The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to fund the application of Petitioner Duval Park, Ltd. (Duval Park), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, policies, or the proposal specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation that administers low-income housing tax credit programs. As of July 1, 2012, Florida Housing was authorized to use up to ten percent of its annual allocation of low-income housing tax credits to fund high-priority affordable housing developments selected through a competitive solicitation process, such as the RFP. See Ch. 2012-127, § 4, Laws of Fla. (2012)(creating § 420.507(48), Fla. Stat.). Examples of "high priority" affordable housing developments include housing for veterans and their families, and housing for persons with special needs. Prior to issuing the RFP, Florida Housing conducted some demonstration RFPs for developments serving special needs households, but the RFP represents the first actual use of the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits. Previously, low-income housing tax credits were awarded through what was known as the universal application cycle, a process described as cumbersome, lengthy, and inflexible. As part of the universal application cycle, an applicant could indicate by checking a box that it intended to provide affordable housing to special needs households. However, the general universal application process did not lend itself to a targeted proposal detailing how the unique needs of specific special-needs population groups would be addressed. The competitive solicitation process was seen as a way to allow applicants to respond to particular high-priority development needs identified by Florida Housing. In setting forth their development proposals for defined target population groups, applicants would be able to tell their story: applicants would identify and describe the unique needs and household characteristics of the specific special-needs population group that is the focus of their application; applicants could detail and demonstrate their know-how with regard to the resources available in the community where the proposed development is located, to meet the unique needs of the target population; and applicants would be able to discuss the relevant experience of the developer and management teams that make them well-suited to carry out the proposed development and meet the unique needs of the targeted population group. The RFP The RFP solicited responses or applications proposing the development of "permanent supportive housing" (as defined in the RFP) for persons with special needs. Florida Housing issued the RFP with the expectation of funding two or more proposals. The RFP provided that applicants could propose developments for persons with special needs generally, or applicants could choose to focus on serving veterans with special needs. If an applicant chose to focus on veterans with special needs, the applicant was required to pick one of two specific subcategories: either veterans with service-connected disabling conditions transitioning from a Veterans' Administration (VA) hospital or medical center; or chronically homeless/ institutionalized veterans with disabling conditions who were significant users of public resources, such as emergency care and shelter. The RFP specified that it was Florida Housing's goal to fund at least one development proposing to serve veterans with special needs. Preference would be given to proposed developments focusing on serving special-needs veterans in the first subcategory, i.e., veterans transitioning from VA hospitals and medical centers. Duval Park, Osprey, and five other applicants timely submitted applications in response to the RFP. Both Duval Park and Osprey proposed permanent supportive housing developments to serve veterans with special needs transitioning from VA hospitals and medical centers. As described in the RFP, an evaluation committee comprised of Florida Housing employees reviewed and scored the applications. Members of the evaluation committee were instructed to independently evaluate and score the application sections assigned to them. The RFP specified that at least one public meeting would be held at which the evaluators were allowed to discuss their evaluations, make any adjustments deemed necessary to best serve the interests of Florida Housing's mission, and develop recommendations for the Florida Housing Board of Directors. For most application sections, a single evaluator was assigned to review and score the seven responses. For example, Mr. Aldinger was the evaluator who reviewed and scored the two application sections addressing developer and management company experience with permanent supportive housing. Two application sections were assigned for evaluation and scoring by two evaluation committee members. The two evaluators first independently reviewed and scored all seven application responses for the two sections. Then the two evaluators met in a noticed public meeting to conduct a "reconciliation process," in which they discussed their evaluations of the responses to the two application sections and reconciled differences in their scores. The evaluation committee ultimately concluded that Duval Park's application was entitled to a total of 119 points out of 133 possible points, and that Osprey's application was entitled to 117 points. A large gap in scoring separated these two highest-scoring applicants from the other five applicants; the next highest score was 95 points. The evaluation committee presented its recommendation to the Florida Housing