Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Hughlan Long, was employed by the Florida Industrial Commission from 1946 to 1952, during which time he was a member of the State and County Officer and Employee Retirement System (SCOERS). Petitioner was employed as a state attorney from 1953 to 1956. Again, during that time he was a member of SCOERS. During the period 1962 to 1964, Petitioner was a member of the Dade County Commission, at which time he was a member of SCOERS. On this occasion, as on each of the above occasions, the Petitioner obtained a refund of all contributions to SCOERS when he terminated his employment. In October of 1969, Petitioner became Public Defender for Dade County and was a member of SCOERS. From this position he was appointed a judge of industrial claims. He has stayed in that position since his appointment on December 28, 1970. Several days prior to his appointment as a judge of industrial claims, on December 1, 1970, Petitioner voluntarily transferred from SCOERS to the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Petitioner based his decision to transfer upon his reading of the statutes and the data available from the Division of Retirement upon the benefits available under the two systems. At the time he transferred to FRS, Petitioner was not eligible to purchase past service credit in SCOERS. Petitioner corresponded with Respondent and was advised he could receive two percent credit for his 10.18 years prior SCOERS service. The Division erroneously advised him that he would receive two percent credit for his past service, although at the time Petitioner was a member of FRS and only eligible for 1.6 percent credit for such service. Based upon the information provided to him, the Petitioner purchased his prior service credit of 10.18 years and paid the required interest, a total of $4,092.27. In 1975, the Division discovered its error and sent a letter to Petitioner. See Petitioner's Exhibit #11. This letter advised Petitioner that his purchase had been incorrectly computed based upon Chapter 122, Florida Statutes, because he did not have three years service prior to the time he transferred to FRS. The letter further stated, "therefore, after you completed the three continuous years you must claim prior service in this system (FRS)." This was the only reference or correction made by the Division to Petitioner until 1981. In 1981, Petitioner requested data on his retirement credit and was advised he would get 1.6 percent rather than two percent for his past service credit. No credible evidence was received that Petitioner was induced to purchase his past service by the erroneous information provided him. Petitioner filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the decision of the Division of Retirement to deny the Petitioner two percent service credit be upheld. However, because Petitioner was misadvised he should receive the option of accepting the benefit as provided by law or receiving his purchase price back with interest of six percent per annum. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerold Feuer, Esquire 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center Nevin G. Smith, Secretary 2639 North Monroe Street Department of Administration Suite 207C - Box 81 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“FHFC”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact FHFC and Affordable Housing Tax Credits FHFC is a public corporation that finances affordable housing in Florida by allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. See § 420.504(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that FHFC is “an entrepreneurial public corporation organized to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing and related facilities in this state.”); § 420.5099(2), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he corporation shall adopt allocation procedures that will ensure the maximum use of available tax credits in order to encourage development of low-income housing in the state, taking into consideration the timeliness of the application, the location of the proposed housing project, the relative need in the area for low-income housing and the availability of such housing, the economic feasibility of the project, and the ability of the applicant to proceed to completion of the project in the calendar year for which the credit is sought.”). The tax credits allocated by FHFC encourage investment in affordable housing and are awarded through competitive solicitations to developers of qualifying rental housing. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150. In contrast, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Not surprisingly, the demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. A successful applicant/developer normally sells the tax credits in order to raise capital for a housing development. That results in the developer being less reliant on debt financing. In exchange for the tax credits, a successful applicant/developer must offer affordable rents and covenant to keep those rents at affordable levels for 30 to 50 years. The Selection Process FHFC awards tax credits through competitive solicitations, and that process is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications (“RFA”). Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(2) provides that unsuccessful applicants for tax credits “may only protest the results of the competitive solicitation process pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 120.57(3), F.S., and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.” For purposes of section 120.57(3), an RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67.60.009(4), F.A.C. FHFC issued RFA 2015-111 on October 23, 2015, and responses from applicants were due on December 4, 2015. Through RFA 2015-111, FHFC seeks to award up to $5,901,631 of tax credits to qualified applicants that commit to preserve existing affordable multifamily housing developments for the demographic categories of “Families,” “the Elderly,” and “Persons with a Disability.” FHFC only considered an application eligible for funding from RFA 2015-111, if that particular application complied with certain content requirements. FHFC ranked all eligible applications pursuant to an “Application Sorting Order” set forth in RFA 2015-111. The first consideration was the applicants’ scores. Each application could potentially receive up to 23 points based on the developer’s experience and the proximity to services needed by the development’s tenants. Applicants demonstrating that their developments received funding from a U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Rural Development program known as RD 515 were entitled to a 3.0 point proximity score “boost.” That proximity score boost was important because RFA 2015-111 characterized counties as small, medium, or large. Applications associated with small counties had to achieve at least four proximity points to be considered eligible for funding. Applications associated with medium-sized counties and those associated with large counties had to achieve at least seven and 10.25 proximity points respectively in order to be considered eligible for funding. Because it is very common for several tax credit applicants in a particular RFA to receive identical scores, FHFC incorporated a series of “tie-breakers” into RFA 2015-111. The tie-breakers for RFA 2015-111, in order of applicability, were: First, by Age of Development, with developments built in 1985 or earlier receiving a preference over relatively newer developments. Second, if necessary, by a Rental Assistance (“RA”) preference. Applicants were to be assigned an RA level based on the percentage of units receiving rental assistance through either a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or USDA Rural Development program. Applicants with an RA level of 1, 2, or 3 (meaning at least 75 percent of the units received rental assistance) were to receive a preference. Third, by a Concrete Construction Funding Preference, with developments incorporating certain specified concrete or masonry structural elements receiving the preference. Fourth, by a Per Unit Construction Funding Preference, with applicants proposing at least $32,500 in Actual Construction Costs per unit receiving the preference. Fifth, by a Leveraging Classification favoring applicants requiring a lower amount in housing credits per unit than other applicants. Generally, the least expensive 80 percent of eligible applicants were to receive a preference over the most expensive 20 percent. Sixth, by an Applicant’s specific RA level, with Level 1 applicants receiving the most preference and Level 6 the least. Seventh, by a Florida Job Creation Preference, which estimated the number of jobs created per $1 million of housing credit equity investment the developments were to receive based on formulas contained in the RFA. Applicants achieving a Job Creation score of at least 4.0 were to receive the preference. Eighth, by lottery number, with the lowest (smallest) lottery number receiving the preference. Rental assistance from the USDA or HUD is provided to existing developments in order to make up for shortfalls in monthly rent paid by tenants. For example, if an apartment’s base rent is $500 per month and the tenant’s income limits him or her to paying only $250 towards rent, then the USDA or HUD rental assistance pays the other $250 so that the total rent received by the development is $500. As evident from the tie-breakers incorporated into RFA 2015-111, the amount of rental assistance, or “RA Level,” played a prominent role in distinguishing between RFA 2015-111 applicants having identical scores. RFA 2015-111 required that applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter containing the following information: (a) the development’s name; (b) the development’s address; (c) the year the development was built; (d) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC;/3 (e) the total number of units that would receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development were to be funded; (f) all HUD or RD financing program(s) originally and/or currently associated with the existing development; and (g) confirmation that the development had not received financing from HUD or RD after 1995 when the rehabilitation was at least $10,000 per unit in any year. In order to determine an applicant’s RA Level Classification, RFA 2015-111 further stated that Part of the criteria for a proposed Development that qualifies as a Limited Development Area (LDA) Development to be eligible for funding is based on meeting a minimum RA Level, as outlined in Section Four A.7.c of the RFA. The total number of units that will receive rental assistance (i.e., PBRA and/or ACC), as stated in the Development Category qualification letter provided as Attachment 7, will be considered to be the proposed Development’s RA units and will be the basis of the Applicant’s RA Level Classification. The Corporation will divide the RA units by the total units stated by the Applicant at question 5.e. of Exhibit A, resulting in a Percentage of Total Units that are RA units. Using the Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart below, the Corporation will determine the RA Level associated with both the Percentage of Total Units and the RA units. The best rating of these two (2) levels will be assigned as the Application’s RA Level Classification. RFA 2015-111 then outlined a Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart to delineate between the RA Levels. That chart described six possible RA Levels, with one being developments that have the most units receiving rental assistance and six pertaining to developments with the fewest units receiving rental assistance. A development with at least 100 rental assistance units and greater than 50 percent of the total units receiving rental assistance was to receive an RA Level of 1. FHFC also utilized a “Funding Test” to assist in the selection of applications for funding. The Funding Test required that the amount of unawarded housing credits be enough to satisfy any remaining applicant’s funding request. In other words, FHFC prohibited partial funding. In addition, RFA 2015-111 applied a “County Award Tally” designed to prevent a disproportionate concentration of funded developments in any one county. As a result, all other applicants from other counties had to receive an award before a second application from a particular county could be funded. After ranking of the eligible applicants, RFA 2015-111 set forth an order of funding selection based on county size, demographic category, and the receipt of RD 515 financing. The Order was: One RD 515 Development (in any demographic category) in a medium or small county; One Non-RD 515 Development in the Family Demographic Category (in any size county); The highest ranked Non-RD 515 application or applications with the demographic of Elderly or Persons with a Disability; and If funding remains after all eligible Non- RD 515 applicants are funded, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Elderly demographic (or, if none, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Family demographic). Draft versions of every RFA are posted on-line in order for stakeholders to provide FHFC with their comments. In addition, every RFA goes through at least one workshop prior to being finalized. FHFC often makes changes to RFAs based on stakeholder comments. No challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. A review committee consisting of FHFC staff members reviewed and scored all 24 applications associated with RFA 2015-111. During this process, FHFC staff determined that none of the RD-515 applicants satisfied all of the threshold eligibility requirements. On June 24, 2016, FHFC’s Board of Directors announced its intention to award funding to five applicants, subject to those applicants successfully completing the credit underwriting process. Pineda Village in Brevard County was the only successful applicant in the Non-RD 515 Family Demographic. The four remaining successful applicants were in the Non-RD 515 Elderly or Persons with Disability Demographic: Three Round Tower in Miami-Dade County; Cathedral Towers in Duval County; Isles of Pahokee in Palm Beach County; and Lummus Park in Miami- Dade County. The randomly-assigned lottery number tie-breaker played a role for the successful Non-RD 515 applicants with Three Round Tower having lottery number one, Cathedral Towers having lottery number nine, and Isles of Pahokee having lottery number 18. While Lummus Park had a lottery number of 12, the County Award Tally prevented it from being selected earlier because Three Round Tower had already been selected for funding in Miami-Dade County. However, after the first four applicants were funded, only $526,880 of credits remained, and Lummus Park was the only eligible applicant with a request small enough to be fully funded. All Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The Challenge by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns Woodcliff is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 34-unit development for elderly residents in Lake County.4/ Colonial is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 30-unit development for low-income families in Lake County.5/ St. Johns is seeking an award of tax credits to acquire and preserve a 48-unit development for elderly residents in Putnam County.6/ FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns to be ineligible because of a failure to demonstrate the existence or availability of a particular source of financing relied upon in their applications. Specifically, FHFC determined that the availability of USDA RD 515 financial assistance was not properly documented. For applicants claiming the existence of RD 515 financing, RFA 2015-111 stated: If the proposed Development will be assisted with funding under the United States Department of Agriculture RD 515 Program and/or RD 538 Program, the following information must be provided: Indicate the applicable RD Program(s) at question 11.b.(2) of Exhibit A. For a proposed Development that is assisted with funding from RD 515 and to qualify for the RD 515 Proximity Point Boost (outlined in Section Four A.6.b.(1)(b) of the RFA), the Applicant must: Include the funding amount at the USDA RD Financing line item on the Development Funding Pro Forma (Construction/Rehab Analysis and/or Permanent Analysis); and Provide a letter from RD, dated within six (6) months of the Application Deadline, as Attachment 17 to Exhibit A, which includes the following information for the proposed Preservation Development: Name of existing development; Name of proposed Development; Current RD 515 Loan balance; Acknowledgment that the property is applying for Housing Credits; and Acknowledgment that the property will remain in the USDA RD 515 loan portfolio. (emphasis added). FHFC was counting on the letter mentioned directly above to function as proof that: (a) there was RD 515 financing in place when the letter was issued; and that (b) the RD 515 financing would still be in place as of the application deadline for RFA 2015-111. FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns ineligible because their RD letters were not dated within six months of the December 4, 2015, deadline for RFA 2015-111 applications. The Woodcliff letter was dated May 15, 2015, the Colonial letter was dated May 15, 2015, and the St. Johns letter was dated May 5, 2015. FHCA had previously issued RFA 2015-104, which also proposed to award Housing Credit Financing for the Preservation of Existing Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments. The deadline for RFA 2015-104 was June 23, 2015, and Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns applied using the same USDA letter that they used in their RFA 2015-111 applications. Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns argued during the final hearing that FHFC should have accepted their letters because: (a) they gained no competitive advantage by using letters that were more than six months old; (b) waiving the six- month “shelf life” requirement would enable FHFC to satisfy one of its stated goals for RFA 2015-111, i.e., funding of an RD 515 development; and (c) other forms of financing (such as equity investment) have no “freshness” or “shelf life” requirement. However, it is undisputed that no party (including Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns) challenged any of the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. In addition, Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Programs) testified that there must be a point at which FHFC must ensure the viability of the information submitted by applicants. If the information is “too old,” then it may no longer be relevant to the current application process. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for FHFC to utilize a six-month shelf life for USDA letters.7/ Furthermore, Mr. Reecy testified that excusing Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns’ noncompliance could lead to FHFC excusing all deviations from all other date requirements in future RFAs. In other words, applicants could essentially rewrite those portions of the RFA, and that would be an unreasonable result. Excusing the noncompliance of Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns could lead to a “slippery slope” in which any shelf- life requirement has no meaning. The letters utilized by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns were slightly more than six months old. But, exactly when would a letter become too old to satisfy the “shelf life” requirement? If three weeks can be excused today, will four weeks be excused next year? St. Elizabeth’s and Marian Towers’ Challenge St. Elizabeth is seeking low-income housing tax credit financing in order to acquire and preserve a 151-unit development for elderly residents in Broward County, Florida. Marian Towers is an applicant for RFA 2015-111 funding seeking low-income housing tax credits to acquire and preserve a 220-unit development for elderly residents in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The same developer is associated with the St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers projects. In its scoring and ranking process, FHFC assigned St. Elizabeth an RA Level of two. RFA 2015-111 requires that Applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter from HUD or the USDA with specific information. That information is then used to establish an RA Level for the proposed development. As noted above, the RFA requires the letter to contain several pieces of information, including: (a) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC; and (b) the total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development is funded. RFA 2015-111 provided that a development with at least 100 rental units would receive an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth included with its application a letter from HUD’s Miami field office stating in pertinent part that: Total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC: 99 units. Total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed Development is funded: 100 units*. The asterisk in the preceding paragraph directed readers of St. Elizabeth’s HUD letter to a paragraph stating that: HUD is currently processing a request from the owner to increase the number of units subsidized under a HAP Contract to 100 by transferring budget authority for the one additional unit from another Catholic Housing Services Section 8 project under Section 8(bb) in accordance with Notice H-2015-03. Because of the foregoing statement from HUD, FHFC concluded that St. Elizabeth did not have 100 units receiving rental assistance as of the application deadline. Accordingly, FHFC used 99 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance when calculating St. Elizabeth’s RA Level, and that led to FHFC assigning an RA Level of two to St. Elizabeth’s application.8/ If St. Elizabeth had been deemed eligible and if FHFC had used 100 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance, then St. Elizabeth would have received an RA Level of one. Given the application sorting order and the selection process outlined in RFA 2015-111, St. Elizabeth (with a lottery number of six) would have been recommended for funding by FHFC, and that outcome would have resulted in Intervenors Isles of Pahokee and Lummus Park losing their funding. St. Elizabeth asserted during the final hearing that the 100th unit had obtained rental assistance financing since the application deadline on December 4, 2015. However, FHFC could only review, score, and calculate St. Elizabeth’s RA Level based on the information available as of the application deadline. While St. Elizabeth argues that the asterisk paragraph sets forth a “condition,” Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Housing) agreed during the final hearing that the asterisk paragraph was more akin to information that was not explicitly required by RFA 2015-111. FHFC did not use that additional information to declare St. Elizabeth’s application ineligible for funding. Despite being assigned an RA Level of two, St. Elizabeth’s application still could have been selected for funding because RFA 2015-111 merely established RA Level as a basis for breaking ties among competing applications. However, too many applicants for RFA 2015-111 had identical scores, and RFA 2015-111’s use of RA Level as a tiebreaker forced St. Elizabeth’s application out of the running. Under the circumstances, FHFC’s treatment of St. Elizabeth’s application was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As noted above, tie- breakers are very important, because there is often very little to distinguish one application for tax credits from another. Given that there was a degree of uncertainty about whether St. Elizabeth’s would have 100 qualifying units, FHFC acted reasonably by assigning St. Elizabeth’s application an RA Level of two for this tie-breaker rather than an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers argue that other applications contained language that indicated a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, those other applications received an RA Level of one. For example, FHFC assigned an RA Level of one to Three Round and Haley Sofge even though their HUD letters stated that both developments would be “subject to a Subsidy Layering Review to be conducted by HUD.” Marian Towers argued that if FHFC does not accept HUD or RD letters containing conditional language about the number of units that will be subsidized, then FHFC should have assigned an RA Level of six to Three Round and Haley Sofge. If Three Round and Haley Sofge had been assigned an RA Level of six, then Marian Towers (with a lottery number of five) would have been recommended for funding. