F. Smallwood Ruden, Barnett P.O. Box 10888 Tallahassee, FL 32302 John Chaves Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner's application for a Notice of Proposed Change to its Development of Regional Impact constitutes a substantial deviation from the criteria in Section 380.06(19)(b)1.-15., Florida Statutes, and whether the proposed change is consistent with Bay County's Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Bay Point Club, Inc. (Petitioner), is the owner of Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 located within the Bay Point Yacht and Country Club Resort Development of Regional Impact (Bay Point DRI) in Panama City, Florida. The Bay Point DRI was approved by Respondent, Bay County (County), on July 22, 1986, and authorized the development of 2,161 residential units, 200 hotel units, 123 marina slips, and recreational facilities on approximately 946 acres. The County is responsible for issuing development orders for projects that are to undergo development of regional impact review, including amendments to development orders of previously determined DRIs, in conformity with the requirements of Section 380.06, Florida Statutes. When the original Development Order was issued in 1986, Bay Point Yacht & Country Club was the sole developer of the Bay Point DRI. Since that time, the ownership and control of the properties within the Bay Point DRI has changed, and there are now multiple owners and developers of the 36 separate development areas or parcels included within the Bay Point DRI, including Petitioner, who owns the above four parcels. The Bay Point DRI was approved by the County prior to the adoption of its Comprehensive Plan (the Plan). When the first Plan was adopted in 1991, the County recognized and incorporated the Bay Point DRI through the adoption of an overlay to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which delineates the boundaries of the property. As stated in Future Land Use Element Policy 3.4.5, the overlay was adopted to ensure the consistency and compatibility of the Bay Point DRI with the County's FLUM. Parcels F and 12 were designated as "Seasonal/Resort" and Parcels 9 and 10 were designated as "Residential" on the FLUM. These designations remain in effect as of the date of the final hearing. A Seasonal/Resort classification allows a broad range of uses such as beach houses, multifamily housing, condominiums, hotels, lodges, restaurants, and other similar uses, while a Residential classification permits those land uses typically associated with residential occupancy. The Bay Point DRI has been amended 15 times, which amendments cumulatively reduced by 145 the total number of residential units. None of these amendments constituted a substantial deviation from the approval given in the original Development Order, and the County has never required a corresponding amendment to its Plan, FLUM, or DRI overlay as a condition for approval for any of these changes to the DRI. In July 1993, PFP One, Inc., Petitioner's parent company, entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as manager of the FSLIC Resolution Trust Fund, to purchase Parcels F (a waterfront lot adjacent to the Bay Point Marina), 10, and 9 for $235,000. At that time, Parcels 9 and 10 were vacant, and they remain vacant today. A private membership tennis facility was operating on Parcel F through a lease agreement Petitioner inherited as a part of the purchase. These tennis facilities were closed on April 1, 2000, due to a lack of membership support. Parcel 12 was purchased by PFP One, Inc. in 1994. It contained a private clubhouse facility which had once been operational prior to the approval of the DRI, but was closed at the time of the sale. The clubhouse was remodeled by Petitioner shortly after the Parcel was purchased and reopened the same year. Due to a lack of membership support, however, the clubhouse was closed in 1996. The single-family residential portion of Bay Point begins within a few hundred feet west of the above Parcels. The Development Order currently provides the following descriptions for Parcels F, 12, 10, and 9: Parcel F: Located adjacent to the Bay Point Clubhouse, this 4.8 acre site currently supports the Bay Point Tennis Center. As a part of Bay Point's long term plan, the Tennis Center is scheduled to be moved to Area 9 in 1986. In 1987, a 70-unit condominium project designated as Port Towers is planned to be built on this waterfront site. [A] total of 97,000-sq. ft. of heated and cooled space are planned. Included will be a pool and recreation center. Building height would be restricted to not more than five stories with a majority of the project being of the two and three story height. Four, 2100 sq. ft. penthouse units, eight (8) 1,800 sq. ft. three-bedroom units, forty (40), 1400 sq. ft. two-bedroom units and eighteen (18), 1000 sq. ft. one-bedroom units are planned. There would be no restrictions of resort rental use, although it is assumed that, like Marina Club Village, the vast majority of these units will be primary and secondary homes because of pricing. Restrictive covenants for this project would be developed similar to those currently in force at Bay Point. Parcel 12: A 4-acre main clubhouse site, which is adjacent to the swimming pool, snack bar, health club and real estate facilities, is in the vested area and was substantially completed prior to July 1, 1973. Parcel 10: This one acre site is the planned location of the new Sport Center Clubhouse which will serve Bay Point's member golf facilities and the resort's tennis and health facilities. Included in the 14,000 square ft. Clubhouse will be a 90-seat restaurant and snack bar area, a health club, exercise and massage rooms, men and women's locker rooms, offices for the Director of Tennis and Golf Professional and a classroom. Additional space will house the club's sports retail center which sells both hard and soft goods associated with golf, tennis and physical exercise. Parcel 9: This 6 acre site has been set aside as the future location of the Bay Point Tennis Center. When completed, it will consist of up to 14 tennis courts, one of which will be the center court with stadium stands. The original description of Parcels F and 12 reflects that the acreage of the two sites combined is 8.83 acres. A survey completed just before the NOPC was submitted determined that the combined acreage of the two parcels was actually 9.67 acres. Petitioner has stipulated that in the event the smaller acreage number is correct, the density that will be developed on the property will be in conformity with the limitations imposed by the smaller acreage. On May 14, 2001, Petitioner filed with the County a Notification of Proposed Change to a Previously-Approved Development of Regional Impact (NOPC) under Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. Copies were also provided to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the West Florida Regional Planning Council (Council). Under the NOPC, Petitioner proposes to change the Development Order as to Parcels F and 12 as follows: The proposed project will be a 136-unit condominium project with approximately 58 units on Parcel F and 78 units on Parcel 12. The number of units on both parcels will increase from the current 70 units authorized on Parcel F to 136 units on Parcels F and 12 combined, a cumulative increase of 66 units. Three concrete structures are planned. The center building, which is the farthest from any existing development, is 11 stories in height with a step increase to 12 stories. The two exterior buildings are six stories in height with step increases to ten stories. All improvements to the project will be built by year end 2004, which is the current