Board of Directors, along with a summary of the scores assigned by the evaluation committee. The committee's recommendation was that Florida Housing should award funding to Duval Park for its proposed development. Florida Housing's Board adopted the committee's recommendation. Osprey's Protest Issue Remaining for Determination Following the parties' withdrawal of most of their protest issues, the only remaining disputed issue for resolution in this proceeding is Osprey's claim that Duval Park should have received "at least three" less points than Osprey for the sections addressing developer and management company experience.2/ Mr. Aldinger's assignment as the evaluation committee member responsible for reviewing and scoring these application sections comports with his expertise. Mr. Aldinger has served as Florida Housing's supportive housing coordinator since 2006. In that role, he has been coordinating with governmental bodies and industry stakeholders to develop strategies for focusing Florida Housing's resources on the provision of supportive housing to special needs households. The RFP was developed in furtherance of this effort, and Mr. Aldinger was one of the RFP's authors. Mr. Aldinger assigned the same number of points to the Duval Park and Osprey applications in both sections. Each application received 24 out of 25 possible points for developer experience, and all ten of the points available for management company experience. Osprey's contention is that its narratives for these two application sections show its objective superiority. Osprey's "objective superiority" argument is primarily based on a quantitative comparison, in which its narrative showed experience developing and operating a larger number of permanent supportive housing units than did Duval Park's narrative. Osprey also contends that its narrative was qualitatively better in providing greater detail regarding its experience developing and operating permanent supportive housing. As part of its argument, Osprey contends that Duval Park strayed from the RFP instructions by describing experience with more than just permanent supportive housing, but that the evaluator gave Duval Park credit anyway. The RFP instructions provide the starting point to assess Osprey's contentions. First, the RFP provided the following definition of "permanent supportive housing": Rental housing that is affordable to the focus households with household incomes at or below 60 percent of area median income (AMI), that is leased to the focus households, for continued occupancy with an indefinite length of stay as long as the Permanent Supportive Housing tenant complies with the lease requirements. Permanent Supportive Housing shall facilitate and promote activities of daily living, access to community-based services and amenities, and inclusion in the general community. Permanent Supportive Housing shall strive to meet the needs and preferences of the focus households. This RFP definition was acknowledged to be somewhat broader than how that phrase might be understood by some industry models. For example, Mr. Aldinger testified that transitional housing could be permanent supportive housing within the RFP definition, as long as a lease agreement is used. Permanency is not required, only an "indefinite" length of stay. The fact that leases are for finite terms of 12 or 24 months would not be dispositive; rather, the length of stay would be considered "indefinite" if tenants are not required to leave at the end of their lease terms, if they are not ready to leave and are otherwise in compliance with the lease terms. The provision of supportive services to meet the needs of the focus population is a key part of the RFP definition. The RFP instructions for the developer experience narrative were as follows: Developer Experience with Permanent Supportive Housing (Maximum 25 points): The Applicant must describe the experience of the Developer, co-Developer, and/or Principal in developing and operating Permanent Supportive Housing, and more specifically, housing for the households the Applicant is proposing to serve. Describe the role(s) and responsibilities of any Developer, co- Developer, and/or Principal listed in the Applicant's responses to Items A.2.c. and 3.a. of Section 6 of the RFP, related to the proposed Development, and describe the experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out the roles and responsibilities for this proposed Development. (emphasis added). The RFP instructions for the first application section must also be considered because they tie into the developer/ manager experience sections. The instructions for the first application section required the applicant to provide a detailed description of the focus population group, and the instructions also explained how that description would be used, as follows: [T]he Applicant must provide a detailed description of the resident household characteristics, needs, and preferences of the focus population(s) the Applicant is proposing to serve. This description will provide a point of reference for the Corporation's evaluation and scoring of the Application, providing the foundation for the appropriateness of the experience of the Developer(s) and Management Company, proposed Construction Features and Amenities, Resident services and Access to Community Based Services and Amenities. (emphasis added). As part of this first application section, applicants focusing on special-needs veterans transitioning from VA facilities were required to designate the specific VA facilities with which the applicants expected to be working and