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers cited another instance in which an application received an RA Level of one, even though its application contained a letter from the RD program stating that “USDA Rural Development will consent to the transfer if all regulatory requirements are met.” (emphasis added). However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate that the language cited above applied only to those particular applications rather than to all applications for tax credits. For example, if all applications are subject to a subsidy layering review and compliance with all regulatory requirements, then inclusion of such language in a HUD letter (in and of itself) should not prevent an applicant from being assigned an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers also cited a HUD Letter used in another recent RFA by an applicant that received an RA Level of one. The HUD letter in question contained an asterisk followed by the following statement: “It is HUD’s understanding that two separate applications are being submitted – one for each tower comprising St. Andrew Towers. If funded, HUD will consider a request from the owner to bifurcate the St. Andrew Towers HAP contract in order to facilitate the separate financing of each tower.” However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate why the language quoted directly above should have resulted in the applicant in question being awarded an RA Level less than one. There is no indication that the total number of units receiving rental assistance would change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order awarding funding to Three Round Tower A, LLC; Cathedral Towers, Ltd; Isles of Pahokee Phase II, LLC; SP Manor, LLC; and Pineda Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G.W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits in Miami-Dade County through Request for Applications 2013-003 to HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd., is contrary to governing statutes, the corporation’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Overview FHFC is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, FHFC is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to housing developers in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Developers then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax credit property can offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of 10 years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. These are tax credits and not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15 percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150. However, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Developers that are awarded tax credits can use them directly. However, most sell them to raise equity capital for their projects.2/ Developers sell these credits for up-front cash. A developer typically sets up a limited partnership or limited liability company to own the apartment complex. The developer maintains a small interest but is responsible for building the project and managing (or arranging for the management) of the project. The investors have the largest ownership interest but are typically passive investors with regard to development and management.3/ Because the tax credits can be used by the investors that provide the equity for 10 years, they are very valuable. When sold to the investors, they provide equity which reduces the debt associated with the project. With lower debt, the affordable housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rent. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply. FHFC has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule chapter 67-60, to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 was newly enacted on August 20, 2013. It replaced prior procedures used by FHFC for the competitive process for allocating tax credits. FHFC has now adopted the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, as its process for allocating tax credits.4/ The Competitive Application Process Tax credits are made available annually. FHFC begins the competitive application process through the issuance of a Request for Applications.5/ In this case, that document is Request for Applications 2013-003. A copy of the RFA, including its Questions & Answers, is Joint Exhibit 1. The RFA was issued September 19, 2013 and responses were due November 12, 2013. According to the RFA, FHFC expected to award up to approximately $10,052,825 in tax credits for qualified affordable housing projects in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Knowing that there would be far more applications than available credits, FHFC established an order for funding in the three counties: The Applications will be considered for funding in the following funding order: first the highest scoring eligible Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Broward County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Palm Beach County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test and then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Broward County regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this last Broward County Application, the Application will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. No further Applications will be considered for funding and any remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. RFA at page 36. Applications were scored using a 27-point scale based on criteria in the RFA. RFA at page 37. This process was described in the RFA as follows: The highest scoring Applications will be determined by first sorting all eligible Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated first by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.c.(1)(a) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.9.e. of the RFA, (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications to [sic] do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application’s Leveraging Classification (applying the multipliers outlined in Exhibit C below and having the Classification of A be the top priority), then by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Preference which is outlined in Exhibit C below (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), and then by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. RFA at page 36 (emphasis added). The way this process works in reality is that the developers know that they must first submit a project that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors.6/ Developers also strive to submit projects structured to receive all 27 points. The tiebreaker is then the luck-of-the-draw. At the time each application is filed, it is randomly assigned a lottery number7/ used to break the ties. The role of the lottery numbers is demonstrated by the following facts. One hundred and nineteen applications were filed in response to the RFA. All but six received the maximum score of 27 points. Seventy of the 119 were deemed eligible. Of those 70, 69 received the maximum score of 27 points. A copy of the RFA Sorting Order is Joint Exhibit 2.8/ As such, the lottery numbers are a big factor in deciding the winners and, concomitantly, the challengers are (1) the projects with high lottery numbers that were deemed ineligible; and (2) those with lottery numbers outside the funding range that are trying to displace those with lower lottery numbers. A copy of the final Review Committee Recommendations is Joint Exhibit 3. This document shows the developers selected, the county and the lottery number. The two Miami-Dade projects selected for funding are: HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC d/b/a Wagner Creek - lottery number 3 Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd. - lottery number 6 The Petitioners/Intervenors in these consolidated proceedings are: Town Center Phase Two, LLC - lottery number 7 Pinnacle Rio, LLC - lottery number 9 APC Four Forty Four, Ltd. - deemed ineligible and with a lottery number of 10 The protests here center upon whether various applicants were correctly deemed eligible or ineligible. Applications are competitively reviewed, and so determinations as to one applicant affect other applicants’ positions. Each application, and the allegations against it, will be considered in turn. HTG’s Application APC argues that HTG should be found ineligible for allocation of tax credits because HTG failed to disclose its principals and those of its developer, as required by the RFA. The RFA at Section Four A.2.d. provides, in part, that each applicant will submit an application that identifies: d. Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer. All Applicants must provide a list, as Attachment 3 to Exhibit A, identifying the Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer, as follows: * * * (2) For a Limited Liability Company, provide a list identifying the following: (i) the Principals of the Applicant as of the Application Deadline and (ii) the Principals for each Developer as of the Application Deadline. This list must include warrant holders and/or option holders of the proposed Development. * * * This eligibility requirement may be met by providing a copy of the list of Principals that was reviewed and approved by the Corporation during the advance-review process. To assist the Applicant in compiling the listing, the Corporation has included additional information at Item 3 of Exhibit C. RFA at page 5. The RFA goes on to provide in Exhibit C 3.: 3. Principal Disclosures for Applicants and Each Developer The Corporation is providing the following charts and examples to assist the Applicant in providing the required list identifying the Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer. The term Principals is defined in Section 67-48.002, F.A.C. a. Charts: (1) For the Applicant: * * * (b) If the Applicant is a Limited Liability Company: Identify All Managers and Identify All Members and For each Manager that is a Limited Partnership: For each Manager that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Manager that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder and For each Member that is a Limited Partnership: For each Member that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Member that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder For any Manager and/or Member that is a natural person (i.e., Samuel S. Smith), no further disclosure is required. RFA at page 61. The RFA at Section Three F.3. Provides: 3. Requirements. Proposed Developments funded with Housing Credits will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the credit underwriting and HC Program requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. RFA at page 3. The term “principal” is defined by rule 67-48.002(89)9/, as follows: (89) “Principal” means: (a) Any general partner of an Applicant or Developer, any limited partner of an Applicant or Developer, any manager or member of an Applicant or Developer, any officer, director or shareholder of an Applicant or Developer, * * * (c) Any officer, director, shareholder, manager, member, general partner or limited partner of any manager or member of an Applicant or Developer, and . . . . HTG received an “advance review” approval of its designation of principals on October 8, 2013. HTG submitted this stamped and approved list of principals with its application. Applicant HTG is a limited liability company, as is its developer, HTG Miami-Dade 5 Developer, LLC. In its submission of principals, HTG disclosed the names of the manager and member of the applicant and the manager and member of the developer, all of which were also LLCs. HTG also disclosed the names of the managers and members of these component LLCs. HTG did not disclose any officers of the applicant, the developer, or any of the component LLCs. Other documents submitted as part of the application indicate that Mr. Matthew Rieger is a Vice President of the applicant, HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and that the component LLCs also have officers. APC contends that the rule’s definition of principal requires HTG to disclose not only the managers and members of the applicant and developer, and those of their component LLCs, but also the officers of any of these entities, if they also have officers. FHFC asserts that such disclosure is not required, arguing that the term “officer” as found in the rule’s definition of “principal” only applies to corporations. FHFC argues that there is no inconsistency between the rule and the charts of the RFA with respect to disclosure of principals. FHFC contends that the charts in the RFA, read in conjunction with the rule, indicate that officers must be disclosed only when the entity is a corporation, and that members and managers must be disclosed when the entity is a LLC. FHFC interprets rule 67-48.002(89) in a manner consistent with the charts. It does not interpret the rule to require that an LLC disclose its officers, even if it has them, but only that an LLC disclose its managers and members. Both Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Thorp testified to that effect. The examples provided in the RFA are also consistent with this interpretation. The rule certainly might have been drafted with more precision to expressly indicate that a principal is any officer, director, or shareholder if the entity is a corporation; any manager or member if the entity is an LLC; and any general partner or limited partner if the entity is a Limited Partnership. It cannot be said, however, that the Corporation’s interpretation of the RFA and its rule is impermissible. ATA’s Application Mr. Kenneth Reecy, Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that FHFC revised the “Universal Application Cycle” process that had been conducted in the past. Under the old universal cycle, most of the criteria were incorporated into the rule, and then there was a “cure” process that provided an opportunity to correct errors that didn’t necessarily have a bearing on whether a project was good enough to be funded. Under the newer process, several issues were moved out of the eligibility and scoring phase and into the credit underwriting phase.10/ Specifically relevant here, site plan issues and the availability of infrastructure, such as sewer service, were no longer examined as part of the eligibility and scoring phase set forth in the RFA. Mr. Reecy testified that these issues were complex and had been intentionally pushed to the “rigorous review” that takes place during the credit underwriting phase. In signing and submitting Exhibit A of the RFA, each applicant acknowledges and certifies that certain information will be provided to FHFC by various dates in the future. RFA at page 46. Section Four 10.b.(2)(b) provides in part that the following will be provided: Within 21 Calendar Days of the date of the invitation to enter credit underwriting: Certification of the status of site plan approval as of Application Deadline and certification that as of Application Deadline the site is appropriately zoned for the proposed Development, as outlined in Item 13 of Exhibit C of the RFA; Certification confirming the availability of the following for the entire Development site, including confirmation that these items were in place as of the Application Deadline: electricity, water, sewer service, and roads for the proposed Development, as outlined in Item 13 of Exhibit C of the RFA; Item 13 of Exhibit C goes on to provide: 13. Certification of Ability to Proceed: Within 21 Calendar Days of the date of the invitation to enter credit underwriting, the following information must be provided to the Corporation: a. Submission of the completed and executed 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan approval for Multifamily Developments form. * * * c. Evidence from the Local Government or service provider, as applicable, of the availability of infrastructure as of Application Deadline, as follows: * * * Sewer: Submission of the completed and executed 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure — Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form or a letter from the service provider which is dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline, is Development specific, and specifically states that sewer service is available to the proposed Development as of the Application Deadline. The 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments Form (Site Plan Approval Form) and the 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure — Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank Form (Certification of Sewer Capacity Form) are incorporated by reference in the RFA. The Site Plan Approval Form requires (in the case of Miami-Dade County which does not have a preliminary or conceptual site plan approval process) that the local government confirm that the site plan was reviewed as of the application deadline. Pinnacle and APC assert that the site plan that ATA submitted to the City of Miami for review included a strip of land that is not legally owned by the current owner and will not be conveyed to ATA under the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As a result, they contend, the site plan review which was required on or before the application deadline did not occur. Pinnacle argues that ATA’s certification in its application was incorrect, that this was a mandatory requirement that was not met, and that it will be impossible for ATA to provide the Site Plan Approval Form in credit underwriting. TC similarly maintains that ATA could not “acknowledge and certify” as part of its application that it would later certify that it had “ability to proceed” because the RFA (at Section Four 10.b.(2)(b) quoted above) requires that “sewer service” be “in place” for ATA’s proposed development as of the application deadline. TC also asserts that the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form explicitly states (and that any service provider letter must, too) that no moratorium is applicable to a proposed development. ATA did not submit a Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. Miami-Dade County will not complete such forms. The “letter of availability” option was created to accommodate Miami-Dade County. The November 12, 2013, letter from Miami-Dade Water and Sewer regarding ATA’s development does not state that there is no applicable moratorium in effect. In fact, the letter affirmatively acknowledges that flow to the gravity system already connected to the property cannot be increased because there is a moratorium in effect as to the pumping station serving the abutting gravity sewer basin. The letter from the County states that, if the pumping station is still in Moratorium Status “at the time this project is ready for construction,” that a private pump station is acceptable. It is logical to conclude that this means sewer service would be available at that time and that sewer service was similarly available at the time of application deadline. The letter, therefore, implies, but does not specifically state, that “sewer service is available to the proposed development as of the application deadline.” The moratorium in effect at the application deadline was not a “general” moratorium. It applied only to the pump station serving the abutting gravity sewer basin, but it was applicable to the proposed development and precluded any increase in the flow to the gravity system connected to the property. A moratorium pertaining to sewer service applicable to ATA’s proposed development was in effect at the time that ATA’s application was submitted. Sewer capacity was otherwise available for the proposed development through use of a private pump station. ATA asserts, first, that ATA has not yet filed certification of ability to proceed or the required forms or letter, that it is not to do so until after it is invited to enter credit underwriting, that FHFC has consequently yet to make a determination as to ATA’s ability to proceed, and that therefore any issues as to site plan or sewer service are not yet ripe for consideration. As to the site plan, ATA further maintains that even if it had been required to provide evidence of ability to proceed as part of its application, the site plan submitted to the City of Miami did not represent that the alley was part of the ATA site. ATA, therefore, asserts that the site plan that was reviewed was the correct one, and that its application certification was correct. The plan of the site of ATA’s development project indicates that the site is bifurcated by a private alley, which is not dedicated as a street, avenue, or boulevard. The legal description of the development project, as submitted to the Department of Planning and Zoning of the City of Miami, included lots 2 through 7 and lots 19 and 20. It did not include the strip of land that lies between these lots (lots 2 through 7 lie to the West of the alley and lots 19 and 20 lie to the East of it.) As to sewer availability, ATA asserts that the 2011 Universal Cycle and the RFA are significantly different. ATA maintains that while the former provided that the existence of a moratorium pertaining to sewer service meant that infrastructure was unavailable, this language was removed from the RFA. ATA contends that a letter of availability need not “mimic” the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form and that the RFA allows a development to certify sewer availability by other means when a moratorium is in effect. Mr. Reecy testified that FHFC takes the certified application at face value, regardless of what other information the Corporation might have at hand. As to the site plan, he testified that even had site plan approval been a part of the scoring process, FHFC would not have found ATA’s application ineligible on that ground. He testified that the alley would not be a problem unless it was a “road” or something similar. He testified that it also could have been a problem if the measurement point to measure the distance to nearby amenities was not on the property, but he was not aware that that was the case in ATA’s application. As for sewer service, Mr. Reecy testified that a letter from the service provider does not have to say “exactly” what is on the form, but stated that it does have to give “the relevant information” to let FHFC know if sewer is “possible.” He testified that the only guidance as to what constituted sewer “availability” was contained in the criteria found on the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. One of the four numbered requirements on the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form is that there are no moratoriums pertaining to sewer service that are applicable to the proposed development. Under the RFA, the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form could not be completed for a proposed development for which a moratorium pertaining to sewer service was in effect at the time the application was submitted. The form could not be certified by the service provider even if it was possible for such a development to obtain sewer service by other means. The text on the 2013 form is substantively identical to that on the form used during the 2011 Universal Cycle, that wording was specifically drafted to require that any moratorium on sewer infrastructure would be a disqualifying criterion, and the 2013 Certification of Sewer Capacity Form still has that effect. No challenge to the use of the form in the RFA was filed. Even though the language of the 2011 Universal Cycle which paralleled the text on the form does not appear in the RFA, that criterion remains as part of the RFA because of the incorporated Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. In any event, the site plan and sewer availability issues must await at least initial resolution by FHFC during the credit underwriting phase. The testimony of Mr. Reecy clearly indicated that FHFC interprets the RFA specifications and its rules to move consideration of site plan issues and infrastructure availability to the credit underwriting phase. It has not been shown that this is an impermissible interpretation. Town Center’s Application Pinnacle alleges that TC’s application fails to demonstrate site control, because the applicant, Town Center Phase Two, LLC, is not the buyer of the site it intends to develop. The RFA requires at Section Four A.7. that an applicant must provide a copy of a contract, deed, or lease to demonstrate site control: 7. Site Control: The Applicant must demonstrate site control by providing, as Attachment 7 to Exhibit A, the documentation required in Items a., b., and/or c., as indicated below. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites. a. Eligible Contract - For purposes of the RFA . . . the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer's rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided . . . . RFA at page 23. The Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property submitted as Attachment 7 to TC’s application is signed by Mr. Milo, who is identified as Vice President. The Buyer on the signature page is incorrectly listed as RUDG, LLC. No other assignment, intermediate contract, agreement, option, or conveyance was included with TC’s application to indicate that TC otherwise had site control of the property. The applicant entity, Town Center Phase Two, LLC, is correctly listed in the opening paragraph of the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property as the “Buyer.” RUDG, LLC, is the 99.99 percent Member of Town Center Phase Two, LLC, and is also the sole Member and Manager of Town Center Phase Two Manager, LLC, which is the .01 percent Managing Member of Town Center Phase Two, LLC. Mr. Milo is a Vice President of RUDG, LLC, a Vice President of Town Center Phase Two Manager, LLC, and a Vice President of the applicant, Town Center Phase Two, LLC. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.008, provides that the Corporation may waive minor irregularities in an otherwise valid application. The term “Minor Irregularity” is defined by rule 67- 60.002(6), as follows: (6) “Minor Irregularity” means a variation in a term or condition of an Application pursuant to this rule chapter that does not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants, and does not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Mr. Reecy testified that FHFC interpreted the rule to mean that if information requested by the RFA is reasonably available within the Application, even if it was not provided exactly in the place where it was requested, the failure to have it in the particular place it was requested is a minor irregularity. Although the information on the signature page of the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property identifying the Buyer as RUDG, LLC, was a discrepancy in the application, the contract elsewhere identified Town Center Phase Two, LLC, as the Buyer, and Mr. Milo was, in fact, authorized to sign for the true Buyer. Ms. Amy Garmon’s deposition testimony indicated that because she was able to determine from other places in the application that the Buyer was the applicant, and that Mr. Milo was authorized to sign for the Buyer, she found this portion of TC’s application to be compliant, and she didn’t see that there was a “minor irregularity” that needed to be waived. However, it is determined that FHFC actually did finally determine that the error in identification constituted a minor irregularity that was waived, in accordance with Mr. Reecy’s testimony. Although it was Ms. Garmon who called attention to the irregularity, Mr. Reecy is in a position of higher authority within the FHFC and is better able to address the Corporation’s actions with respect to TC’s application. Pinnacle also asserts that TC’s finance documents fail, based upon the same signature issue. TC submitted equity proposals detailing its construction funding sources that were addressed to Mr. Milo and endorsed by him as “Vice President.” FHFC similarly concluded that Mr. Milo had authority to endorse the finance letters on behalf of TC. There is evidence to support FHFC’s findings that TC was the actual Buyer, that Mr. Milo had authority to sign the contract and the equity documents, and that the discrepancies in the documents were minor irregularities. Pinnacle’s Application The equity commitment letter from Wells Fargo Bank regarding Pinnacle’s development, as submitted to FHFC, contained only pages numbered one, two, and four of a four-page letter. It is clear that page three is actually missing and the letter was not simply incorrectly numbered, because of discontinuity in the text and in the numbering of portions of the letter. APC contends that Pinnacle’s application should have been deemed ineligible for award because of the missing page. Mr. Reecy testified that even though a page of Pinnacle’s equity commitment letter was missing, all of the RFA requirements were set forth in the remaining pages. He acknowledged that the missing page might have included unacceptable conditions for closing or information that was inconsistent with the other things in the application, but stated that FHFC determined that the missing page from Pinnacle’s equity letter was a minor irregularity. There is evidence to support FHFC’s finding that the missing page was a minor irregularity. APC’s Application The RFA provides at Section Four, A.3.c., at page 5: c. Experienced Developer(s) At least one Principal of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Developer Experience requirements in (1) and (2) below. (1) General Developer Experience: A Principal of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1991, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2001. At least one (1) of the three (3) completed developments must consist of a total number of units no less than 50 percent of the total number of units in the proposed Development. For purposes of this provision, completed for each of the three (3) developments means (i) that the temporary or final certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least one (1) unit in one of the residential apartment buildings within the development, or (ii) that at least one (1) IRS Form 8609 has been issued for one of the residential apartment buildings within the development. As used in this section, an affordable rental housing development, including a Housing Credit development that contains multiple buildings, is a single development regardless of the number of buildings within the development for which an IRS Form 8609 has been issued. If the experience of a Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity. (2) Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each Principal intending to meet the minimum general development experience reflecting the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. Each prior experience chart must include the following information: Prior General Development Experience Chart Name of Principal with the Required Experience Name of Developer Entity (for the proposed Development) for which the above Party is a Principal: ___ ___________ ___ Name of Development Location (City & State) Affordable Housing Program that Provided Financing Total Number Of Units Year Completed RFA at pages 5, 6. Exhibit A to the RFA, at 3.c., further provides: General Developer Experience For each experienced Developer entity, the Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4, a prior experience chart for at least one (1) experienced Principal of that entity. The prior experience chart for the Principal must reflect the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. RFA at page 41. Ms. O’Neill, a Senior Policy Analyst at FHFC and member of the Review Committee responsible for scoring the applications’ developer information section, testified at hearing. When FHFC first started scoring applications, Ms. O’Neill was not taking any action to confirm principal developer experience, but rather was taking the information provided by applicants at face value, as it had been submitted on the chart. A colleague of Ms. O’Neill’s, not serving on the Review Committee, called her attention to the fact that a development that was then going through credit underwriting (following an award during the 2011 funding cycle) had recently requested that FHFC approve a change to the developer entity. Ms. O’Neill testified that this request raised a question at FHFC as to whether Ms. Wong, listed by APC as the principal with the required experience, met the requirements. FHFC decided to confirm that Ms. Wong had the required experience for the developments listed in the RFA. Ms. O’Neill stated that she did not make any inquiry to Ms. Wong or to Atlantic Pacific Communities as to whether Ms. Wong was, in fact, a principal of St. Luke’s Development, LLC, developer of St. Luke’s Life Center, because “we’re not really supposed to do that.” Ms. O’Neill instead looked at portions of a credit underwriting report on the St. Luke’s Life Center project that were researched and shown to her by a colleague. Ms. O’Neill did not see Ms. Wong listed in that report as a principal. She did find information in FHFC files that Ms. Wong was a principal on the other two listed developments. Ms. Thorp testified that she researched several documents in FHFC’s possession and found no information indicating that Ms. Wong was a principal for the St. Luke’s development. She testified that Ms. Wong or another representative of APC was not contacted about the issue because that would have given them an unfair advantage over other applicants. Based upon the information in its files, FHFC determined that Ms. Wong did not meet the requirements for principal developer experience. FHFC then similarly reviewed the files of other applicants who had listed in-state developments as their experience, but was unable to review out-of-state experience, so out-of-state experience continued to be accepted at face value. Ms. Wong was not originally a principal in the St. Luke’s development. However, it was demonstrated at hearing through documentary evidence that Ms. Wong was later appointed an officer of St. Luke’s Development, LLC, effective March 2007. That change was submitted to the credit underwriter, and Ms. Wong was a principal for the developer entity before it completed credit underwriting. Both Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Thorp testified that if the documents provided at hearing by APC had been in FHFC’s possession at the time APC’s application was scored, FHFC would have found that Ms. Wong was a principal of the St. Luke’s development and that her experience met principal developer experience requirements. In light of the evidence presented at hearing, it is clear that FHFC’s conclusion was wrong. The prior experience chart submitted by APC as part of its application provided all of the information requested by the RFA, and all of that information was accurate. The information available to FHFC in the application correctly indicated that Ms. Wong was a principle for the developer of the St. Luke’s Life Center development. APC’s application met all requirements of the RFA with respect to prior developer experience. The Corporation’s preliminary determinations that Ms. Wong was not a principal in the St. Luke’s development, and that the APC application did not, therefore, meet principal experience requirements to the contrary, made in good faith based upon incomplete information contained in its files, was clearly erroneous. FHFC’s contention that APC should have submitted explanations or further documentation of Ms. Wong’s developer experience at the time it submitted its application is untenable. APC submitted all of information requested of it. FHFC asked for a chart to be completed, which APC did, completely and accurately. An applicant cannot be found ineligible for failing to do more than was required by the RFA. Credit Underwriting A comparison of the RFA and rules with the 2011 Universal Cycle process shows that the Corporation has moved many requirements formerly required as part of the eligibility and scoring phase into a second review in the credit underwriting phase, as noted earlier. Rule 67-48.0072 provides in part: Credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding, including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for Housing Credits. The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team’s experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. The rule goes on to provide that this de novo review in the credit underwriting phase includes not only economic feasibility, but other factors statutorily required for allocation of tax credits, such as evidence of need for affordable housing and ability to proceed. These factors might cause an application to fail and never receive funding, even though it was nominally “awarded” the credits earlier. In that event, the RFA provides: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed to the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in the same county as the Development that returned the funding regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this Application, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If an applicant nominally “awarded” funding in the eligibility and scoring phase fails credit underwriting, the next applicant in the queue of eligible applicants may still be granted funding, and so, is substantially affected by FHFC’s decisions in the credit underwriting phase.
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 finding that APC Four Forty Four, Ltd., is eligible for funding, adjusting the Sorting Order accordingly, and otherwise dismissing the formal written protests of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 4th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Petitioner, Amr Sallam's, education meets the "substantially equivalent" criteria as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007; and, if so, (2) whether, by virtue of its reviews of Petitioner's education and the grounds listed in the two related previously issued notices of denial, Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, is estopped from denying Petitioner's application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant to take the Fundamentals Examination. Unless an applicant is otherwise exempted, the Fundamentals Examination is the first of two examinations an applicant must pass to be licensed as a professional engineer in Florida. Prior to applying to take the Fundamentals Examination, on two previous occasions, Petitioner applied to take the Principles and Practice Examination, the second examination required for licensure as a professional engineer in Florida. Petitioner's Educational Credentials and Teaching Experience Petitioner received a bachelor's degree in engineering from Alexandria University in Egypt in 1994. Petitioner received a master's degree in engineering from Alexandria University in Egypt in 1998. Petitioner received a doctorate degree in engineering from the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, Florida, in 2004. After completing his undergraduate degree, Petitioner began teaching at Alexandria University. Petitioner taught there for seven years, including the time he was in the master's degree program. In 2002, prior to receiving his doctorate degree, Petitioner taught geotechnical engineering at USF, which has an engineering program that is accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). In the summer of 2006, after receiving his doctorate degree, Petitioner taught a geotechnical design course at the University of Central Florida (UCF). The engineering program at UCF is accredited by ABET. At the time of this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by an engineering company. However, until Petitioner is licensed as a professional engineer, he cannot get a promotion within that company. "Substantial Equivalency" Requirement for Applicants with Degrees from Foreign Institutions Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.0071/ requires that applicants for licensure as professional engineers, who have foreign degrees, document that the engineering program they completed is substantially equivalent to an ABET accredited engineering program. Pursuant to Rule 61G15-20.007(4), Petitioner obtained an evaluation of his education in Egypt through an evaluation service, Joseph Silny and Associates (Silny). The evaluation conducted by Silny was a course-by- course evaluation of Petitioner's academic credentials at Alexandria University, in relation to the United States courses and semester credit hours. However, the Silny evaluation was limited to courses that Petitioner took in order to earn his bachelor of science degree in civil engineering. The Silny evaluation did not have Petitioner's transcript from USF, and, thus, none of those courses was considered or included in that evaluation. Based upon a review of Petitioner's academic credentials from Alexandria University from 1989 to 1994, the Silny evaluation concluded that Petitioner's bachelor's degree in civil engineering was not substantially equivalent to such degrees earned at a regionally accredited institution of higher learning in the United States. Specifically, the Silny evaluation determined that Petitioner had 27.5 of the required 32 semester credit hours in the Mathematics and Basic Sciences area and 1.5 credits of the required 16 semester credit hours in the Humanities and Social Sciences area. To satisfy the requirements in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, the Silny evaluation indicated that Petitioner needed 4.5 semester credit hours, "including a course in probability and statistics and an additional course in either general chemistry or calculus-based physics." The Silny evaluation awarded Petitioner 1.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences based on an English course he completed during his undergraduate studies. To satisfy the requirement in this area, the Silny evaluation found that Petitioner needed an additional 14.5 semester credit hours. The Silny evaluation indicates that Petitioner took 5.5 semester credit hours in physics and lists the course as a one-class and not a two-class sequence. Although the Silny evaluation listed the physics course as one course, the credible testimony of Petitioner was that he took two classes, one after the other, to receive the 5.5 semester credit hours. Moreover, the credible testimony of both Petitioner and the Board's executive director was that they have never seen and are unaware of any physics course that offers 5.5 semester credit hours. Given this undisputed testimony, the weight of the evidence established that the 5.5 semester credit hours for physics were not for one physics course, but for a two-class sequence. Despite the deficiencies noted in the Silny evaluation, Petitioner was not concerned. First, with respect to the deficiencies cited in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, Petitioner knew that the Silny evaluation did not include a review of his transcript from USF, which showed six additional hours of higher mathematics. Second, when Petitioner applied to take the Principles and Practice Examination and his application was being considered, the Board's Rule 61G15-20.007(5) waived the Humanities and Social Sciences requirement for applicants, such as Petitioner, who had a post baccalaureate degree in engineering from a university in the United States that had an accredited undergraduate engineering degree program. The Silny evaluation report dated March 31, 2005, was advisory. Pursuant to Rule 61G15-20.007(3), the Board's Education Advisory Committee (EAC) makes the final decision regarding equivalency of programs and recommends to the Board whether an applicant should be approved for admittance to the examination. Petitioner's Initial Application Filed on April 2005 On April 14, 2005, Petitioner submitted his initial application to the Board. This application was to take the Principles and Practice Examination. At the time Petitioner submitted his initial application, he had not taken the Fundamentals Examination. The Silny evaluation was forwarded to and considered by the Board in its determination of whether Petitioner's bachelor's degree from Alexandria University was substantially equivalent to a degree from an ABET accredited engineering program at a regionally accredited institution of higher learning in the United States. Prior to the Board taking final action on Petitioner's initial application, Petitioner's educational credentials were reviewed by the Board's EAC. The EAC is responsible for reviewing and evaluating the educational credentials of applicants holding foreign degrees. Typically, members of the EAC are engineering educators who have special expertise in discerning and comparing education courses. Dr. Anderson was the evaluator for the EAC that considered Petitioner's educational credentials in connection with his April 2005 application. Dr. Anderson has a doctorate degree in engineering and has been in education for many years and testifies as an expert for the Board. Like the Silny evaluation, Dr. Anderson determined that in the Mathematics and Basic Sciences area, Petitioner had 27.5 semester credit hours from courses taken at Alexandria University. However, in addition to those 27.