build-out date for the Bay Point DRI, as amended. The existing tennis courts located on Parcel F will be reduced to four hard surface courts with separate restroom facilities. The residential units will consist of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom condominiums, approximately 900 to 2,400 sq. ft. in size. Thus, the proposed change in Parcels F and 12 will increase the number of condominium units from 70 to 136, change the height limitation from 5 stories to 12 stories, and eliminate the existing tennis facility. In addition, Petitioner proposes to eliminate the swimming pool and clubhouse now located on Parcel 12 and replace them with condominiums. The NOPC also proposes to change the Development Order as to Parcels 9 and 10 in the following manner: The designations for Parcels 9 and 10 will be changed from "Tennis Complex" and "Sports Center/Clubhouse," respectively, to Recreation. These changes are sought because of the historical absence of community or public support for the existing private tennis and clubhouse facilities presently located on Parcels F and 12. Funded through annual memberships by residents of Bay Point and the public, support for these facilities has been insufficient to economically sustain them and justify their continued operation. Consequently, due to lack of membership support, the Clubhouse on Parcel 12 was closed in 1996. For the same reason, the tennis courts on Parcel F were closed April 1, 2000. Changing the designation on Parcels 9 and 10, from Tennis Complex and Clubhouse to Recreation[,] will afford the Applicant with the flexibility needed to develop new or expanded active and/or passive recreational opportunities which the residents of Bay Point are willing and able to support, and which are economically feasible. In no event, however, will the Applicant develop, or allow others to develop, recreational facilities on Parcel 9 or Parcel 10 which exceed the intensity standards authorized for the development of these properties by the original Bay Point DRI. Under these proposed changes, Parcels 9 and 10, which are predominately wetlands, will remain undeveloped and constitute a passive recreation area. The changes proposed in the NOPC will require corresponding changes to the uses originally approved for Parcels F, 12, 10, and 9 in the Bay Point DRI Development Order, including changes to Map H, the Master Development Plan Map. The changes proposed by the NOPC for the DRI Development Order, including the changes to Map H, will not require a corresponding amendment to the underlying land use designations for Parcels F and 12 (Seasonal/Resort) and Parcels 9 and 10 (Residential). The NOPC was reviewed by the Council for conformity with the requirements of Section 380.06(19)(f)4., Florida Statutes. On June 11, 2001, the Council advised the County that the changes proposed for Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 did not appear to constitute a substantial change from the previously- approved Bay Point DRI. The DCA did not submit a written objection to the proposed NOPC. On August 7 and September 7, 2001, the County held quasi-judicial public hearings on the NOPC. At the latter meeting, the County denied the NOPC on the basis of a 2-2 tie vote regarding the question of whether the proposal constituted a substantial deviation. The County did not make any determination with respect to the question of whether the NOPC was consistent with its Comprehensive Plan. This finding was confirmed in a letter from the County Attorney's Office dated September 7, 2001, and transmitted to Petitioner on September 11, 2001. On October 11, 2001, Petitioner filed its Petition to Appeal DRI Development Order with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission). On November 7, 2001, Intervenors, K. Earl Durden, David Allen Spencer, Harry B. Sipple, III, Unal Tutak, David W. Hill, Lucy N. Hilton, and William F. Fusselman, who all own property within the Bay Point DRI and have standing to participate, filed a Petition to Intervene. On November 8, 2001, Intervenor, Bay Point Community Association, Inc., which is the homeowners' association for the approximately 1,300 residences within the Bay Point DRI and likewise has standing to participate, filed its Petition to Intervene. These Petitions were granted by the Commission on December 19, 2001. Although the Petitions to Intervene contended that the NOPC constituted a substantial deviation requiring further DRI review by the County, that issue has been abandoned. Remaining at issue is the contention that the NOPC is inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan (Plan) by generally failing to protect residential property values, promote viable neighborhoods, and maintain the community character in residential areas, as required by various Plan Objectives and Policies. Intervenors also contend that the NOPC lacks a needed stormwater plan. In more simple terms, however, Intervenors object to any high- rise development in an area surrounded by single-family residential homes and in a community (Bay Point) where no other buildings exceed seven stories in height. The characteristics of the community Bay Point is a unique, residential resort development on St. Andrews Bay in Panama City, Florida. A large portion of the land lying north of Bay Point is owned by the United States Navy; thus, Bay Point is somewhat isolated from the unplanned developments which occur in other inland areas, as well as along the Gulf of Mexico. Residential and commercial development commenced in Bay Point in 1971. To date, no high-rise buildings have been constructed in the community. Most structures are one or two stories in height, and only four buildings in Bay Point exceed two stories: the Bay Town commercial and condominium development (three stories); the Lagoon Towers condominium with sixty-three units (seven stories), which is the tallest building in Bay Point; the Marriott Legends Edge timeshare with twenty-eight units (six stories); and the Marriott Hotel (five stories). The three tallest buildings are in the extreme southeast portion of Bay Point a minimum of 1,600 feet and as far as 3,000 feet from the site of Petitioner's proposed high rise condominium buildings. When viewed from a distance, the four buildings which exceed two stories in height can barely be seen above the tree line. Bay Point is a mixed use development because it includes residential and nonresidential uses, as well as some community facilities. However, it is fair to state that Bay Point is a low-rise, low-density residential development, and it was planned as a predominately residential community under the 1986 DRI Development Order. Access to the residential part of the community is controlled through gates and a security force. Although there are some resort rental activities and tourist accommodations (a Marriott hotel), Bay Point is comprised of predominately permanent residents. There are 681 single-family homes on individual lots in the western portion of Bay Point, which are one and two-story structures comprising 79.9 percent of the development in Bay Point. The two-story single-family homes tend to be clustered along the bay or along the canals running through the development. As originally developed, commercial development made up only 10.4 percent of the land area of Bay Point. Of that total, 6.6 percent is retail and office development (such as offices, restaurants, retail shops, and a post office); 1.5 percent is commercial recreation (pro shops and golf and tennis club); and 1.7 percent is a Marriott Hotel. In addition, community facilities (including a playground for children) comprise 1.5 percent of the land area. There is also a 201-slip marina and a semi-private golf club on the premises. The "resort core" area of Bay Point refers to certain development in the Seasonal/Resort land use category containing a mixture of mainly seasonal and tourist residential, commercial, and noncommercial uses. Of the almost 1,000 acres in the Bay Point DRI, only about 24 acres were planned and approved for "resort core," or less than 15 percent of the 200 acres designated as Seasonal/Resort. The remaining 85 percent of the Seasonal/Resort area has a predominately residential character. Petitioner's project on Parcels F and 12 is far from any development that could be characterized as "resort core," and all of the development in the immediate vicinity of and surrounding Parcels F and 12 is residential development with structures not exceeding two stories in height. Thus, Petitioner cannot rely on any perceived proximity of Parcels F and 12 to the "resort core" as a basis for justifying the high-rise structures. Consistency with the Plan Intervenors contend that the NOPC is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 3.4.5 (which allegation is subject to an objection by Petitioner); Housing Element Objective 8.5; Housing Element Policy 8.5.1; Housing Objective 8.9 (which allegation is subject to a Motion to Strike); Stormwater Management Objectives 5E.9 and 5E.12; Stormwater Management Policies 5E.9.1, 5E.10.1, and 5E.12.1; and FLUE Policy 3.3.1. Each of these items will be addressed separately below. As a part of its 1999 Plan (which amended and updated the 1991 Plan), the County adopted special treatment zones (STZs) to be designated on the FLUM in addition to the future land use categories. The specific STZs are established pursuant to FLUE Objective 3.4, which provides that the zones are created "for purposes of dealing with unique or desirable circumstances." The unique circumstance in this case is the DRI. In the Plan, the County has either adopted or expressed its intent to adopt distinct land development regulations or land use controls for each STZ. FLUE Policy 3.4.5 establishes the Bay Point DRI STZ. This policy provides that: [t]he Bay Point Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Special Treatment Zone shall be established in order to ensure compatibility and consistency between the Bay Point DRI Development Order and the FLUM. Development in this area shall be governed by the DRI Development Order. (Emphasis supplied) The last sentence of Policy 3.4.5 was added by comprehensive plan amendment adopted on July 10, 2001. By virtue of the underscored language, the conditions and restrictions on the use and development of Parcels F, 9, 10, and 12 in the DRI Development Order in effect on July 10, 2001, are incorporated into the County's Plan. This was confirmed at hearing by the County's Planning and Zoning Manager. Thus, the maximum five-story height limitation on Parcel 12 contained in the DRI Development Order is incorporated into the Plan by reference through Policy 3.4.5. Because all three of Petitioner's proposed high-rise condominium buildings exceed the five-story height limitation for Parcel F found in the DRI Development Order in effect on July 10, 2001, the NOPC is inconsistent with Policy 3.4.5. Objective 8.5 of the Housing Element provides that all projects in the County will "preserve and protect the character, compatibility, and aesthetics of residential areas and neighborhoods through the enforcement of land use regulations." Petitioner contends that this Objective cannot apply to the development on Parcels F and 12 because these parcels are in a mixed land use category under the FLUM and therefore are not in "residential areas or neighborhood" as contemplated by the Objective. However, the Objective refers to "residential areas and neighborhoods," and not to future land use categories. Thus, the Objective is directed towards existing residential and multi-family development in Bay Point, including Intervenors' property, and must be taken into account when judging the merits of Petitioner's application. "Character" and "aesthetics" are not defined in the Plan. Rather, they are terms of art in the planning profession and are commonly understood by planning professionals. These terms refer to development as it exists, not development that could occur based on a land use category. This is because one cannot protect the character and aesthetics of a land use designation. The evidence shows that "character" consists of those attributes that lend a sense of place to an area, which people in the area can identify with that is distinguishable from other such areas. It includes such factors as type of buildings, building height and mass, the relationship of one building to another, the types of activities that go on in the area or neighborhood, the presence or absence of vegetation, the presence or absence of underground utilities, street design, architectural design, and the preservation of the long-standing stable nature of a neighborhood. "Aesthetics" are those attributes that determine whether an area is visually pleasing. The character of the Bay Point community is that of a stable, low-rise, low density, residential resort community. The buildings in Bay Point consist of individual homes and small villa or townhouse-type buildings clustered on parcels. There are no high-rise buildings in the community or beachfront property. The evidence clearly supports a finding that Bay Point is a predominately neighborhood residential community. Petitioner proposes to construct on Parcels F and 12 three separate high-rise buildings. The outer buildings are six stories at their exteriors, with step increases to ten stories at the interiors. The center building will be eleven stories at the outer edges, with a step up to twelve stories at the peak. The construction of these high-rise condominiums will be in stark contrast to, and out of harmony with, the existing low-rise, low-bulk structures which surround the proposed project and will dramatically change the low-rise, neighborhood character of Bay Point. Thus, the proposed condominiums are not consistent with Objective 8.5 in that they do not preserve the character of the existing residential development within Bay Point. Policy 8.5.1 of the Housing Element requires compatibility between types of residential structures. The Policy also requires that specific criteria be included in the County's Land Use Code "for the preservation and protection of residential areas." It further provides that these standards should ensure that "compatibility between types of residential buildings" will be maintained, and that "residential areas will be used primarily for residential purposes." As of the date of hearing, however, no standards had been adopted, although the County is now in the process of developing such criteria. Until specific criteria are adopted and included in the Land Use Code, Petitioner contends that the Policy cannot be relied upon by Intervenors. If this proposition were true, however, no existing project could be measured for compatibility, and the Policy would be meaningless. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that in the absence of specific standards in the Land Use Code, it is appropriate to rely upon standards used by land use professionals for determining compatibility between types of residential buildings. Indeed, every land planning expert who testified at hearing agreed that a consistency determination should be made based on the guidance provided in the Objectives and Policies of the Plan. The County has addressed the subject of compatibility in Objective 3.9 and Policy 3.9.1 of the Future Land Use Element. The former provision provides that "[a]ll proposed land uses shall be compatible with adjacent conforming land uses," while the latter provision defines "compatibility" to mean "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." The evidence establishes that land use planners view compatibility as meaning the relationship between buildings, uses, and activities to one another. Factors to be used in making this determination are density, building height, scale and mass, lot configuration, and building orientation. Other factors used in this determination include established development patterns, expectations that arise from established development patterns, character of the neighborhood, and stability of the neighborhood. The evidence supports a finding that the development pattern in Bay Point, the expectations of Intervenors and the community based on that development pattern, and the atypical height and mass of Petitioner's project render the proposed project incompatible with Bay Point and thus inconsistent with Objective 8.5.1 of the Plan. In making this finding, the undersigned has found that Petitioner's compatibility analysis is too narrow in scope and ignores the reality that Petitioner proposes to develop three high-rise buildings, grouped together in one location, in an established, predominately low-rise residential community. Objective 8.9 of the Housing Element requires that any project in the County "[p]rotect residential property values and ensure that each homeowner has the opportunity for quiet use and enjoyment of their residence." Thus, in order to be consistent with the Plan, Petitioner must demonstrate that its project will not impact the residential property values in Bay Point in a negative manner. To demonstrate consistency with the foregoing Objective, Petitioner's expert opined that the proposed project would infuse new capital and value into the Bay Point area thereby increasing property values. However, Petitioner's market study (Petitioner's Exhibit 12) is flawed in several respects. For example, it incorrectly defines the Bay Point neighborhood as including an intensely developed Gulf front tourist district along Thomas Drive and the east end of Highway 98 in Panama City, within a three to six mile southern radius of Bay Point, and which includes high-rise condominiums, motels, and commercial uses that are dependent on the tourist industry. The study also concludes, erroneously, that most of the condominium units in Bay Point are utilized as second homes and rental properties by absentee owners. Finally, the study uses two "comparable" projects on which to base a market analysis, one in Destin and the other in Seascape. Neither property is really comparable since both are located on the Gulf of Mexico in neighboring Walton County. The more credible evidence establishes that the threat of development of high-rise buildings on Parcels F and 12 has caused a decline in residential property values in Bay Point. Further, if the NOPC is approved, the property values will continue to decline. This decline has been exacerbated by the loss of the Bay Point community center and tennis courts, which were previously located on the lots in question. Given these considerations, it is found that the NOPC is inconsistent with Housing Element Objective 8.9, in that the NOPC does not protect property values within the community. Intervenors further contend that the NOPC is inconsistent with various Objectives and Policies in the Stormwater Management Element since the NOPC does not contain a detailed stormwater plan for the proposed project. These Objectives and Policies are designed to reduce and eliminate flooding, protect surface waters from contamination and sedimentation caused by the stormwater, and prevent future problems by regulating development. This contention has been rejected since the specific requirements for the stormwater system necessary to serve Parcels F and 12 are not properly addressed in the DRI process, but rather will be considered by the County at the time the actual construction documents for these parcels are submitted for review and permitting. Finally, Intervenors assert that the NOPC is inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 3.3.1, which designates criteria for designating land use categories on the FLUM and attendant standards for development. No credible evidence was presented on this issue, and therefore the contention has been rejected. All other matters raised by Intervenors have likewise been considered and rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for a NOPC on the ground that it is inconsistent with FLUE Policy 3.4.5, Housing Element Objective 8.5, Housing Element Policy 8.5.1, and Housing Element Objective 8.9 of the Bay County Comprehensive Plan. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Arduin, Secretary Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 2105 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001 Kenneth D. Goldberg, Esquire 1725 Mahan Drive, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5201 Michael S. Burke, Esquire Burke & Blue 221 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401-3128 Robert C. Apgar, Esquire Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Law Offices of Robert C. Apgar 320 Johnston Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6214 Richard W. Moore, Esquire Amundsen and Gilroy, P.A. Post Office Box 1759 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1759 Raquel Rodriguez, General Counsel Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
Findings Of Fact Manor Care, on June 18, 1987, filed with DHRS, its Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding, to protest the agency's denial of its application for a CON to construct a 120 bed nursing facility in Lee County, Florida for the January, 1990 planning horizon. On July 6, 1987, Bon Secours filed with DHRS its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing to protest the agency's denial of its application for a CON to construct a 120 bed nursing facility in Lee County, also for the same planning horizon. On July 8, 1987, FHFC filed its Petition for Formal Hearing with DHRS contesting the agency's denial of its application for a 120 bed nursing home for the same planning horizon in Lee County. In that same batching cycle, DHRS also comparatively reviewed the applications of Unicare Health Facilities, Inc., to construct a 60 bed facility; Florida Country Place, to construct a 30 bed facility as a part of a retirement complex; Hillhaven Corporation, to construct a 109 bed community nursing home; Health Quest Corporation to construct a 60 bed facility; and Shive Nursing Center, Inc., to construct a 60 bed facility. DHRS determined there was a need in Lee County for the planning horizon in question for an additional 60 beds and thereafter awarded 42 beds to FHFC and 30 beds to Florida Country Place. As of the hearing, DHRS proposes to award a CON for 60 beds to one of the remaining parties. THE PARTIES Manor Care currently owns and operates nine nursing homes in Florida. Of the presently operating homes, seven are rated superior by the state and the other two are rated as standard. The corporation has a regional office in Winter Park, Florida, headed by a senior regional director under whose supervision, Manor Care has constructed and opened three of the above nine facilities. Each of those three was completed on time and within budget and each holds a superior rating. The Sisters of Bon Secours in The United States, Inc., a not for profit corporation based in the State of Maryland, is a civil corporation of the religious order of the Sisters of Bon Secours. This order was founded in 1824 for the purpose of promoting a health care ministry under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church. The order