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, Dr. Anderson also determined that Petitioner had an additional six semester credit hours for two, three-semester credit hours of mathematics courses he took at USF, as part of his doctorate degree program. These mathematics classes, Numerical Methods III and Vector Analysis III, were higher level courses. The EAC's July 2005 evaluation determined that Petitioner should receive credit for the higher level mathematics courses taken at USF. Dr. Anderson's evaluation determined that Petitioner had a total number of 33.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences (27.5 from Alexandria University and six from USF), 1.5 credits more than the required number. However, Dr. Anderson noted on the educational credential review form that to satisfy the Mathematics and Basic Sciences course requirement, Petitioner still needed to take a course in "Prob [Probability] and Stat [Statistics]." Initially, Dr. Anderson wrote on the educational credentials review form that to meet the Mathematics and Basic Sciences requirements, Petitioner "needs 4.5 hours of Math and Bas Sci [Basic Science], which must include a Prob [Probability] & Stat [Statistics] course and a second course in chem [Chemistry] and phy [Physics]." However, Dr. Anderson crossed out that entire statement and wrote that Petitioner "[n]eeds to take a course in Prob [Probability] & Stat [Statistics]." The EAC educational credentials review form listed the following courses in Humanities and Social Sciences for which Petitioner could be given credit: English, 1.5 credits; American Civilization, three credits; Introduction to Music, three credits; and The Family, three credits. Although Petitioner did not have the 16 semester credit hours required in Humanities and Social Sciences to document "substantial equivalency," the EAC determined that this was not an impediment to Petitioner's satisfying this requirement. On the educational credentials review form, in the Humanities and Social Sciences section, Dr. Anderson wrote, "Ph.D. 2004." This notation reflected the Board's Rule 61G15- 20.007(5), in effect when Petitioner submitted his application, which waived the Humanities and Social Science requirements for applicants who had a doctorate degree in engineering from an institution with an ABET accredited undergraduate engineering degree program. On July 13, 2005, Dr. Anderson and Gerry Miller, Ph.D., P.E., a Board member, signed a form on which they recommended that the Board deny Petitioner's application because he needed a course in probability and statistics. The Board accepted the EAC's determination regarding Petitioner's educational deficiencies and recommendation that Petitioner's April 2005 application be denied. By letter dated July 15, 2005, the Board denied Petitioner's application to take the Principles and Practice Examination. Petitioner received the letter by certified mail on August 1, 2005. The letter cited three reasons for the denial: (1) Petitioner's educational deficiencies; (2) his lack of engineering experience; and (3) his failure to take the Fundamentals Examination. With regard to educational deficiencies, the Board's letter stated only that Petitioner was deficient in Mathematics and Basic Sciences. The letter stated the basis of this determination and indicated how this deficiency could be satisfied, as follows: Based on the evaluation from JSA&A [Silny] and review for compliance with 61G15-20.007, Florida Administrative Code, it was determined that you [Petitioner] were deficient in the following areas: 1.0 semester credit hours in Mathematics & Basic Sciences-A course in Probability & Statistics is needed. Except for the deficiencies in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, the Board's July 15, 2005, letter indicated that Petitioner had satisfied the requirements in Rule 61G15-20.007. The letter expressly stated that Petitioner had "satisfied" the 16-semester credit hour requirement in Humanities and Social Sciences. According to the letter, the second reason Petitioner's application was denied was that he had not taken the Fundamentals Examination. The Board noted that Petitioner had applied for consideration of "waiving the Fundamentals Examination under Section 471.013(3)(d)[sic],"2/ but was ineligible for such waiver. In explaining the reason Petitioner was not entitled to a waiver, the letter stated the following: Section 471.013(3)(d),[sic][3/] F.S. addresses Licensure in Florida by examination requires Ph.D. waiver applicants to have an ABET accredited Ph.D., along with having taught full time for a minimum of three years, in order to qualify for the Fundamental Waiver. The teaching requirement has not been met, therefore, your waiver was denied. The denial letter explained that eligibility for waiver of the Fundamentals Examination required applicants to have a doctorate degree and three years of full-time teaching experience. However, the letter failed to state that waiver provisions required that the full-time teaching experience be after Petitioner received his doctorate degree. Third, and finally, the letter indicated that Petitioner's application was considered under Subsection 471.013(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2006), which requires four years of engineering experience. The letter stated, Your application was considered under the provision of Section 471.013(1)(a)1[.], Florida Statutes (F.S.). Under that provision, you receive credit of four (4) years for your degree, and you must verify four (4) years of engineering experience. The Board has determined that you do not evidence four years of experience at this time. Petitioner received the denial letter and assumed that the information contained therein was correct. In a Petition dated August 18, 2005, Petitioner responded to the Board's denial letter. In regard to his teaching experience, Petitioner indicated he had taught geotechnical engineering at USF for one year. He also indicated that prior to that, he taught Geotechnical Engineering I and II, college-level courses in Egypt for five years (from 1996 through 2001). Petitioner did not state whether these teaching positions were full-time or part-time, but the teaching experience in Egypt and at the USF was before he received his doctorate degree. In the Petition dated August 18, 2005, Petitioner also noted that based on his calculations, he had more than the four years of engineering experience required in Subsection 471.013(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes (2006). Rule 61G15-20.002 sets out the criteria for determining engineering experience. The mere assertions in the Petition did not establish that Petitioner had the prescribed engineering experience. Petitioner did not dispute that he needed a statistics course. Instead, in reliance on the Board's July 15, 2006, letter regarding his educational deficiencies, Petitioner enrolled in a three-semester credit hour statistics course at USF in August 2005. After Petitioner completed the statistics course in December 2005, a copy of the Petitioner's transcript reflecting such completion was sent to the Board. The Board's executive director testified that it was reasonable for Petitioner to rely on the July 15, 2005, denial letter. Had the July 15, 2005, denial letter indicated that Petitioner was missing any additional courses, he would have taken all such courses during the fall of 2005, the same semester he took the statistics class. Petitioner's Second Application Filed January 2006 In or about January 2006, after completing a three- semester credit hour statistics course, Petitioner submitted an application to the Board to take the Principles and Practice Examination. As of January 2006, Petitioner had never applied for or taken the Fundamentals Examination, although he did not meet the eligibility requirements to waive that examination. Specifically, he did not have at least three years of full-time teaching experience at the baccalaureate level or higher after receiving his doctorate degree. See § 471.013(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2006). By letter dated March 29, 2006, the Board denied Petitioner's second application to take the Principles and Practice Examination. According to the Board's March 29, 2006, letter, Petitioner's application was considered under Subsection 471.013(1)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (2006), but was denied because Petitioner lacked the requisite engineering experience and had not passed the Fundamentals Examination. The letter states in relevant part the following: Your application was considered for eligibility under Section 471.013(1)(a)[and](c), and [sic] Florida Statutes. Under these provisions, you receive credit of four (4) years for your degree. You must demonstrate 4 years of engineering experience and a passing score on the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. Your application was denied for failure to evidence having passed the NCEES 8 hour Fundamentals examination. Additionally, pursuant to Section [Rule] 61G15-20.002(11), F.A.C. you must evidence experience at the time of application. The Board has determined that you have not demonstrated four years of professional experience at the time of application. The Board's March 29, 2006, letter did not indicate that Petitioner had any educational deficiencies in the areas listed in Rule 61G15-20.007(2). After reading the March 29, 2006, letter, Petitioner was assured that his education had been approved, since no deficiencies were mentioned in the letter. Moreover, Petitioner had successfully completed the statistics course, which the denial letter dated July 15, 2005, indicated he needed to take to satisfy the Mathematics and Basic Sciences requirements.4/ Petitioner's Third Application Filed in April 2006 Relying on information in the March 29, 2006, letter, on or about April 19, 2006, Petitioner submitted an application to take the Fundamentals Examination. On or about May 17, 2006, the Board's EAC evaluated Petitioner's educational credentials and recorded information pertinent to its evaluation on an educational credential review form.5/ This evaluation was performed by Board members, Chris Bauer, Ph.D., P.E., and David Bloomquist, Ph.D., P.E. According to the form, the EAC used the Silny evaluation and transcripts from USF and the University of North Carolina for its course-by- course evaluation. Based upon its course-by-course evaluation, the EAC concluded that Petitioner's application should be denied because its review indicated the educational criterion is not substantially comparable to EAC/ABET and Rule 61G15-20.007. In the comment section of the May 17, 2006, educational credentials review form, the EAC noted that Petitioner needed 1.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences and 2.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. The EAC specified that in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, Petitioner needed 1.5 hours in chemistry or physics "for sequence." No specific courses were listed as needed to satisfy the Humanities and Social Sciences requirements. The Board adopted the EAC's findings made on May 17, 2006, regarding Petitioner's educational deficiencies and also followed the EAC's recommendation that Petitioner's April 2006 application be denied. By letter dated May 18, 2006, the Board denied Petitioner's application to take the Fundamentals Examination based on a determination that Petitioner had educational deficiencies in Mathematics and Basic Sciences and in Humanities and Social Sciences. The letter stated that because Petitioner has a bachelor's degree from Egypt, the Board reviewed the Silny evaluation to determine substantial equivalency to EAC/ABET and compliance with Rule 61G15-20.007. With regard to the educational deficiencies, the Board's May 18, 2006, letter stated, in relevant part, the following: [Rule] 61G15-20.007, F.A.C., states that to document substantial equivalency to an ABET accredited engineering degree, the candidate must demonstrate: 32 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences - Deficient * * * 16 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences - Deficient * * * The areas of deficiencies noted above are identified as follows: 1. [Rule] 61G15-20.007, F.A.C. requires 32 semester credit hours of Mathematics & Basic Sciences. In reviewing the evaluation from Josep Silny & Associates [Silny]; [sic] the Board determined that you have evidenced 30.5 semester credit hours in Mathematic [sic] and Basic Sciences. You are deficient in 1.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences including a secondary course in Chemistry and/or Calculus based Physics. [5/] 2. Rule 61G15-20.007 requires 16 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. You have evidenced 13.5 semester hours. In reviewing the evaluation from Josep Silny & Associates, the Board determined that you are deficient 2.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. . . . The 13.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences was based on a 1.5-semester credit hour English class Petitioner took at Alexandria University and four, three- semester credit hour classes that were listed on a University of North Carolina transcript. The Board's May 18, 2006, letter denied Petitioner's application because it concluded that he was deficient by 1.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, including a secondary course in chemistry and/or calculus-based physics and by 2.5 semester credit hours in Humanities and Social Sciences. The Board's determination, relative to Petitioner's educational deficiencies, in the May 18, 2006, letter is contrary and inconsistent with the Board's two prior decisions. In the first denial letter dated July 15, 2005, the Board ratified the EAC's July 13, 2005, educational credential review and decision, which determined that Petitioner needed one semester credit hour in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, including a probability and statistics course.7/ Prior to May 1, 2005, and when Petitioner initially applied to take the Principles and Practice Examination, Rule 61G15-20.007(5) waived the Humanities and Social Sciences requirements for applicants with post-baccalaureate degrees. The Board's March 29, 2006, letter did not indicate that Petitioner had any educational deficiencies, even though the waiver provision for Humanities and Social Sciences requirements was no longer in effect. According to the second denial letter, Petitioner's application was denied because he lacked the required engineering experience and had not passed the Fundamentals Examination. The deficiency in Mathematics and Basic Sciences noted in the Board's third denial letter dated May 18, 2006, was based on the Silny evaluation that indicated Petitioner was 4.5 semester credit hours short in Mathematics and Basic Sciences. After reducing the 4.5-semester credit hour deficiency by the three semester credit hours Petitioner earned in the statistics course, the Board concluded that Petitioner needed 1.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences. This calculation was erroneous in that Petitioner was not granted credit for two higher level mathematic courses he took at the USF as part of his doctorate program. These two courses, Numerical Methods III and Vector Analysis III, were each three semester credit hours. Therefore, Petitioner should have been given credit for an additional six semester credit hours. By appropriately giving Petitioner credit for 27.5 semester credit hours for courses completed at Alexandria University and three semester credit hours each for Numerical Methods III, Vector Analysis III, and Statistics, he has a total of 36.5 semester credit hours in Mathematics and Basic Sciences, 4.5 semester credit hours more than the 32 hours required. Deficiency in Humanities and Social Sciences is Discovered After May 2006 Denial Letter During this proceeding, the Board's executive director revealed that "sometime this past summer" (the summer of 2006), he discovered that an error had been made regarding Petitioner's credits/deficiencies in Humanities and Social Sciences. This error came to light after it was discovered that the Board had erroneously given Petitioner credit for four courses listed on a University of North Carolina transcript, which had been mistakenly placed in Petitioner's file. The four, three semester-hour courses for which Petitioner was given credit were English, American Civilization, The Family, and Introduction to Music. There was no evidence or testimony to indicate that Petitioner was responsible in any way for this "transcript" error. In fact, none of Petitioner's various applications to the Board listed the University of North Carolina as a school Petitioner ever attended. Petitioner acknowledged that he never attended the University of North Carolina or took any of the courses listed on that transcript. As noted on the Silny evaluation, Petitioner has completed only one course in the Humanities and Social Sciences area, the 1.5-semester credit hour English class he completed at Alexandria University. The waiver of Humanities and Social Sciences requirement for applicants with doctoral degrees is no longer in effect. That wavier provision was deleted from Rule 61G15- 20.007 pursuant to an amendment, which became effective on May 1, 2005. As a result of the transcript error, Petitioner has a deficiency of 14.5 semester credit hours in the Humanities and Social Sciences area, and not the 2.5-semester credit hour deficiency noted in the Board's May 18, 2006, letter. Therefore, Petitioner needs an additional 14.5 semester credit hours in appropriate courses to satisfy the Humanities and Social Sciences requirement. As of the date of this proceeding, the Board had not notified Petitioner of the mistake in its May 18, 2006, letter, regarding his deficiencies in Humanities and Social Sciences. Action on Petition for Formal Hearing Petitioner filed a Petition for Formal Hearing with Respondent on June 13, 2006. The Board held a duly-noticed meeting on July 26 and 27, 2006. Respondent did not act on the Petition for Formal Hearing. Thereafter, on July 30, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the First District Court of Appeal. The Board did not advance any legitimate explanation as to why Petitioner's Petition for Formal Hearing filed six weeks prior to the July 26 and 27, 2006, meeting was not placed on that agenda. The Board's agendas are usually set about one month before the meeting. By letter dated August 24, 2006, the Board notified Petitioner that his Petition for Formal Hearing would be considered by the Board of Professional Engineers on October 26, 2006. On September 13, 2006, the First District Court of Appeal granted Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandamus and directed the Board to rule on the Petition for Formal Hearing within 15 days of the date of the Order. On or about September 25, 2006, the Board forwarded Petitioner's Petition for Formal Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. This was more than three months after the Petition was filed with the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order which (1) finds that Petitioner has met the Mathematics and Basic Sciences requirement; (2) conditionally approves Petitioner's application to take the Fundamentals Examination in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-21.007(5); and (3) allows Petitioner to take the Fundamentals Examination the next time it is administered. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2007.