owns the Bon Secours Health System which carries out this health care mission. Bon Secours Health Systems is also a not for profit entity and will operate the Lee County facility if construction is approved. Bon Secours Health Systems also operates Bon Secours Hospital and Villa Maria Nursing Center in Miami, Florida. As a nonprofit entity, Bon Secours reinvests any excess revenues in its health care delivery system as opposed to returning a profit to private investors. A nonprofit entity does not, however, necessarily mean that a profit is not earned out of operations. FHFC is a small, family owned corporation which owns and operates nursing homes in Florida, Iowa, and Missouri and, with its related companies, Clark Development, and Village Properties, has been in business since 1967. FHFC currently owns and operates five nursing homes in Florida, none of which have ever been owned or managed by an outside company. Further, neither FHFC nor its related companies have ever sold an issued or approved CON. Pines Village had a conditional rating when opened but is currently rated standard. Pines Villages currently owned and operated by FHFC, is located on a five acre landscaped site in Lee County. Amenities on the property include a pond and fishing deck for the use of the patients, and the local Boy Scout troop has built a gardening area for the residents. Volunteer and professional staff are provided by FHFC to accompany residents on the grounds. The facility was originally opened as a 78 bed facility and has operated at that level until only recently. THE PROPOSALS The applicants propose the following facilities and costs: FHFC MANOR CARE BON SEC. Total Proj. Cost $866,940 $3,108,500 $ 3,596,700 New Total GFT $ 13,420 $ 27,000 $34,000 GFT/Bed $ 291.55 $ 450 $ 566.60 Const. Cost $697,840 $1,377,000 $ 2,073,700 Const. Cost/ft2 $ 52.00 $ 51.00 $ 60.99 Const. Cost/Bed $ 11,630 $ 22,950 $34,562 Total Cost/Bed $ 14,449 $ 51,808 $59,945 Manor Care proposes to finance its project by the issuance of convertible debentures at an estimated interest rate of 12 percent which includes the estimated cost of converting the debentures. In the event that lower interest rates become available, Manor Care will take advantage of them. Bon Secours projects financing by tax exempt bonds at 8 1/2 percent. It has secured similar bond funding in the past and is confident it can secure it here. Florida Health Facilities proposes to utilize a conventional loan at 10 percent interest. There is no reason to believe that such financing is not available. The applicants propose the following patient charges: FHFC MANOR CARE BON SECOURS Private --- $ 83.98 $85.00 Semiprivate $69.00 $ 72.43 $74.00 Medicaid $45.34 $ 73.48 --- Medicare $62.00 $109.96 --- VA $81.00 --- --- Private-Alz. --- $ 88.18 --- Semi-private-Alz.-- $ 78.73 --- Each of the current applicants is highly skeptical of the accuracy of its competitors pro forma cost estimates and thereby concludes the costs and resultant charges proposed are "optimistic," "flawed," "unrealistic," "inaccurate," and "internally inconsistent." Even if these criticisms are true, they apply equally to all applicants, and when evaluating the proposals, allowance is made for proprietary puffing and the recognition that the actuality of the future may vary widely from the recollections of the past and the estimates of the present. Consequently, unless shown to be clearly inaccurate or not capable of belief, the representative of the applicants are accepted here as made. The applicants propose the following commitments to Medicaid patients: FHFC MANOR CARE BON SECOURS Medicaid Util. 50 percent 35 percent 33.5 percent Medicaid Rate $58.39 $73.48 $85.00 (P) $74.00 (SP) Current Medicaid utilization at FHFC is 53 percent, a figure which is comparable to other nursing facilities in Lee County. Bon Secours' commitment of 33 1/2 percent is the minimum Medicaid commitment required by the local health plan. Manor Care projects a 35 percent utilization and places an upper limit of 45 percent on Medicaid participation overall. Manor Care tends to locate its facilities in more affluent neighborhoods, however and caters to a more upscale patient mix. Medicare projections by the parties are Manor Care, 5 percent; FHFC, 2 percent; and Bon Secours, 19.9 percent. The latter figure, Bon Secours', would appear to be high, however, for the area in question where statistics available indicate Medicare utilization has declined. Medicare is generally a high reimbursement service. All three proposals are consistent with the goals of the State Health Plan which are to develop alternatives to Institutionalization; to insure appropriate long term care services are available; and to insure such services are appropriately utilized. They are also consistent with the local health plans although in all cases, compliance may not be as clearly shown. However, of all applicants, Bon Secours best addressed the question of Medicare provision and the need for rehabilitative and subacute care facilities in the county. Bon Secours proposes a facility which will emphasize rehabilitative and restorative care under a program known as short term/long term care (stays of 90 days or less). In addition, Bon Secours proposes to also provide long term care of over 90 days when required. Manor Care proposes to offer long term care services and a segregated Alzheimer's Disease unit with 30 of the new beds going to long term care and 30 to the proposed Alzheimer's unit. FHFC intends to add 60 beds to its existing facility in Lee County without an addition in ancillary space. In other words, construction will be limited to that necessary to provide patient rooms, nursing station and baths but not additions to the common areas, the dining area, or the therapy area. QUALITY OF CARE AND STAFFING Manor Care has a developed, effective quality assurance program. It has identified the nursing home requirements from all states in which it operates and compiled those requirements into a comprehensive manual for internal use which is updated annually. Based on the requirements contained in the manual, an unannounced survey is performed by a team which includes specialists in all areas of nursing home care once a year. If a facility is deficient in any category, a plan of correction and a resurvey are required. In addition, a nurse in Manor Care's regional office acts as a consultant on an ongoing basis to the various nursing homes, and the senior regional director, located in Florida, makes regular visits to all Manor Care homes within the state. A member of the Clark family, the sole owners of FHFC, visits each of the corporation's facilities at least biweekly making an examination and inspection of the kitchen, the grounds, and the patient rooms. Periodic family dinner nights are held at each of the facilities at which patients and their families have an opportunity to meet with the senior staff of the facility. This gives the staff the opportunity to receive feedback from the residents and their families. In addition, FHFC requires the submission of a quarterly quality assurance questionnaire by its facilities, provides all new administrators two weeks in-house training at an FHFC facility, and provides, a management team to periodically inspect each of the FHFC facilities to insure that the facility is being managed and operated consistent with the corporation's internal quality assurance manual. If a facility is not in compliance, the administrator and department heads of that facility are required to prepare a deficiency report and establish a plan for correction of the deficiency. No FHFC facility in Florida has ever had its license downgraded to "conditional" after DHRS inspection. Bon Secours' quality assurance program addresses all quality care concerns. In the operation of the program, each department is involved in quality assessment providing for staff input into the establishment of required standards. Bon Secours' Villa Maria facility currently holds a "superior" license and hopes to acquire that category license for its Lee County facility. Villa Maria is accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Organization and by the Commission of Accreditation on Rehabilitation Facilities. The systems utilized to achieve these accreditations will be utilized in Lee facility. The staffing plan proposed by Bon Secours, if implemented, will provide quality care and professional supervision at all times. Due to its relationship with church affiliated training schools, Bon Secours is more likely to find it easier to recruit health care professionals at the entry level. Manor Care intends to provide 3 nursing hours per patient day as opposed to 3.5 as proposed by Bon Secours. FHFC's proposal is projected at 2.5. Current staffing at the FHFC facility, however, exceeds DHRS minimum requirements and it is anticipated that projected staffing for the 60 bed addition will also exceed DHRS minimum requirements. FHFC also will have activities staff available to the patients eight hours per day, seven days a week. Emergency transfer assistance and referral agreements are in existence with more than five local hospitals and mutual aid agreements have been negotiated with approximately ten local nursing homes. Contracts for therapeutic services, dental services, podiatry services, medical utilization review, and a registered dietician are in operation. The facility offers a full time social worker holding a Bachelor's degree and has consultant arrangements with an individual with a Master's degree in social work. The full time social worker performs admissions and discharge coordination, assists with patient care and planning, and provides referral to community resources. A physical therapy aide is on the premises seven days a week. Rehabilitation, speech, and occupational therapy services are contracted for on an "as needed" basis. The current level of usage is not high, however, and while both other applicants propose providing the service through either in-house or contract personnel, this is not a major factor. Bon Secours' staff level in all areas appears generous and might result in unnecessary cost levels even though salaries paid are reportedly lower than normal. BUILDING DESIGN AND EQUIPMENT Manor Care originally proposed a two-story, 120 bed facility. The currently proposed 60 bed design is essentially the first floor of that facility with minor modifications such as the elimination of three-bed rooms. The facility design calls for 27,000 square feet (AS0 square feet per bed) and includes a separate unit for Alzheimer's Disease patients and their activities. The facility, equipped with high quality furnishings and equipment, is designed to provide a homelike atmosphere. Due to its ability to purchase in bulk, Manor Care can provide custom designed fabrics and wall coverings as opposed to stock products, adding a special touch and warmth to the facility's atmosphere. Bon Secours' 34,000 square foot addition, providing 566.6 square feet per bed, is overly large. Its' projected amenities, including a private shower in each patient room, suggest a facility providing first class comfort. There is no separate activities room, however, as the dining room serves that function. Since the dining room is not immediately adjacent to the kitchen, food service may be impacted. FHFC's proposal contemplates a 13,400 square foot, (291.55 square foot/bed), 60 bed addition to its existing facility. Construction would be of noncombustible framing and trusses fabricated from light gauge steel. The proposed 60 bed addition will reproduce one of the existing wings of the current facility and will add a new nursing station at the juncture of the existing facility with the new wing. The proposed addition meets all DHRS design and construction requirements. The existing dining room, kitchen, and recreational facilities are believed to be sufficient to provide services to the new wing since the original facilities were designed to exceed DHRS requirements and are large enough to accommodate the new patients. Construction as proposed will not violate any travel distance requirements and the outside view from the patient rooms satisfies DHRS' twenty foot setback requirement The construction costs proposed by FHFC are realistic and appear substantially less than those of the other two applicants. This difference may be attributable to several factors including the excess capacity in ancillary spaces designed and built into the existing facility which do not need duplication in the construction of the new facility. Another basis for difference is the lack of need for site preparation and kitchen equipment for much the same reason. FHFC's design does not provide private showers in each patient room, as does Bon Secours', but instead calls for a community shower/tub area which provides privacy for a showering patient. The resident will be transported to and from the bathing area fully clothed, and if able to bathe without assistance, will be offered privacy behind a shower curtain while bathing with an aide waiting outside. No more than one patient will be allowed in the bathing area at a time. All of the exit doors at FHFC's facility are equipped with alarms to indicate opening. Access to the facility cannot be gained through side doors which provide exit in case of emergency. The dining room is adjacent to the kitchen providing for hot food to be served and an ease in substitution in the event the patient changes his or her mind about menu selection. Bon Secours proposes a security guard for its facility. Neither other applicant proposes this nor is it considered needed. SPECIAL PROGRAMS Manor Care is the only one of the three applicants proposing a unit dedicated to the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease patients. There is no such program currently available in Lee County nor was there much evidence of need for it presented. Manor Care's proposal calls for a separate wing for patients with Alzheimer's Disease or related disorders which account for, arguably, approximately 50 percent of all nursing home admissions. This wing would include a separate lounge and dining room and would be decorated with special colors, lighting, wall covers and other details developed with special consideration for the effect on Alzheimer's Disease patients. Special treatment programs incorporating activities, dietary, and the medical needs of this type of patient would be provided. Patients with Alzheimer's Disease are difficult to care for and hard to place and it has been suggested that in an appropriate type unit, the patient's condition may possibly improve. Manor Care has extensive experience in operating units of this nature with ten currently operating around the country and others in development. MISCELLANEOUS Manor Care provides a chaplaincy program at all its facilities in Florida, to attend to the religious needs of its residents. Bon Secours, a religious organization, would expect to reflect the religious affiliation of the area which may not necessarily be consistent with the Catholicism of the sponsoring order. The majority of patients at Villa Maria, for example, are Jewish. FHFC currently provides, in its facility, for Catholic, Jewish, and multi-denominational Protestant worship on a regular basis, along with Bible study groups and other religiously oriented gatherings. All three applicants indicate that the programs and proposals offered by its competitors are inadequate and not demonstrably financially feasible. The argument made by each against the submissions of its competitors are, however, not persuasive. Each is a projection of future activity based on historical background in an entirely different area. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that each, itself, applied for an equivalent facility. There is little substantive difference in the proposals of the three applicants. All would provide quality in facilities that would meet the standards of the department. Each has applied for a facility in which it anticipates providing a service while at the same time, generating an excess of income over expenses. In evaluating the three applicants, therefore, while considering the negative comments by one toward the others, one is not necessarily persuaded by the detailed objections and criticisms voiced by each. While Bon Secours proposes joint educational programs with institutions of higher learning, none of these are local but are, instead, for the most part in Miami and Tampa. Use of Lee County facilities by these institutions is not considered likely to be heavy absent implementation of local training programs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting Certificate of Need 5030, for 60 community nursing home beds in Lee County, Florida, for the planning horizon of January, 1990, to Florida Health Facilities Corporation/Lee County. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-3511,3514, & 3516 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY MANOR CARE: 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Irrelevant. Accepted. 5 & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last sentence which, as to motive, is not supported by the evidence of record. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 &1 0. Accepted and incorporated herein except for the last phrase starting, "without analyses... " which was not established. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 & 19. Accepted but not probative of any matter in issue. 20-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted 25-27. Accepted except for the characterization of FHFC's figures 28 & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30 & 31. Accepted. 32-34. Accepted and incorporated herein. 35. Rejected as written. 36-40. Accepted in substance and incorporated herein. 41 & 42. Accepted and incorporated herein. 43 Accepted but suggested problems not identified or shown. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by evidence of record. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 48 & 49. Accepted. 50. Accepted and incorporated herein. 51-53. Accepted, but descriptive comments are considered opinion rather than fact. 54. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 60. Accepted. & 57. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein except for last phrase of last sentence. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61. Accepted and incorporated herein except for first sentence which is rejected. BY BON SECOURS: 1-3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. Considered as background and not fact. 5 - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9 - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12 - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16 - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21 & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23 & 24. Accepted as opinion and not as fact. 25. Rejected. 26 & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. 28 & 29. Accepted as opinion and not as fact. 30 - 32. Accepted. 33 - 35. Accepted. 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 - 39. Accepted. 40 - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. First sentence rejected, second sentence accepted. Accepted. Rejected as not an appropriate Finding of Fact. 47 - 50. Accepted and incorporated herein. 51. Accepted and incorporated herein except for third sentence which is speculation 52 & 53. Accepted. Rejected as an unjustified conclusion. Rejected as not established. 56 & 57. Accepted as to allegations of proposal but conclusions rejected. 58 & 59. Accepted and incorporated herein. 60 & 61. Accepted and incorporated herein. 62 & 63. Rejected as speculation and unjustified conclusion drawn. 64. Accepted. 65 & 66. Accepted and incorporated herein. 67. Rejected as irrelevant without evidence of circumstances. 68 & 69. Accepted and incorporated herein. 70 & 71. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Budget fact accepted-balance rejected as conclusion. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. 76 & 77. Accepted. 78 & 79. Accepted. 80 & 81. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence rejected as opinion-balance accepted. First sentence accepted and incorporated herein second sentence rejected as not being a Finding of Fact third sentence rejected as opinion only. 85 - 87. Accepted and incorporated herein. 88 & 89. Accepted. Accepted as different and pleasing but not necessarily better. Accepted. Rejected as not proven. Accepted. 94 & 95. Accepted as evidence of difference but not necessarily superiority. Accepted. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated herein. 99 & 100. Accepted. Details accepted Conclusion rejected. Accepted. First sentence accepted but not considered dispositive of any issue second sentence rejected as not proven. 104 & 105. Accepted. 106-108. Accepted as opinion evidence. 109. Accepted. 110-112. Accepted. 113-116. Accepted. 117. Irrelevant. 118-121. Accepted. 122-124. Accepted. 125-128. Accepted. 129. Accepted but discounted. 130 & 131. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. Accepted and incorporated herein. 134-137. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted. First sentence rejected-Second sentence accepted and incorporated herein. 141-143. Accepted. 144-146. Accepted except for the last sentence in the paragraph which is rejected. 147-149. Accepted. 150 & 151. Rejected as irrelevant and not supported by competent evidence. 152-154. Accepted and, except for 154, incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted. BY FHFC: 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4 & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6 & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. Accepted. 9 - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12 & 13. Accepted. 14 & 15. Accepted. 16. Accepted. 17 & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted. 20-22. Accepted. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Rejected as conclusions/opinions and not Findings of Fact. 29 & 30. Accepted but considered more as argument. 31-33. Accepted and, in part, incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. 36 & 37. Accepted and incorporated herein. 38-42. Accepted and incorporated herein. 43 & 44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted but also considered a comment on the evidence and not necessarily a Finding of Fact Accepted. 48 & 49. Accepted and incorporated herein. 50 & 51. Accepted. 52-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. 55-57. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as opinion and not fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 64 & 65. Accepted and incorporated herein. 66-68. Accepted. 69 & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. First sentence accepted-second sentence rejected as a recital of the evidence 72 & 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Stinson, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald and Sheehan 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Byron Matthews, Esquire Vicki Gordon Kaufman, Esquire H. Guy Collier, Esquire McDermott, Will & Emery North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Stone, Esquire Neiman, Neiman, Stone & Spellman 1119 High Street Des Moins, Iowa 50310 Richard Patterson, Esquire 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petition to Contract the Tampa Palms Open Space and Transportation Community District should be granted.