The Issue Petitioner seeks to discipline Respondents by cease and desist order, complaint, and administrative fine pursuant to Chapter 817, Part III, and Subsections 516.07(1)(g) [incorporating Part III of Chapter 817 F.S.] and (i) and 516.23(2)(b) and (c) F.S. for their refusal to permit the inspection of books and records in an agency investigation or examination or by refusal to comply with an agency subpoena; by failure to obtain a required bond and establish a trust account; by failure to obtain a signed contract with specific customers, and, more specifically, failing to obtain a signed contract with those customers which complied with certain named statutory requirements.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Bonnie Lee Hall a/k/a Lamar Bonne Hall, Sr., established West Florida Financial Services in March 1989, as a "credit repair" service incidental to his insurance business. Mr. Hall is a Florida-licensed Life and Health Agent. Respondent's Exhibit R-6 is Respondent's "218" professional insurance license effective 04-01-90, at a time subsequent to the times material to this complaint. However, the undersigned accepts Respondent's unrefuted testimony that he was similarly licensed as an insurance agent and broker at the time of the incidents giving rise to the charges in this cause. At all times material, Mr. Hall operated West Florida Financial Services out of the same office as his insurance agency. West Florida Financial Services never has been incorporated. Respondent asserted that West Florida Financial Services has been registered under Florida's fictitious name statute, but the undersigned finds Respondent not credible on this point. On or about March 23, 1989, Rebecca Brown saw an advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat which read "ERASE BAD CREDIT!" and which provided a telephone number for free details. She called the telephone number, and the telephone was answered "West Florida Financial Services" by a Chester Murray, who made an appointment to meet Ms. Brown at her residence that night. Murray offered to improve the credit reports of Ms. Brown and her daughter, Glenda Brown, for a total fee of $400. Rebecca Brown gave Murray a check for $200 postdated to March 30, 1989 (P-6) and agreed to pay the balance of $200 by the end of April. The check was made out to "West Florida Financial Services." That check was endorsed by Chester Murray, and although Rebecca Brown related a complex transaction as to how the cash therefrom was generated through another cashier's check, all that is relevant to these proceedings is that Chester Murray retained Rebecca Brown's $200 fee intended for West Florida Financial Services. On April 14, 1989, Rebecca and Glenda Brown went in person to the offices of West Florida Financial Services where Respondent Hall was operating the credit repair service out of his insurance office. At that time, Mr. Hall admitted that Mr. Murray had previously worked for him in West Florida Financial Services, that Murray had taken money from another client of that business, and that Murray was therefore no longer associated with the business. At that time, Mr. Hall also represented that he, personally, could still help Mesdames Brown improve their credit reports. Mr. Hall quoted much higher fees of $1,160 to improve Rebecca Brown's report and $825 to improve her daughter's report. He also offered to try to get back Rebecca Brown's $200 from Chester Murray. Both women signed a Service Contract Agreement with Respondent Hall, who signed on behalf of West Florida Financial Services. Rebecca Brown did not keep a copy of her contract, but a copy of Glenda Brown's signed contract with Hall and West Florida Financial Services was admitted as Exhibit P-7. This exhibit was identified by Rebecca Brown as a contract identical to the one she herself had signed except as to the client name. Rebecca Brown also was able to identify her daughter's and Mr. Hall's signatures on Exhibit P-7 because she was present when they signed Exhibit P-7 and because she was long familiar with her daughter's signature. The Service Contract Agreement of Glenda Brown which was admitted as Exhibit P-7 did not contain a cancellation clause, an information statement, or any other information required by Sections 817.702, 817.703, and 817.704 F.S. By inference, the undersigned finds that the identical agreement entered into by Rebecca Brown was similarly lacking. Rebecca Brown paid $100 in cash to Mr. Hall to continue to work on the credit problems of herself and her daughter. She recognized this amount was merely a down payment. Respondent Hall had not effectuated any improvement of Rebecca Brown's or her daughter's credit reports as of the date of formal hearing, nor had Rebecca Brown seen any effort he put forth toward that end. Mr. Hall admitted putting her $100 down payment into his business checking account and not into a trust or escrow account as required by law. Mrs. Brown's and Mr. Hall's testimony concurs that after April 14, 1989, she never asked for the return of her $100 or actively pursued having Mr. Hall work at credit repair for herself or her daughter because he had quoted such high fees. However, he also never returned her $100. On April 17, 1989, an advertisement appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat which read "ERASE BAD CREDIT!" and provided a telephone number for free details. The telephone number was that of West Florida Financial Services. This advertisement ran in the newspaper for several weeks before and after that date and was probably the same advertisement to which Rebecca Brown had replied the preceding month. Although Mr. Hall asserted that it was Chester Murray's advertisement which had appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat, he admitted that he had run virtually the same advertisement in The Thrifty Nickel, and there is no dispute that when Ms. Lynn Chang, a financial administrator with the Department of Banking and Finance, called the same number as appeared in the April 17, 1989 Tallahassee Democrat advertisement, the telephone was answered "West Florida Financial Services" on April 19, 1989 by Respondent Hall. There is also no dispute that during their conversation, Mr. Hall stated that he could help with credit problems and that he had a 97% success rate. In order to determine Respondents' compliance with Chapter 817, Part III, F.S., Ms. Chang caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served May 11, 1989 upon Respondents. The subpoena specified, among other things, the production of their surety bond, proof of trust account, and copy of an information statement and customer contract, and was returnable May 25, 1989. It did not specify copies of all signed contracts that Respondents had on file. Respondent Hall appeared at Mrs. Chang's on May 25, 1989. As of that date, West Florida Financial Services and its principal, Mr. Hall, had no surety bond, no trust account, and no information statement as required by Florida law. Mr. Hall did, however, provide copies of a blank contract (P-4) and a promotional flyer (P-5). Neither item fully met the applicable statutory standards for a contract and disclosure statement. Ms. Chang cautioned Mr. Hall that he must have a trust account and surety bond and that he must conform his contract or he would be violating Florida law, but apparently no further request for signed contracts or files was made. There is evidence that Mr. Hall and Ms. Chang had some miscommunication over what he would or would not do at this point, but it is insufficient to constitute refusal to permit inspection by the agency. On or about May 10, 1989, Ms. Sylvia Gilbert had contacted Mr. Hall at West Florida Financial Services upon advice from a friend. Mr. Hall told her that for a fee of $600, he could improve her credit reports, so Ms. Gilbert signed a Service Contract Agreement with West Florida Financial Services. She was not given a copy of the agreement by Mr. Hall, but knew she could request one and pick it up at his office at any time. At formal hearing, she was able to identify Exhibit P-4 (a blank form provided Ms. Chang by Mr. Hall) as the type of contract she had signed. Upon that identification, and Mr. Hall's evidence of which type of agreement he was using at various times, it is found that the agreement entered into by Ms. Gilbert and Mr. Hall on behalf of West Florida Financial Services did not contain a cancellation clause, an information statement, or any other information required by Sections 817.702, 817.703, and 817.704 F.S. Ms. Gilbert paid Mr. Hall $550 in fees in three installments. On May 10, 1989, she paid $200 (P-8); on July 6, 1989, she paid $100 (P-9); and on September 29, 1989, she paid $250 (P-10). On several occasions thereafter, she spoke with Mr. Hall, who made himself readily available to her and assured her work was being done. In his testimony, Mr. Hall explained that his work for Ms. Gilbert involved letters he prepared that she did not sign and payments she did not make on his advice to clear up her credit rating. Ms. Gilbert conceded that Mr. Hall had done some work for her, but as of the date of formal hearing, she had received no refund from Respondents and was unaware of any improvement in her credit report. Ms. Joyce Garmon Horne paid Respondents $400 to clear up credit problems she had and was satisfied with Mr. Hall's services. She could not identify what type of Service Contract Agreement she signed or whether the agreement or services had been rendered in 1989 or 1990. Sometime in December 1989, Respondents obtained a $10,000 surety bond from Western Surety Company. This bond, dated November 22, 1989, had become effective November 17, 1989 and was purchased for Respondents by Bernice Newton. On December 15, 1989, a trust checking account at Industrial National Bank (INB) in Tallahassee was opened for West Florida Financial Services with an initial deposit of $100 cash contributed by Bernice Newton. The record is not clear whose social security number or what entity's tax identification number was used, but the INB account clearly required both Ms. Newton's and Mr. Hall's signatures to draw funds. She was listed as "bookkeeper," and he was listed as "manager." Although Mr. Hall testified that as of August 1989, he had established, with money from one Ralph Hadley, another type of account "to protect clients" at another bank, it is not clear from the record whether the clients he sought to protect were insurance or credit repair clients, whether the account was a business or escrow account, or in what institution (federally insured or not) the account was located. Upon such vagueness and upon Mr. Hall's testimony that whatever and wherever this prior account was, it was not labelled "trust account," it is found that existence of such an account is immaterial to these proceedings. Bernice Newton paid for Respondents' occupational license. Bernice Newton also paid Respondents' $160 telephone bill one month. Bernice Newton is what is called in the financial world "an opportunity seeker," that is, she is always on the lookout for legitimate business ventures but with a penchant for "start your own business" and other "get rich quick" schemes. She met Messrs. Hall and Murray at an educational/promotional meeting organized by a Californian known as "Mr. Gold" for persons interested in starting credit repair service businesses. Throughout her testimony, Ms. Newton referred to her association with Mr. Hall as trying to establish a "credit bureau" in which she would hold an investment interest, which interest she could later resell for profit. The record is not clear whether "credit bureau" was merely a misnomer on Ms. Newton's part or whether she thought a "credit bureau" and a "credit repair service" are one in the same thing. In any case, her testimony was clear that she was helping Mr. Hall in his credit repair business and that she had no further association with Mr. Murray after their initial meeting. In June or July 1989, Ms. Newton became part of "West Florida Financial Services" without ever holding a corporate office or definable business interest in the credit repair services. As previously related, she eventually paid for the trust account and surety bond and occasionally loaned Mr. Hall money. Beyond this, her entire involvement was apparently only to answer the phones a few hours each day, and on one occasion, she took a credit repair fee of $15 from a client on behalf of Respondents. In exchange for these services, she got free use of Respondents' office equipment for her other investment projects. Substantially all she observed from June or July 1989 until December 1989 in the West Florida Financial Services office was credit repair work, although she was also aware that Mr. Hall discussed insurance with clients. She has never been paid a salary as Respondents' employee or been reimbursed for her direct payments on their behalf. Mr. Hall maintained Ms. Newton was never intended to be part of West Florida Financial Services regardless of listing her as "bookkeeper" on the escrow account in December 1989. Apparently, Ms. Newton also did not regard herself as part of the credit repair business. It may be inferred that Respondents did not amend their Service Contract Agreement to include the required cancellation notice and a handwritten information statement to clients until after they obtained the surety bond in December 1989, because their revised Service Contract Agreement specifies they are a bonded service, identifying the Western Surety Company as the bonding agent. (R-1) The form Service Contract Agreement which was utilized by Respondents at least until December 1989 (P-4) provided that the clients authorized West Florida Financial Services to prepare all the necessary correspondence (and negotiation) in settlement or clarification of derogatory information which might be contained in the clients' credit report. The information flyer (P-5) put out by Respondents states that persons can, with Respondents' help, "improve their credit bureau reports and practically erase bad credit." This literature also states that as a result of years of research, Respondents have "the experience and background that can offer consumers assistance in removing inaccurate, erroneous, outdated, obsolete, incomplete and misleading information from their credit bureau reports." Respondents were operating a "credit service organization," as defined by statute, regardless of whether or not it was incidental to Mr. Hall's insurance business. From March 1989 to November 1989, they did so without having a $10,000 surety bond. For the period of time from March 1989 to December 1989, they did so without having a trust account for customer monies in an appropriate institution. For the period of time from March 1989 to December 1989, they did so without a customer contract which contained all of the information required by Sections 817.702, 817.703, and 817.704, F.S. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, particularly the receipts retained by Ms. Gilbert and the testimony of Ms. Newton, render incredible Mr. Hall's assertion that he and West Florida Financial Services had no credit repair clients between Mr. Hall's May 25, 1989 interview with Ms. Chang and their receipt of the agency's December 14, 1989 Cease and Desist Order a few days after its issuance. Respondent Hall testified that he has been on total disability since January of 1990 but presented no supportive evidence to that effect.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents guilty of three violations of Subsection 817.7005(1) and Sections 817.702, 817.703, and 817.704 F.S. and not guilty of any charges related to failure to respond to a subpoena or cooperate in an investigation and imposing $3,000 administrative fine to be paid jointly and severally by the Respondents within 120 days of the Final Order. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of January, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-1570 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1 Accepted, but unnecessary. 2-5 Accepted. 6 Rejected as not supported by the record. Modified to conform with the credible evidence as a whole. Second No. 4 on pages 4-5 Modified to conform with the evidence as a whole. Second No. 6 on page 5 and 7 Accepted as modified to conform with the evidence as a whole; otherwise rejected. 8-10 Accepted. 11-17 Except for unnecessary and cumulative detail, accepted. Respondents filed no PFOF COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret S. Karniewicz Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Legal Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Mark H. Zilberberg, Esquire 313 Williams Street, Suite 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner was overpaid certain wages by the Respondent, and, if so, whether repayment is warranted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was an employee of the Department until December 13, 2005. She was employed as a corrections officer and, as such, was eligible for criminal justice incentive pay. Criminal justice incentive pay is paid separately and apart from regular salary payments through a separate payment system used by the Department. A person whose employment with the Department is terminated would not be terminated automatically from the incentive pay payment system. Upon her termination from employment with the Department, Petitioner continued to receive incentive pay by direct deposit to her bank account. This occurred on five occasions following her termination. The total amount of the overpayments to Petitioner after taxes was $111.13. The Department asked Petitioner to return the money that had been overpaid, but Petitioner did not comply with the request. In her request for a formal hearing, Petitioner alleged some error in the amount of overpayments being claimed, but no evidence was presented to support that allegation at the final hearing. The Department presented evidence as to each of the incentive pay payments to Petitioner following her termination from employment. Respondent averred that all taxes withheld from the incentive payments would be credited to Petitioner upon return of the overpayment amount.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Corrections requiring repayment of the incentive payments made to Petitioner in the sum of $111.13. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 9th day of October, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Sullivan 38618 Kapok Avenue Zephyrhills, Florida 33542 Matthew M. Deleo, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 James R. McDonough, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Rosa Carson, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6563
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the administrative agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Mortgage Refunds Research and Consulting ("Mortgage"), is a Florida corporation that is wholely owned by Respondent, Richard Vidair. Respondent has sole responsibility for the direction, control, operation, and management of Mortgage. Respondent is not licensed as a private investigator and Mortgage is not a licensed private investigative agency. Respondent is considered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to be a third party tracer. Respondent and his agency locate persons who may be owed refunds for mortgage insurance premiums. From sometime in August, 1990, through May 2, 1991, Respondent contacted individuals who may be owed mortgage insurance refunds by the federal government. Respondent solicited a fee contingent upon actual receipt of the mortgage refund from the federal government. Respondent obtained from the United States government a list of persons owed mortgage refunds. Such lists are available to anyone for a nominal processing fee. Respondent determined the whereabouts of persons named on the list. Respondent either telephoned or mailed a letter to the person named on the list and informed that person of the service offered by Respondent. Respondent included in the letter sent to the person a finder's fee agreement to be signed by the person on the list. Once the contract was signed and returned to Respondent, Respondent provided the person on the list with additional documents to be filled out for the purpose of filing a claim with the federal government. Government refunds were mailed directly to the person on the list. The terms of the finder's fee agreement required the person on the list to pay Respondent's fee within three days of the date the person received his or her money from the government. The agreement further provided that if Respondent's fee was not paid within 30 days, Respondent was entitled to a fee equal to 50 percent of the government refund. Finally, the agreement provided that all collection and legal expenses incurred by Respondent in collecting the finder's fee must be paid by the other party. Respondent received a letter in March, 1991, from the Division of Licensing notifying Respondent that his activities required licensure. After conferring with his attorney, Respondent terminated his activities in Florida but continued his activities outside the state. On October 14, 1987, an attorney for the Division of Licensing issued an internal legal opinion to then Division Director Dave Register. The opinion concluded that persons who engage in the business of locating individuals to whom mortgage insurance premium refunds are due from the federal government are not required to be licensed pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. On October 30, 1987, Ken Rouse, General Counsel, Department of State, issued a legal opinion which rescinded the prior internal opinion and concluded that such activities must be licensed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 493.6118(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 1C-3.122(1), imposing an administrative fine of $500 pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 1C-3.113(1)(a)2, imposing an administrative fine of $150 pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 1C- 3.113(1)(b)2, and ordering Respondent to cease all investigative activities until Respondent is properly licensed in accordance with Chapter 493. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23 day of January 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23th day of January 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether petitioner's average final compensation and retirement service credit were properly calculated.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Dr. Michael Kasha, is a former professor in the School of Arts and Sciences at Florida State University. His most recent stint of employment occurred during school year 1995-96 when he was employed in the Institute of Molecular Biophysics. He retired at the end of December 1995, and counting several years of out-of-state service, he had a total of 50.58 years of creditable service. In November 1995, petitioner contacted respondent, Division of Retirement (DOR), for the purpose of determining his Average Final Compensation (AFC) for retirement purposes. That agency has the statutory responsibility of performing all retirement related calculations. In making its calculations, DOR determined petitioner's service credit for his last fiscal year of service (1995-96) by using a nine-month work year divided by six months of actual service (July-December 1995), or a .67 service credit. When this factor was applied to his compensation received for the six months of service, it produced a much lower annualized salary for ranking purposes than petitioner expected. Contending that a twelve-month work year should have been used, rather than the nine months used by DOR, petitioner filed a request for a hearing to contest DOR's action. During petitioner's last fiscal year of service, he was contracted to work from July 1 to July 28, 1995, by a Summer Supplemental Employment Contract. In addition, he was employed under a Nine Month Employment Contract from August 8, 1995, to May 6, 1996. On January 23, 1996, however, this contract was mutually revised by the parties to provide that petitioner's employment would terminate on December 29, 1995. Between July 1, 1995, and December 29, 1995, the parties agree that petitioner received $67,290.22 in total compensation from the university. To determine a member's appropriate service credit, DOR rule 60S- 2.002(4)(a) provides that if a member earns service credit for fewer months than comprise his work year, he shall receive a fraction of a year of service credit, such fraction to be determined by dividing the number of months and fractions thereof of service earned by the number of months in the approved work year. Since petitioner worked only six months during his last work year, the rule requires that this period of time be divided by "the number of months in the approved work year" to calculate his appropriate service credit. Members of the retirement system are employed for either nine, ten or twelve months each fiscal year, depending on the nature of their jobs. As to university instructional/academic members, such as petitioner, DOR rule 60S- 2.002(4)(b) defines the work year to be the number of months in the full contract year or nine months, whichever is greater, as specified by the contract between the employee and the school system. Because university faculty members normally work under a nine-month contract, DOR used that time period to establish petitioner's work year. In doing so, DOR excluded petitioner's Supplemental Summer School Contract on the theory it was "supplemental to (his) regular 9 month contract." That is to say, petitioner earned a maximum full year of creditable service during the nine months, and the three months in the supplemental contract would not add any additional creditable service. This determination is in conformity with the rule. Since petitioner's actual service credit for fiscal year 1995-96 was six months, that is, he worked full-time from July 1 through December 29, 1995, the computation under rule 60S-2.002(4)(a) produced a service credit of .67. Petitioner's compensation of $67,290.22 was then divided by the .67 factor and resulted in an annualized salary for ranking purposes of $100,433.16. Since the salary was not one of petitioner's highest fiscal years of salary, it was excluded from his AFC. Petitioner contends, however, that his work year is actually twelve months, rather than nine, if his Supplemental Summer School Contract is included. He points out that the university has always required that he and other science professors be on campus twelve months a year, unlike most other faculty members. Despite this requirement, the university has never used a twelve-month contract for this group of professors. Instead, it has relied on a combination of regular and supplemental contracts. If a twelve month work year had been used for petitioner's last fiscal year, this would have produced a service credit of .50, which if applied to his compensation, would have produced an annualized salary for ranking purposes of $134,580.44. This in turn would increase petitioner's retirement benefits by more than $1,200 per year. There is no provision in the DOR's rules which permits the use of a twelve-month work year in calculating the service credit for any person who is employed under a nine-month contract. While this may be unfair to members who find themselves in petitioner's circumstances, until the rule is changed, it must be uniformly applied. Therefore, the request should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Retirement enter a final order denying petitioner's request to have his retirement benefit calculated using a twelve- month work year for his last fiscal year of employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Michael Kasha 3260 Longleaf Road Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Stanley M. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement 2639-C North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
The Issue Whether the Florida Department of Environmental Protection‘s (Department) notice of intent to issue an environmental resource/mitigation bank permit, and notice of intent to grant a variance waiving the financial responsibility requirements for the construction and implementation activities of the mitigation bank to Respondent, CRP/HLV Highlands Ranch, LLC (Highlands Ranch) should be approved, and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is a Florida not-for-profit corporation in good-standing, originally incorporated in 1946, with its corporate offices currently located at 2545 Blairstone Pines Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner‘s corporate purposes include, among others, ?the cause of natural resource conservation and environmental protection, to perpetuate and conserve the fish, wildlife, mineral, soil, water, clean air and natural resources of Florida.? The Department is an agency of the State of Florida having concurrent jurisdiction with the state‘s water management districts for permitting mitigation banks pursuant to chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Highlands Ranch is a Delaware limited-liability corporation registered with the State to do business in Florida, with its corporate offices located at 9803 Old St. Augustine Road, Suite 1, Jacksonville, Florida. Highlands Ranch was the applicant for the SJRWMD Permit, and is the applicant for the DEP Permit and Variance that are at issue in this proceeding. The Property The property designated to become the HRMB (the Property) comprises approximately 1,575 acres, which includes 551.99 acres of wetlands, 990.90 acres of uplands, and 32.60 acres of miscellaneous holdings, including easements and a hunt camp. The Property is bounded by the Jennings State Forest on the eastern boundary, the conservation lands of Camp Blanding Joint Training Center on the southern boundary, and a titanium mine on the western boundary. The upland communities consist of mesic and xeric pine plantations. The wetland communities consist of 260.30 acres of hydric pine flatwoods, 80.26 acres of bay and bottomland, and 211.43 acres of floodplain. The wetland areas of the HRMB are generally associated with two creeks that traverse the property, Boggy Branch on the northern portion of the property, and Tiger Branch, which is a series of streams and branches in the southeastern and eastern portion of the property. Boggy Branch and Tiger Branch feed into the north fork of Flat Creek, some of which encroaches onto the eastern side of the property. In addition to Boggy Branch and Tiger Branch and their tributaries, there are isolated wetlands scattered throughout the HRMB property. Most of the uplands, and much of the wetlands have been altered from their native plant communities by historic and on- going silvicultural activities. The uplands currently consist largely of pine plantation planted in slash pine of various ages and densities, with one small area planted in longleaf pine. The property has an elevation gradient of approximately 90 feet, which extends generally from the higher xeric pine flatwoods, sloping down to the creek systems. A gradient of 90 feet over an area as small as the HRMB is a significant elevation change in Florida. Mitigation Banks A mitigation bank is ?a project permitted under 373.4136 undertaken to provide for the withdrawal of mitigation credits to offset adverse impacts authorized? by an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) issued under Part IV, chapter 373, Florida Statutes. § 373.403(19), Fla. Stat. A mitigation bank permit is a type of ERP. The Department and the water management districts are legislatively authorized to require permits to establish and use mitigation banks. § 373.4136(1), Fla. Stat. Mitigation banks act as repositories for wetland mitigation credits that can be used to offset adverse impacts to wetlands that occur as the result of off-site ERP projects. Mitigation banks are intended to ?emphasize the restoration and enhancement of degraded ecosystems and the preservation of uplands and wetlands as intact ecosystems rather than alteration of landscapes to create wetlands. This is best accomplished through restoration of ecological communities that were historically present.? They are designed to ?enhance the certainty of mitigation and provide ecological value due to the improved likelihood of environmental success associated with their proper construction, maintenance, and management,? often within larger, contiguous, and intact ecosystems. § 373.4135(1), Fla. Stat. A mitigation credit is a "standard unit of measure which represents the increase in ecological value resulting from restoration, enhancement, preservation, or creation activities." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.200(8). Ecological value is defined as the value of functions performed by uplands, wetlands, and other surface waters to the abundance, diversity, and habitats of fish, wildlife, and listed species. Included are functions such as providing cover and refuge; breeding, nesting, denning, and nursery areas; corridors for wildlife movement; food chain support; natural water storage, natural flow attenuation, and water quality improvement which enhances fish, wildlife, and listed species utilization. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.200(3). When an ERP permit requires wetland mitigation to offset adverse impacts to wetlands, the permittee may purchase wetland credits from a mitigation bank and apply them to meet the mitigation requirements. When the permittee has completed the agreement with the mitigation bank and paid for the credits, those mitigation credits are debited from the mitigation bank's ledger. Every mitigation bank has a ledger that reflects how many credits have been released for use, and how many have been sold for use as mitigation. Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Rule A mitigation bank is to be awarded mitigation credits ?based upon the degree of improvement in ecological value expected to result from the establishment and operation of the mitigation bank as determined using a functional assessment methodology.? § 373.4136(4), Fla. Stat. Section 373.414(18), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that: The department and each water management district responsible for implementation of the environmental resource permitting program shall develop a uniform mitigation assessment method for wetlands and other surface waters. The department shall adopt the uniform mitigation assessment method by rule no later than July 31, 2002. The rule shall provide an exclusive and consistent process for determining the amount of mitigation required to offset impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, and, once effective, shall supersede all rules, ordinances, and variance procedures from ordinances that determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset such impacts. Once the department adopts the uniform mitigation assessment method by rule, the uniform mitigation assessment method shall be binding on the department, the water management districts, local governments, and any other governmental agencies and shall be the sole means to determine the amount of mitigation needed to offset adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters and to award and deduct mitigation bank credits . . . . It shall be recognized that any such method shall require the application of reasonable scientific judgment. The uniform mitigation assessment method must determine the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters considering the current conditions of these areas, utilization by fish and wildlife, location, uniqueness, and hydrologic connection, and, when applied to mitigation banks, the factors listed in s. 373.4136(4). The uniform mitigation assessment method shall also account for the expected time lag associated with offsetting impacts and the degree of risk associated with the proposed mitigation. The uniform mitigation assessment method shall account for different ecological communities in different areas of the state . . . . In 2004, the Department adopted the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) rule, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345. In general terms, the UMAM is designed to assess impacts and wetland functions associated with projects that impact wetlands, along with necessary mitigation required to offset those impacts. As it pertains to this proceeding, the UMAM establishes the standards for evaluating mitigation banks and calculating the credits that may be awarded to a mitigation bank, and provides a standardized wetland assessment methodology that may be applied across community types. Permitting of a mitigation bank first involves a qualitative characterization of the property, known as a Part I evaluation. The Part I evaluation is conducted by dividing the subject parcel of property into assessment areas for wetlands and uplands. An assessment area is ?all or part of a . . . mitigation site, that is sufficiently homogeneous in character . . . or mitigation benefits to be assessed as a single unit.? Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.200(1). Each mitigation assessment area must be described with sufficient detail to provide a frame of reference for the type of community being evaluated and to identify the functions that will be evaluated. When an assessment area is an upland proposed as mitigation, functions must be related to the benefits provided by that upland to fish and wildlife of associated wetlands or other surface waters. Information for each assessment area must be sufficient to identify the functions beneficial to fish and wildlife and their habitat that are characteristic of the assessment area‘s native community type . . . Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.400. After the assessment areas have been established, a Part II assessment is performed using the scoring criteria established in the UMAM "to determine the degree to which the assessment area provides the functions identified in Part I and the amount of function lost or gained by the project.? Under the Part II evaluation, each mitigation assessment area is evaluated under its current condition --or for areas subject to preservation mitigation, without mitigation -- and its ?with mitigation? condition. The difference in those conditions represents the improvement of ecological value referred to as the ?delta? or the ?lift.? Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.500. The ?delta? for an enhancement or restoration area is subject to modification by applying any applicable time lag factor and risk factor to arrive at the numeric relative functional gain (RFG). The RFG is multiplied by the number of acres of the assessment area to determine the number of mitigation bank credits to be awarded. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 345.600. Time Lag Factor Section 373.414(18) provides, in pertinent part, that ?[t]he uniform mitigation assessment method shall also account for the expected time lag associated with offsetting impacts . . . .? Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345.600(1) establishes the UMAM criteria for applying the time lag factor and provides, in pertinent part, that: Time lag shall be incorporated into the gain in ecological value of the proposed mitigation as follows: The time lag associated with mitigation means the period of time between when the functions are lost at an impact site and when the site has achieved the outcome that was scored in Part II. In general, the time lag varies by the type and timing of mitigation in relation to the impacts. Wetland creation generally has a greater time lag to establish certain wetland functions than most enhancement activities. Forested systems typically require more time to establish characteristic structure and function than most herbaceous systems. Factors to consider when assigning time lag include biological, physical, and chemical processes associated with nutrient cycling, hydric soil development, and community development and succession. There is no time lag if the mitigation fully offsets the anticipated impacts prior to or at the time of impact. * * * For the purposes of this rule, the time lag, in years, is related to a factor (T- factor) as established in Table 1 below, to reflect the additional mitigation needed to account for the deferred replacement of wetland or surface water functions. The ?Year? column in Table 1 represents the number of years between the time the wetland impacts are anticipated to occur and the time when the mitigation is anticipated to fully offset the impacts, based on reasonable scientific judgment of the proposed mitigation activities and the site specific conditions. TABLE 1. Year T-factor <or=1 1 2 1.03 3 1.07 4 1.10 5 1.14 6-10 1.25 11-15 1.46 16-20 1.68 21-25 1.92 26-30 2.18 31-35 2.45 36-40 2.73 41-45 3.03 46-50 3.34 51-55 3.65 >55 3.91 The time lag factor is a discounting process which adjusts the future value of the mitigation to a present value at the time credits are released, and is intended to account for the difference between the time that the impacts that the mitigation is to offset have occurred and the time that the final success upon which the credits are based is achieved. The application of the time lag factor is required when mitigation credits are released prior to the mitigation bank achieving the scored final "with-mitigation" condition. Risk Factor Section 373.414(18) provides, in pertinent part, that ?[t]he uniform mitigation assessment method shall also account for the . . . degree of risk associated with the proposed mitigation.? Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345.600(2) establishes the criteria for applying the time lag factor and provides, in pertinent part, that: (2) Mitigation risk shall be evaluated to account for the degree of uncertainty that the proposed conditions will be achieved, resulting in a reduction in the ecological value of the mitigation assessment area. In general, mitigation projects which require longer periods of time to replace lost functions or to recover from potential perturbations will be considered to have higher risk that those which require shorter periods of time. The assessment area shall be scored on a scale from 1 (for no or de minimus risk) to 3 (high risk), on quarter- point (0.25) increments. A score of one would most often be applied to mitigation conducted in an ecologically viable landscape and deemed successful or clearly trending towards success prior to impacts, whereas a score of three would indicate an extremely low likelihood of success based on the ecological factors below. A single risk score shall be assigned, considering the applicability and relative significance of the factors below, based upon consideration of the likelihood and the potential severity of reduction in ecological value due to these factors. As with the time lag factor, the risk factor is a discounting process which is designed to account for the possibility that there may be occurrences that interfere with the ability of the mitigation bank to replace the ecological functions and values lost when wetland impacts are permitted prior to the final success or evidence that the mitigation bank is clearly trending towards success. DEP/SJRWMD Operating Agreement Sections 373.4135 and 373.4136 establish that the mitigation banking program was created to be jointly administered by the Department and the water management districts. In order to facilitate that joint administration, and to ?further streamline environmental permitting, while protecting the environment,? the Department and the SJRWMD have entered into a written Operating Agreement to ?divide[] responsibility between the DISTRICT and the DEPARTMENT for the exercise of their authority regarding permits . . . under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S.? By that Operating Agreement, the Department expressly delegated its ?duties and responsibilities? under chapter 373 and Title 62, F.A.C. to the SJRWMD. The Operating Agreement has been adopted by rule by the Department, in rules 62-113.100(3)(x) and 62-300.200(2)(b), and by the SJRWMD in rule 40C-4.091(1)(b). The Department and the SJRWMD are clearly in privity with one another for projects that are subject to the written Operating Agreement. HRMB Permitting History On January 5, 2009, Highlands Ranch submitted an application to the SJRWMD for approval of the HRMB to be located on a 1,575.5-acre parcel of property in Clay County, Florida, specifically in Sections 9, 10, 15, and 16, Township 5 South, Range 23 East (the Property). The application was appropriately submitted to the SJRWMD pursuant to the terms of the Operating Agreement. The Mitigation Service Area (MSA) for the proposed HRMB incorporated portions of Baker, Clay, St. Johns, Putnam, and Duval Counties. The land area and MSA that was the subject of the SJRWMD Permit is identical to the Property encompassed by the proposed DEP Permit at issue in this proceeding. As established in the proceeding that resulted in the issuance of the SJRWMD permit: Highlands Ranch is proposing to place a conservation easement over the mitigation bank property and to conduct enhancement activities in those areas of the property needing improvement as a result of current land uses. Generally, it proposes to cease all pine production practices and cutting of cypress and hardwood trees after the permit is issued. It has also proposed to improve hydrologic conditions on the property by removing a trail road, installing four low water crossings, and removing pine bedding and furrows within all areas planted with pine on the property. Finally, supplemental plantings of appropriate canopy species will be conducted. The project will be implemented in three phases . . . . CRP/HLV Highlands Ranch, LLC v. SJRWMD, Case No. 10-0016, ¶20, (Fla. DOAH May 26, 2010; SJRWMD July 16, 2010). The general project description and phases were substantially identical to the phased proposal in the instant DEP Permit. When Highlands Ranch made its 2009 application to the SJRWMD, the District performed a review of the application, conducted multiple site inspections, met with the applicant's consultants, submitted requests for additional information, and reviewed other appropriate resources. On November 19, 2009, the SJRWMD issued its notice of intent to approve the application, and to approve 204.91 mitigation credits for the HRMB. The credits were calculated by the SJRWMD by applying the UMAM rule. Highlands Ranch filed a petition to challenge the number of credits with the SJRWMD, and requested a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. By the time of the final hearing, Highlands Ranch had modified its request to 425 credits, and the SJRWMD had modified its proposed agency action to reduce the number of credits to 193.56. A primary issue of contention in the SJRWMD permit hearing was whether the UMAM preservation adjustment factor (PAF) should be separately applied in areas proposed for enhancement activities in conjunction with preservation afforded by the conservation easement, or whether preservation should be considered as a subsumed element of the enhancement. The PAF is a process that assigns a value to the preservation of the property, and is scored on a scale from zero (no preservation value) to one (optimal preservation value) on one-tenth increments. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-345.500(3)(a). Thus, preservation at anything less than optimal preservation will result in a downward adjustment of the RFG upon which credits for the acres in an assessment area are ultimately calculated. Under the ?two-step? process, after the functional gain associated with the preservation of the wetland assessment areas is determined, the second step of scoring the functional gain that would be achieved from the enhancement activities, which includes consideration of time lag and risk associated therewith, is performed. The preservation and enhancement scores are considered as separate forms of mitigation, and are each applied as multiples of the delta to arrive at the RFG. In contrast to the SJRWMD approach, Highlands Ranch used a "one-step approach," which scored any area that would be both preserved and enhanced/restored only as ?with mitigation? under UMAM and did not conduct a separate analysis for preservation or apply a separate preservation factor multiple. Neither the ?two-step? PAF nor the ?one-step? PAF is specifically described in the UMAM rule, and both are allowable interpretations of the rule. After the formal hearing, the administrative law judge entered a recommended order in which he determined that the SJRWMD‘s application of the UMAM standards, including its application of the ?two-step approach? was appropriate and correct, thus warranting an award of 193.56 mitigation credits for the HRMB. Neither Highlands Ranch nor the SJRWMD filed exceptions to the recommended order. On July 14, 2010, the SJRWMD entered its final order, which adopted the recommended order ?in its entirety as the final order of this agency.? The final order was not appealed. The SJRWMD permit, Permit Number 4-019-116094-2, was thereafter issued on August 4, 2010, and is currently valid. Development of the June 15, 2011 DEP Guidance Memo During the 2011 legislative session, a bill was proposed to amend the statutes governing mitigation banks. The legislation failed to pass. After the conclusion of the 2011 legislative session on May 7, 2011,1/ more than nine months after the issuance of the SJRWMD permit, counsel for Highlands Ranch contacted Mr. Littlejohn, who had been hired in March, 2011 as the Department‘s Deputy Secretary for Regulatory Programs, to express Highlands Ranch‘s ?frustration with . . . what they considered not an objective review at the [SJRWMD].? Mr. Littlejohn understood that Highlands Ranch believed the SJRWMD review of the application that led to the issuance of the SJRWMD Permit ?was not impartial.? After the telephone conversation, Mr. Littlejohn instructed Department staff to work with counsel for Highlands Ranch to develop guidance to interpret the UMAM rule. Counsel for Highlands Ranch prepared and provided drafts of a guidance document for the Department. There was no evidence of any private individual, other than counsel for Highlands Ranch, being given an opportunity to provide input or otherwise participate in the development of the guidance document. On June 15, 2011, the Department released its final ?Guidance Memo on Interpreting and Applying the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method? (Guidance Memo). The Guidance Memo was designed to establish ?nuanced interpretations of the UMAM rule? in order to ?provide a uniform method throughout the state.? The Guidance Memo consisted of eight numbered paragraphs. According to Mr. Littlejohn, ?some of these paragraphs are completely unaltered from the [failed 2011] legislation, but I believe that most of them probably had some minor alteration in the subsequent review by the Office of General Counsel and during our own review internally, but . . . some form of Paragraphs 2 through 8 existed in . . . that legislation.? It was the intent of the Department that the Guidance Memo would reflect the current Department interpretation and direction to others in the application of the UMAM. The Guidance Memo was provided to the program administrators for each of the Department‘s six district offices, to the ERP program administrators for each of the water management districts, and to Broward County, which administered the only delegated local ERP program, with the intent that it be uniformly applied by each of them. The Guidance Memo is, and was intended to be, a Department-issued statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy. The practical effect of the Guidance Memo was to reject the ?two-step? preservation adjustment factor (PAF) as applied by the SJRWMD, and establish the ?one-step? PAF as the only interpretation and application allowed by the UMAM rule. The development of the Guidance Memo would have made an appropriate subject for rulemaking, at which all affected stakeholders could have participated. Instead, the Department chose to limit participation to Highlands Ranch, offering no opportunity for other views, either in favor of or in opposition to the terms of the Guidance Memo. Notably, despite the legislature‘s encouragement, if not requirement, of cooperation between the Department and the water management districts in the development and implementation of the UMAM, the Guidance Memo, which was designed to override the method by which UMAM standards were applied by at least two of the water management districts, was developed without water management district knowledge or participation. SJRWMD Application for Modification On September 14, 2011, Highlands Ranch submitted an application for a modification of the SJRWMD permit to the SJRWMD. The application requested that the SJRWMD reconsider the permitted mitigation bank plan in light of the DEP Guidance Memo and, based thereon, modify the number of mitigation credits awarded. No other changes were made to the mitigation bank as permitted. Based on the application of the Guidance Memo alone, Highlands Ranch calculated that 425 mitigation credits was the appropriate number for the development and implementation activities presented in the original SJRWMD permit application. Highlands Ranch withdrew the application for a modification of the SJRWMD permit prior to November 2011. DEP Application for Modification On November 2, 2011, Highlands Ranch submitted an application to the Department for a modification of the SJRWMD Permit (the DEP modification application). In addition to a request that the Guidance Memo be applied, the modification made changes to the plan permitted by the SJRWMD, including supplemental planting of seedling longleaf pine, modification to the prescribed burn schedules, and modification of the monitoring plans and ?success criteria? for demonstrating ecological progress. The application proposed that 426.05 credits be awarded for the HRMB as modified. The DEP modification application was assigned for permit review to Constance Bersok who was, at the time, the Environmental Administrator for the Wetlands Mitigation Program. Ms. Bersok had been involved in the process of applying the UMAM since shortly after the 2000 legislative session, when she ?was in charge of the Department's part of [the UMAM rule] development and coordination? along with the water management districts and other affected entities. Ms. Bersok was identified as the primary Department contact for ?questions and other feedback? regarding the UMAM rule in the June 15, 2011 Guidance Memo. Ms. Bersok is knowledgeable and experienced regarding the interpretation and application of the UMAM rule. Thus, she was the appropriate staff person for primary oversight of the application. Special Cases Agreement The Department determined that it would process the modification application despite the assignment of such projects to the SJRWMD under the Operating Agreement. In order to assume control over the permitting of the HRMB, the Department entered into a ?Written Agreement Pursuant to the Special Cases Section of the Operating Agreement? with the SJRWMD (Special Cases Agreement). Section II, Part D. of the Operating Agreement provides that: By written agreement between the DISTRICT and the DEPARTMENT, responsibilities may deviate from the responsibilities outlined in II. A., B., or C. above. Instances where this may occur include: An extensive regulatory history by either the DISTRICT or the DEPARTMENT with a particular project that would make a deviation result in more efficient or effective permitting; Simplification of the regulation of a project that crosses water management district boundaries; The incorrect agency has begun processing an application or petition and transfer of the application or petition would be inefficient; or Circumstances in which a deviation would result in the application being more efficiently or effectively processed. The specific provisions of paragraphs 1-3 being inapplicable, the Department assumed control over the modification application by relying on the generic ?catch-all? reason set forth in paragraph 4. The basis for the Department‘s determination that it could ?more efficiently or effectively process[]? the application -- despite the fact that the HRMB Property was literally in the SJRWMD‘s back yard, that the SJRWMD had a recent permitting history regarding the Property, and that the SJRWMD had extensive existing knowledge of the condition of the Property -- is not apparent and was not explained. The Special Cases Agreement became effective on December 13, 2011, upon Mr. Littlejohn‘s signature. DEP Permit Application On November 22, 2011, Highlands Ranch submitted a second package to Ms. Bersok, which converted the HRMB application from one for a modification of the SJRWMD permit, to one for a new permit to be issued by the Department. The permit application made certain changes to the terms and conditions for the development of the mitigation bank established in the SJRWMD Permit, but otherwise encompassed the same boundary and service area of the SJRWMD Permit. Highlands Ranch proposed 426.05 mitigation credits as the appropriate number of credits for the activities in the DEP permit application. There has been no other instance in which the Department accepted, processed, or issued a second mitigation bank permit when there was an existing and valid permit issued by a water management district for the same property. Thus, this application is unique in that regard. The Special Cases Agreement provided that it was designed to allow the Department to process the ?[a]pplication for a modification of the Highlands Ranch Mitigation Bank wherein the applicant seeks to revise the mitigation plan.? Despite its apparent limitation to a modification of the SJRWMD permit, the Special Cases Agreement cites to the application number of the DEP Permit that is the subject of this proceeding, and became effective after the submission of the new permit application. There is no evidence of the SJRWMD having objected to the Department‘s continued processing of the application. Thus, although irregular, the Special Cases Agreement was broad enough in its scope to encompass the conversion of the application for modification to a separate permit application. In addition to the foregoing, the scope of the Special Cases Agreement is a matter between the Department and the SJRWMD. There is no question that both agencies have legislatively conferred authority with regard to permitting mitigation banks. The decision between those agencies as to which would have responsibility going forward with the HRMB is not one that affects the substantial interests of Petitioner. Creation of the New ?Performance-driven? Approach On or about February 10, 2012, Ms. Bersok was advised by Mr. Littlejohn that the Department was going to implement a new and previously untried ?performance-driven? approach to permitting the HRMB. Mr. Littlejohn testified that this performance-driven approach is an interpretation of existing mitigation banking rules, and was to provide greater certainty in environmental performance, mitigation success, and provide for a more consistent, predictable, and repeatable permitting process.2/ The more practical effect of the ?performance-driven? approach, as stated by Mr. Littlejohn, is that ?there may be some increase in credits upon not applying a risk or a time lag factor. Those are both discount factors which attach to the raw scoring. So there may be an increase in credits.? Mr. Littlejohn testified that under his ?performance- driven? approach, the current condition of the Property and the final ?success criteria? were the only relevant factors, not how the applicant chose to meet those criteria. Consistent with that approach, Ms. Bersok was instructed that there was no need to issue a request for additional information as to the details by which the performance goals would be met, as was the normal procedure for environmental resource permits, including mitigation bank permits.3/ Under the performance-driven approach as applied to the HRMB, mitigation credits are subject to interim release and available for use upon the satisfaction of ?success criteria? set forth in the permit. Pursuant to the credit release schedule set forth in the DEP Permit, credits may be released upon recording the conservation easement(s), posting the required financial responsibility instrument and providing site security, and thereafter upon meeting one of five ?interim release? milestones. The interim credit releases authorize the release of mitigation credits for use to offset wetland impacts well before the time when the site has achieved the outcome that was scored in the Part II assessment. Although Highlands Ranch will have performed the bulk of the active construction and implementation activities before being entitled to an interim release, the ecological benefit of the interim ?success criteria? does not represent the achievement of the structure and function that will be necessary for final success, nor does it guarantee that that final structure and function will ultimately be achieved. Complete Application Though instructed not to request additional information, Ms. Bersok sent an e-mail to the agent for Highlands Ranch that contained a recitation of what she would have sent the applicant in a request for additional information. On February 14, 2012, Highlands Ranch submitted supplemental information in support of the permit application to Ms. Bersok. The supplemental information contained some, though not all, of the information requested by Ms. Bersok. The submittals of November 1, 2011; November 22, 2011; and February 14, 2012, along with the application check, constitute the application to DEP. There were no written submittals designed to supplement, alter, or amend the proposed activities to enhance or preserve the Property after February 14, 2012. Thus, those documents constituted the complete application. The application contained Highlands Ranch‘s description of historic and existing vegetative communities. There was no suggestion that the description provided by Highlands Ranch was not accurate. The goal of the HRMB as reflected in the DEP application was to convert a silviculture operation to the appropriate native target communities. Mitigation activities proposed in the complete application included restoring or enhancing longleaf pine/xeric oak sandhill, mesic flatwoods, hydric or wet flatwoods, baygall/bay swamp, floodplain swamp/stream or lake swamp and bottomland forest/wetland forest mixed communities, generally through reversal of the existing silvicultural impacts and implementing hydrologic enhancement activities. Each phase of the HRMB would be subject to a conservation easement granted to the Department and the SJRWMD for preservation of the Property in its existing or enhanced condition. The complete application provided that enhancement and restoration would be accomplished through canopy thinning in existing upland and wetland pine plantation areas; control of nuisance and invasive exotic vegetative species; vegetative enhancement, including replanting thinned pine areas with appropriate species where necessary, and supplemental planting of historic native trees and ground cover; prescribed fire; and hydrologic enhancements. Ongoing management of the HRMB site would primarily involve monitoring; prescribed fire; and control of nuisance and invasive exotic vegetative species. Draft Permits As information regarding the application was submitted by Highlands Ranch, Ms. Bersok undertook to calculate the number of mitigation credits warranted by the complete application. She performed several calculations between December 8, 2011 and February 22, 2012. On February 22, 2012, Ms. Bersok performed her final written analysis of the application using the information contained in the November 22, 2011, submittal, including the mitigation activities and target levels and methodologies described by Highlands Ranch, and the information contained in the February 14, 2012, submittal. Thus, her assessment and review was based upon the complete application. In addition to the information regarding site conditions from the permitting file, Ms. Bersok had ?a couple of meetings? to discuss the application, made a site visit, and reviewed additional aerial images obtained on-line. Although her site visit was not comprehensive, Ms. Bersok felt that she had adequate information regarding the current condition for each of the different types of assessment areas that were on the site. Since her review was based in large measure on information and site descriptions regarding the current conditions provided by Highlands Ranch, her belief as to the sufficiency of the information regarding the assessment areas upon which she based her review is warranted and accepted. The November 22, 2011, submittal included the following mitigation activities that differed from the conditions of the SJRWMD permit: All areas subjected to prescribed burning would be burned on a 2-8 year rotation. Two burns necessary to reach final success criteria. Communities defined by both FLUFCS classification and FNAI classification. Basal area targets of less than 60 square feet per acre in U1 and 80 square feet per acre in U2 (perpetual management only). A total of 426.05 credits proposed. No credit withholding by phase. Completion of Construction and Implementation tasks results in 20% of credit release. Target levels and methodologies to determine percent cover and composition of canopy, shrub, and groundcover. The February 14, 2012, submittal included the following description of mitigation activities that differed from the conditions of the SJRWMD permit: The expected fire frequency for the hydric pine restoration areas to be a 1-3 year cycle, with actual burn frequency to be in the professional judgment of the burn manager and team ecologists. Further description of the low water crossings and structures. Since Ms. Bersok utilized the November 22, 2011, submittal, along with the information provided by Highlands Ranch on February 14, 2012, her review and analysis necessarily included the above-listed mitigation activities and target conditions. Ms. Bersok made assumptions designed to produce high quality outcomes that, at the time of her review, had not yet been incorporated as conditions to any proposed permit. Her assumptions/recommendations included the following: In those locations without sufficient pyrogenic groundcover, mechanical means of shrub reduction to carry a fire, and planting or seeding of the native ground cover to achieve and sustain the target community type. Planting of longleaf pine in the xeric (U1) and mesic (U2) communities, and similar mitigation in the hydric pine restoration (W1 and W2) assessment areas. Ms. Bersok‘s assumptions were ultimately incorporated in the DEP draft permit. Ms. Bersok‘s analysis included the ?one-step? approach to application of the preservation factor, wherein preservation was included as an element of enhancement in restoration or enhancement assessment areas, rather than as a separate factor, consistent with the approach outlined in the June 15, 2011 Guidance Memo. Thus, for the assessment areas that were not exclusively bay or floodplain preservation, the ?P-Factor? score was listed as ?n/a.? Ms. Bersok utilized the ?performance-driven? approach as instructed by Mr. Littlejohn. Therefore, her February 22, 2012, assessment assigned a score of 1.00 for both time lag and risk. As a result of her calculations, Ms. Bersok arrived at a total of 280.33 mitigation credits for the HRMB. Ms. Bersok‘s February 22, 2012, score of 280.33 credits incorporated all of the material changes to the SJRWMD permit that were proposed by Highlands Ranch in its complete application, and the material specific conditions that were ultimately included in the DEP proposed permit. The only changes to the SJRWMD permit that were not explicitly part of Ms. Bersok‘s calculation, either as a proposal by the applicant or as an assumption, were: two consecutive burns within a period of 1-3 years in the xeric, mesic, and hydric pine restoration areas to demonstrate final success. monitoring and recording of shrub height to meet success criteria. control of oak species ?to obtain the abundance appropriate to the sandhill community condition.? Those relatively minor changes are not significant in light of the overall information presented in the complete application and Ms. Bersok‘s accepted assumptions, and do not materially affect the final target conditions for the mitigation. Several days prior to May 8, 2012, Ms. Bersok met with Mr. Rach and Mark Thomasson to discuss progress on the application and draft permits. At that time, she reviewed a UMAM assessment that assigned 333 mitigation credits to the HRMB. She was instructed ?to look for some more credits, that [333 credits] wasn't enough.? Ms. Bersok advised Mr. Rach and Mr. Thomasson that 333 mitigation credits was more than could be ecologically supported.4/ On May 8, 2012, Mr. Rach presented Ms. Bersok with a draft pilot permit that called for the award of 424 mitigation credits for the HRMB. Mr. Rach was unable to identify who in the Department calculated the UMAM credits, but that ?the credits which were the result of the UMAM were one of the last things filled in in the permit. So I'm not sure at that point in time who it was.? On May 9, 2012, Ms. Bersok prepared a ?status memo? in which she expressed her opinion that she could not ecologically support the award of 424 mitigation credits for the HRMB, and expressed her ?objection to the intended agency action and refusal to recommend this permit for issuance.? On May 11, 2012, Ms. Bersok was removed from further involvement in the review of the HRMB permit application. Issuance of the DEP Permit and Variance Over the course of the next three months, the Department and Highlands Ranch had several meetings in which they developed the performance standards and ?success criteria? that would be applied to allow for the release of mitigation credits. The meetings included additional site visits. There was no evidence that the additional site visits revealed conditions of the site that were inconsistent with those set forth in the complete application. During the course of the hearing, it was suggested that ?additional activities [were] proposed? during the period when the permit application was being processed. There were, in this case, no requests for additional information, no written submittals memorializing any such additional activities, and no evidence of any alteration or amendment of the complete application. Those ?additional activities? were not specified or described during the final hearing. To the extent that the Department or Highlands Ranch purports to rely on unspecified ?additional activities? that are not contained in the application or the permitting file, or otherwise presented as evidence to support issuance of the permit, they may not be considered as part of the record of this proceeding. On August 17, 2012, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource/Mitigation Bank Permit and Variance (Notice) and draft permit that awarded 424.81 mitigation credits for the HRMB. The number of credits awarded by the Department ?was a collaborative effort with the Applicant over the course of several meetings,? with Mr. Thomasson ultimately signing off and agreeing to the final scores. The Notice provided that the UMAM assessment of the HRMB Property showed ?a potential of 424.81 total freshwater credits: 207.31 Hydric Flatwoods/Wet Prairie credits and 217.50 Freshwater Forested wetlands credits.? Thus, the credits awarded to the HRMB may be purchased and applied at impact sites in the MSA to offset 207.31 units of functional loss associated with hydric flatwoods and wet prairies, and 217.50 units of functional loss associated with freshwater forested wetlands. The 426.05 credits proposed by Highlands Ranch in the November 22, 2011 application were derived by calculating 291.99 credits for restoration of the upland pine assessment areas, 73.78 credits for restoration of the hydric pine assessment areas (thus 365.77 credits for restoration of overall pine assessment areas), 15.40 total credits for enhancement and restoration of floodplain, bottomland, and bay assessment areas, and 37.65 credits for preservation of floodplain and bay assessment areas. The 425.81 credits awarded by the Department were derived by calculating 317.64 credits for restoration of the upland pine assessment areas, 52.06 credits for restoration of the hydric pine assessment areas (thus 369.70 credits for restoration of overall pine assessment areas), 15.35 total credits for enhancement and restoration of floodplain, bottomland, and bay assessment areas, and 39.75 credits for preservation of floodplain and bay assessment areas. The number of credits awarded by the Department is roughly identical to the number requested by Highlands Ranch in the 2010 SJRWMD proceeding (425 credits), the number requested by Highlands Ranch in the November 1, 2012, application for modification of the SJRWMD permit (426.05 credits), the number requested by Highlands Ranch in the November 22, 2011 DEP permit application (426.05 credits), and the number preliminarily calculated by the Department and provided to Ms. Bersok on May 8, 2012 (424 credits). Credit Release Schedule Section 373.4136(5) provides that: SCHEDULE FOR CREDIT RELEASE.