Conclusions Section 190.046(1), Fla. Stat. (1995), provides for the filing of a petition for contraction of a community development district under the provisions of Section 190.005. Under paragraphs (f) and (g) of Section 190.046(1), petitions to contract a CDD by 2,357 acres “must be considered petitions to establish a new district and shall follow all of the procedures specified in s. 190.005.” Under Section 190.005(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996), the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLAWAC) must consider the following factors in determining whether to grant or deny a petition for the establishment of a CDD: Whether all statements contained within the petition have been found to be true and correct. Whether the creation of the district is inconsistent with any applicable element or portion of the state comprehensive plan or of the effective local government comprehensive plan. Whether the area of land within the proposed district is of sufficient size, is sufficiently compact, and is sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Whether the district is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by the district. Whether the community development services and facilities will be incompatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Whether the area that will be served by the district is amenable to separate special- district government. Factor 1 In this case, all statements contained within the petition for contraction have been found to be true and correct. However, as found, the petition for contraction does not contain the written consent of the owners of all of the real property to be included in the new TPOSTCDD, after contraction; nor was there any documentation or other evidence demonstrating that either the TPOSTCDD or those giving their written consent to the contraction have control by deed, trust agreement, contract, or option of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the new TPOSTCDD, after contraction. Section 190.005(1)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996), requires that a petition for establishment of a CDD contain the written consent of the owners of all of the real property to be included in the proposed CDD, or documentation demonstrating that the petitioner has control by deed, trust agreement, contract, or option of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the proposed CDD. (Section 190.046(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (1995), requires the written consent of all landowners whose land is being deleted through contraction, but paragraphs (f)-(g) of Section 190.046(1) would appear to require the petition to contract in this case follow all of the procedures specified in s. 190.005, including the requirement of Section 190.005(1)(a)2, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996).) It is noted that the petition for contraction in this case contains an economic impact statement that not only contains a statement of estimated regulatory costs in accordance with Section 120.541, Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1996), but also contains several other estimates of economic impact, in accordance with Section 120.54(2), Fla. Stat. (1995). Factor 2 It was found, supra, that the creation of the proposed TPOSTCDD, after contraction, is consistent with applicable elements and portions of the state comprehensive plan and the effective local government comprehensive plans. Factor 3 It was found, supra, that the proposed TPOSTCDD, after contraction, will be of sufficient size, sufficiently compact, and sufficiently contiguous to be developable as one functional interrelated community. Factor 4 The evidence in this case was that, due to the existence of the major infrastructure along the spine of County Road 581, and the ownership of Areas 4 and 8 by a different developer, contraction of the TPOSTCDD by deletion of Areas 4 and 8 will have no adverse impact on the issue whether the proposed TPOSTCDD, after contraction, is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that will be served by it. It was found in the Recommended Order and Report in DOAH Case Number 89-3654 that the existing TPOSTCDD is the best alternative available for delivering community development services and facilities to the area that is served by it. Presumably, that finding supported the adoption of F.A.C. Rules Chapter 42J-1, which created the existing TPOSTCDD on January 31, 1990. Using the legal principle of res judicata, it can be deduced that, since contraction will have no adverse impact on this issue, the proposed TPOSTCDD, after contraction, still is the best alternative available. Factor 5 It was found, supra, that the proposed TPOSTCDD, after contraction, will be compatible with the capacity and uses of existing local and regional community development services and facilities. Factor 6 It also can be deduced, using the legal principle of res judicata, that the area that will be served by the proposed TPOSTCDD, after contraction, still will be amenable to separate special-district government. The Recommended Order and Report in DOAH Case Number 89-3654 found that the existing TPOSTCDD would be amenable to separate special-district government. Since the evidence in this case was that contraction will have no adverse impact on this issue, it can be concluded that the proposed TPOSTCDD, after contraction, still will be amenable to separate special-district government. REPORT AND CONCLUSIONS SUBMITTED this 29th day of January, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1997. APPENDICES APPENDIX A In accordance with F.A.C. Rule 42-1.013(1) and (4), the following is a list of the names and addresses of the witnesses and the findings which their testimony helped support: L.A. “Art” Woodworth, Jr. President, Florida Technical Services Nicholas Pointe Office Park 522 West Bearss Avenue Tampa, Florida 33613 Findings 3-6, 8, 15-18 Susan Johnson DRI and Subdivision Coordinator City of Tampa Tampa, Florida Findings 14, 15, 16 William J. Rizzetta Rizzetta & Company 3550 BuschWood Park Drive, Suite 135 Tampa, Florida 33618 Findings 5-6, 10-13, 15-18 Charles E. Cook, P.E. Vice-President, Land Division Lennar Homes, Inc. 1110 Douglas Avenue, Suite 2040 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Findings 3,6, 9 APPENDIX B In accordance with F.A.C. Rule 42-1.013(2), the following is a list of the attached documentary evidence: Petitioner’s Exhibit 1 - Receipt from “Florida Administrative Weekly” and Affidavit from “The Tampa Tribune” Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 - Resume’ of L.A. “Art” Woodworth, Jr. Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 - Area Map Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 - Letter from Susan Johnson Petitioner’s Exhibit 5 - Company Profile, Rizzetta & Company, March, 1996 Petitioner’s Exhibit 6 - Economic Impact Statement COPIES FURNISHED: Bob Bradley, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Exec. Office of the Governor 1601 Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Gregory Smith, Esquire Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Exec. Office of the Governor 209 Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0001 Scott I. Steady, Esquire Williams Reed Weinstein Schifino & Mangione, P.A. Post Office Box 380 Tampa, FL 33602