— After awarding mitigation credits to a mitigation bank, the department or the water management district shall set forth a schedule for the release of those credits in the mitigation bank permit. A mitigation credit that has been released may be sold or used to offset adverse impacts from an activity regulated under this part. The department or the water management district shall allow a portion of the mitigation credits awarded to a mitigation bank to be released for sale or use prior to meeting all of the performance criteria specified in the mitigation bank permit. The department or the water management district shall allow release of all of a mitigation bank‘s awarded mitigation credits only after the bank meets the mitigation success criteria specified in the permit. The number of credits and schedule for release shall be determined by the department or water management district based upon the performance criteria for the mitigation bank and the success criteria for each mitigation activity. The release schedule for a specific mitigation bank or phase thereof shall be related to the actions required to implement the bank, such as site protection, site preparation, earthwork, removal of wastes, planting, removal or control of nuisance and exotic species, installation of structures, and annual monitoring and management requirements for success. In determining the specific release schedule for a bank, the department or water management district shall consider, at a minimum, the following factors: Whether the mitigation consists solely of preservation or includes other types of mitigation. The length of time anticipated to be required before a determination of success can be achieved. The ecological value to be gained from each action required to implement the bank. The financial expenditure required for each action to implement the bank. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, no credit shall be released for freshwater wetland creation until the success criteria included in the mitigation bank permit are met. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-342.470(3) allows for the release of credits prior to final success criteria having been met, and provides that: Some Mitigation Credits may be released for use prior to meeting all of the performance criteria specified in the Mitigation Bank Permit. The release of all mitigation credits awarded will only occur after the bank meets all of the success criteria specified in the permit. The number of credits and schedule for release shall be determined based upon the performance criteria for the Mitigation Bank, the success criteria for each mitigation activity, and a consideration of the factors listed in subsection 373.4136(5), F.S. However, no credits shall be released until the requirements of Rules 62-342.650 and 62.342.700, F.A.C., are met. Additionally, no credits awarded for freshwater creation shall be released until the success criteria included in the Mitigation Bank Permit are met. Prior to achieving the final success criteria, Highlands Ranch will be eligible for interim credit releases when the ?success criteria? for each phase as set forth in the permit are met. The mitigation credits are scheduled for release as follows: Conservation Easement/Financial Assurance/Security Phase 1 - 23.45 credits Phase 2 - 21.78 credits Phase 3 - 18.49 credits Interim Criteria I Phase 1 - 39.09 credits Phase 2 - 36.29 credits Phase 3 - 30.82 credits Interim Criteria II-A Phase 1 - 9.38 credits Phase 2 - 8.71 credits Phase 3 - 7.40 credits Interim Criteria II-B Phase 1 - 3.13 credits Phase 2 - 2.90 credits Phase 3 - 2.47 credits Interim Criteria III Phase 1 - 32.83 credits Phase 2 - 30.49 credits Phase 3 - 25.89 credits Interim Criteria IV Phase 1 - 28.14 credits Phase 2 - 26.13 credits Phase 3 - 22.19 credits Final Success Criteria by Phase Phase 1 - 12.51 credits Phase 2 - 11.61 credits Phase 3 - 9.86 credits Final Bank Success Criteria - 21.25 credits The tasks related to Phase 1 are targeted to commence upon permit issuance, with active management activities -- i.e., recording the conservation easement, providing title insurance, executing financial assurance mechanisms, and providing security; and enhancement activities, e.g., tree thinning, crushing bedding rows, planting, and activities relating to trail roads and culverts -- to be completed within one year. The evidence indicates that some of the management activities, including tree thinning and crushing bedding rows were completed prior to the submission of the application for the DEP Permit. The tasks related to Phase 2 and Phase 3 are targeted to commence upon ?phase implementation,? with active management and enhancement activities within one year of the implementation of each phase. The application provides that the implementation date for Phase 2 and Phase 3 ?will be based upon market demand for mitigation within the mitigation service area.? Thus, the phases could be implemented immediately, or not at all, at the sole discretion of Highlands Ranch. The HRMB mitigation milestones that allow for interim releases of mitigation credits prior to the final success of the target communities and measures for which the bank was scored under the Part II assessment do not materially differ from standards for interim releases applicable to all mitigation banks pursuant to section 373.4136(5) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-342.480(3). In addition to the foregoing, though not dispositive of the issue, is the fact that the ?success criteria? in the HRMB permit are, in many cases, vague and non-quantifiable. Thus, in the absence of specific standards and comparators, the HRMB success criteria may allow for the release of credits to offset present wetland impacts without any specific or measurable ecological benefit. Application of the Time Lag Factor The Department calculated the credits for the HRMB using a time lag score of 1.00 for all assessment areas. Thus, in keeping with the UMAM, the Department necessarily made the decision that at the time of the interim releases, ?the mitigation fully offsets the anticipated impacts prior to or at the time of impact.? Meeting the ?success criteria? for an interim release of credits does not mean that the mitigation bank has met the success measures for which the bank was scored under the Part II assessment. Rather, meeting the ?success criteria? serves only to recognize that the project is meeting interim goals that show general progress towards the target goals if continued and successful into the future. In this case, there is a time difference between the achievement of the ecological benefits of the final target community, and the interim release of mitigation credits and their use to offset impacts at sites requiring mitigation. There is little practical ecological difference between releasing credits before final target communities are achieved based on ?success criteria? that are the result of implementing described activities, and releasing credits based on the physical implementation of those described activities. The effect in both cases is that mitigation credits are to be released during the ?time between when the functions are lost at an impact site and when the site has achieved the outcome that was scored in Part II.? There was testimony offered at the final hearing that the Department‘s time lag and risk scores of 1.00 were appropriate because the credit release schedule represents functional ecological improvement that must be achieved before credits are released. For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned finds that the functional ecological improvement represented by the ?success criteria? is not materially dissimilar from the means by which the ecological value of interim release milestones has been calculated for previously permitted and implemented mitigation banks. Thus, testimony that the success criteria as proposed in the DEP Permit warrants time lag and risk scores of 1.00 is not credited. Contrary to the evidence referenced in the preceding paragraph, Mr. Hull testified convincingly that there is a sizable percentage of credits released prior to the mitigation bank reaching the success proposed for many of the restoration assessment areas without time lag or risk. An example of time lag that should be applicable to the HRMB is the fact that final success for all assessment areas includes, among other criteria, the requirement that all plants, except those targeted for control or eradication, be reproducing naturally. In the case of longleaf pine, which is to be planted throughout the Property, the period before the achievement of that outcome is approximately 30 years. Furthermore, Ms. Bersok testified credibly that when starting with a community that has few ecological functions, the time necessary to ultimately achieve a high community structure score can take much longer than 15 to 20 years. That period before final success should have been reflected as time lag in the UMAM assessment, but was not. In accordance with the schedule proposed by Highlands Ranch, a significant number of the total credits awarded for the three phases may be released within one year of permit issuance. In that regard, the ?CE/Financial Assurance/Security? interim release allows for a three-phase total of 63.72 credits to be released for that interim step, estimated to occur within 30 days of permit issuance or phase implementation, while Interim Criteria I allows for a three-phase total of 106.20 credits to be released for that interim step, estimated to occur within one year of permit issuance or phase implementation. Thus, 169.92 of 425.81 credits, or 40 percent of the total, are potentially eligible for release within a short period, and years before any reasonable expectation of final target community success. It is that circumstance that squarely meets the standards for the application of the time lag factor. Based on the testimony and evidence adduced at the final hearing, the calculation of credits for the HRMB without accounting for the time lag before final success produces an unreasonable result, regardless of the application of the "performance-driven" approach that was created for the HRMB by the Department.5/ Thus, the decision to assign a time lag score of 1.00 to each of the restoration assessment areas is contrary to the facts of this case, and the plain language of the UMAM rule and its requirements. Application of the Risk Factor The Department calculated the credits for the HRMB using a risk score of 1.00 for all assessment areas. Thus, pursuant to the UMAM, the Department made the decision that the mitigation projects require no significant ?periods of time to replace lost functions or to recover from potential perturbations,? and that the mitigation activities are being ?conducted in an ecologically viable landscape and deemed successful or clearly trending towards success prior to impacts.? As set forth in preceding paragraphs, there is a sizable period of time between the interim release of credits - and their availability to replace lost functions at permitted impact sites -- and the time at which the mitigation has been established and monitored to the point at which it is ?clearly trending towards success.? Thus, a risk score of 1.00, meaning that there is essentially no risk, is not warranted. The risk in this case is that associated with the fact that the ?mitigation projects . . . require longer periods of time to replace lost functions or to recover from potential perturbations.? Although there were concerns expressed that the proposed activities might have heightened risk inherent in the mitigation methods, the testimony on that issue was vague and non-specific, and is not accepted. Based on the testimony and evidence adduced at the final hearing, the failure to account for the risk associated with the extended period of time expected before final restoration and enhancement success is not warranted, regardless of the application of the "performance-driven" approach. Thus, the decision to assign a risk score of 1.00 to each of the restoration assessment areas is contrary to the facts of this case, and the plain language of the UMAM rule and its requirements. Application of the Preservation Adjustment Factor The DEP Permit applied the preservation factor as a ?one-step? process as described above. Under that method, the PAF was not separately applied in any restoration or enhancement assessment area. That method was applied by Ms. Bersok in her February 22, 2013, UMAM scoring of the HRMB complete application. A PAF of 0.70 was applied to both of the preservation assessment areas. That score was also applied by Ms. Bersok in her February 22, 2013, UMAM scoring of the HRMB complete application. The ?one-step? application of the PAF was an allowable method under the UMAM rule. Petitioner failed to prove that the score of 0.70 for the preservation assessment areas was not warranted. Variance from Construction and Implementation Financial Responsibility Requirement Section 373.4136 provides that, in order to obtain a mitigation bank permit, an applicant must meet the financial responsibility requirements established by rule. § 373.4136(10), Fla. Stat. As it relates to financial responsibility for the construction and implementation of a mitigation bank, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-342.700(4) provides, in pertinent part, that: Financial Responsibility for Construction and Implementation. No financial responsibility shall be required where the construction and implementation of the Mitigation Bank, or a phase thereof, is completed and successful prior to the withdrawal of any credits. * * * . . . When the bank (or appropriate phase) has been completely constructed, implemented, and is trending toward success in compliance with the permit, the respective amount of financial responsibility shall be released. The financial responsibility mechanism shall become effective prior to the release of any mitigation credits. Section 120.542(2) provides that: (2) Variances and waivers shall be granted when the person subject to the rule demonstrates that the purpose of the underlying statute will be or has been achieved by other means by the person and when application of a rule would create a substantial hardship or would violate principles of fairness. For purposes of this section, ?substantial hardship? means a demonstrated economic, technological, legal, or other type of hardship to the person requesting the variance or waiver. For purposes of this section, ?principles of fairness? are violated when the literal application of a rule affects a particular person in a manner significantly different from the way it affects other similarly situated persons who are subject to the rule. On July 16, 2012, Highlands Ranch filed a petition with the Department for a variance from the financial responsibility requirements of rule 62-342.700 for the construction and implementation activities of Highlands Ranch Mitigation Bank.6/ In its ?Petition for Variance from Rule Subsections 62-342.700(1)(a), (2), (3) and (4), F.A.C.?, Highlands Ranch requested that the variance be granted on the basis that the application of the rule would create a substantial hardship. Highlands Ranch did not assert that the application of the financial responsibility rule would violate principles of fairness. As indicated previously, the proposed permit authorizes a release of credits when Highlands Ranch records the conservation easement, provides title insurance, executes financial assurance mechanisms, and provides security. Thus, the proposed HRMB permit authorizes the release of mitigation credits prior to any construction being commenced, much less completed. Although certain interim criteria must be met in order for additional mitigation credits to be released, those interim steps do not constitute success of the target conditions scored under the Part II Assessment or, without more, demonstrate that the mitigation is ?trending toward success? in meeting those final target conditions. Financial assurance is required for construction and implementation activities at all mitigation banks, and may not be released until the mitigation ?is trending toward success in compliance with the permit.? Highlands Ranch asserts that the unique ?performance-driven? approach that has been applied to the HRMB warrants a deviation from the requirement that it financially guarantee the work. To the contrary, the financial responsibility required by rule provides assurance that the active construction and implementation is performed and, as would be the case with the ?performance-driven? approach, may be released only when the expected outcomes are trending towards success. Without question, any time a permitee is required to provide financial responsibility, it will have a financial effect on the permittee. However, the standard for a variance requires that the financial effect constitute a hardship to the person requesting the variance. In this case, Highlands Ranch failed to demonstrate that meeting the financial responsibility requirements applicable to all mitigation bank permittees would constitute an economic, technological, legal, or other type of hardship as applied to it. Highlands Ranch did not request a variance on the basis that the application of the financial-responsibility rule would violate principles of fairness. Nonetheless, the Department determined that ?principals of fairness? warranted its grant of the variance. For the reasons set forth herein, including the fact that the financial-responsibility instruments required of all permittees may be released only when the mitigation ?is trending toward success in compliance with the permit,? the undersigned finds that the financial-responsibility rule does not affect Highlands Ranch in a manner significantly different from the way it affects other similarly situated persons who are subject to the rule. Highlands Ranch failed to demonstrate that the application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-342.700(4) would create a substantial hardship or would violate principles of fairness as applied to Highlands Ranch and the HRMB. Highlands Ranch‘s Motion for Attorney‘s Fees and Costs Based on the evidence adduced in this proceeding, the undersigned finds that Petitioner did not participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. In that regard, Petitioner is found to have prevailed on certain issues that substantially changed the outcome of the proposed agency action which is the subject of this proceeding regarding both the DEP Permit and the Variance. Furthermore, despite the evidence provided as to the source of payment for certain of Petitioner‘s costs and attorney‘s fees, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioner brought this action ?primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity.? § 120.595(1)(e)1., Fla. Stat. Ultimate Findings of Fact Based on the totality of the facts adduced at the final hearing, having weighed the evidence introduced by each of the parties, and having gauged the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the undersigned accepts the testimony of Ms. Bersok as constituting the most credible and reliable application of reasonable scientific judgment, resulting in an accurate calculation of the allowable credits (except as modified below) that may be awarded under the standards established by the UMAM rule. The competent and substantial evidence available to Ms. Bersok, including the complete application submitted by Highlands Ranch, and her assumptions that were ultimately incorporated in the DEP proposed permit, are found to have been sufficient to allow her to formulate reasoned opinions and conclusions regarding the number of mitigation credits that could be ecologically justified in this case. Therefore, the undersigned finds that the application of the UMAM standards to the HRMB property and the restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities to take place thereon, warrants an award of a maximum of 280.33 mitigation credits. Based on the testimony and evidence adduced at the final hearing, and as set forth herein, the undersigned finds that the facts of this case, including the ?performance-driven? approach that was developed for and applied to the HRMB application, do not warrant a determination that there is no time difference between the time wetland impacts being mitigated by released mitigation credits are anticipated to occur and the time when the mitigation is anticipated to fully offset the impacts. Based thereon, the application of a time lag score of 1.00 in the UMAM assessment was in error. Thus, the 280.33 mitigation credits that reflect the maximum allowable number should be revised by applying an appropriate time lag modifier to the ?delta? for each restoration and enhancement assessment area as calculated by Ms. Bersok, with the RFG and final credits calculated based thereon. Based on the testimony and evidence adduced at the final hearing, and as set forth herein, the undersigned finds that the facts of this case do not warrant a determination that there is no uncertainty that there may be a reduction in the ecological value of the mitigation assessment area. That finding is based on the length of time expected before final success, rather than any inherent vulnerability of the target communities. Based thereon, the application of a risk score of 1.00 in the UMAM assessment was error. Thus, the 280.33 mitigation credits that reflect the maximum allowable number should be revised by applying an appropriate risk modifier to the ?delta? for each restoration and enhancement assessment area as calculated by Ms. Bersok, with the RFG and final credits calculated based thereon. For the reasons set forth herein, Highlands Ranch failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to a variance from the financial responsibility requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-342.700.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order consistent with the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 11th day of April, 2013.