coordinating. Osprey, whose proposed development is in Liberty City, Miami-Dade County, designated Miami VA Healthcare System (Miami VA) in Miami. Duval Park, whose proposed development is in unincorporated Pinellas County, designated Bay Pines VA Healthcare System (Bay Pines VA) in Pinellas County, as well as the James A. Haley Veterans Hospital and the Tampa Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center, both in Tampa, Hillsborough County. Osprey and Duval Park both provided extensive narratives describing their target populations and detailing the unique needs and preferences of their target populations. Osprey's narrative described the information learned from interviewing social workers in each of the programs under the umbrella of the Miami VA, with whom Carrfour would be coordinating for transitioning veterans. Osprey's narrative also described a VA grant to Carrfour of $1,000,000 per year for supportive services for veteran families, through which Carrfour provides a comprehensive case management program called Operation Sacred Trust. This program has an outreach team that works closely with social workers throughout the Miami VA. The Duval Park narrative discussed and documented the work of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority Wounded Warrior Community Advisory Group to assess housing needs for veterans. Developer-partner ServiceSource's director of housing was a participant. As part of the assessment, the advisory group conducted veterans' focus groups to hear from the veterans themselves regarding their needs and preferences, including the particular supportive services needed to allow veterans to transition to an independent living setting. The Duval Park narrative also described the information about transitioning veterans learned through ongoing projects with the VA facilities designated for the proposed development, including a Memorandum of Understanding between James A. Haley Veterans Hospital and ServiceSource's Warrior Bridge program. As called for by the RFP instructions, Mr. Aldinger used each application's detailed description of the target population in section one as the foundation for evaluating that application's developer and management experience narratives. The experience narratives were properly evaluated in accordance with the RFP instructions in the context of each applicant's specific proposal to focus on a defined population group transitioning from designated VA facilities, whose unique needs were fleshed out in the first section narratives. Mr. Aldinger reviewed and was impressed with both Osprey's and Duval Park's developer experience narratives, for good reason. As he explained, the two responses took different approaches, but both provided good detail in the limited space allotted. Osprey's narrative described Carrfour, a non-managing member of the applicant entity that will be the developer and, through a subsidiary, manager of the proposed development. Carrfour is a not-for-profit organization created in 1993 by the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, with the mission of developing permanent supportive housing to end homelessness. In setting forth Carrfour's experience, the Osprey narrative took a quantitative approach by enumerating Carrfour's 16 mixed-use housing development projects that included permanent supportive housing. Some details were provided for each development, such as the funding sources, the number of total units, how many of those units were permanent supportive housing units, and how many of the units were currently occupied by veterans. However, the narrative did not explain whether any supportive services provided for these developments were specifically geared to meeting the special needs of veterans. The types of supportive services were not identified for any of the 16 developments. For three developments, the description stated only that "a full array of supportive services" was provided or that "on-site supportive services" were provided. Supportive services were not mentioned in the descriptions of the other 13 developments. Other than providing the number of units then occupied by veterans, Osprey's developer experience narrative had no information to demonstrate experience providing housing specifically developed to meet the unique needs of the focus population for its proposed development: veterans with service- related disabling conditions transitioning from the Miami VA. Duval Park's developer experience narrative did not match Osprey's approach of enumerating individual permanent supportive housing developments and quantifying the units in each development. Duval Park's response chose instead to describe in general aggregate terms the permanent supportive housing experience of the developer-partners. The Duval Park narrative went into more detail to highlight the developer team experience with housing projects specifically designed to meet the unique needs of special-needs veterans transitioning from the VA facilities designated in its application, something lacking in the Osprey response. For example, Duval Park's response described developer- partner Boley's substantial experience since it was founded in 1970, in developing more than 500 units of permanent supportive housing in Pinellas County. The narrative also described the even longer-standing experience of developer-partner ServiceSource, founded in 1959 with a mission to provide services to needy people with disabilities. Initially providing employment, training, rehabilitation, and support services (relevant to the roles described for this developer-partner in operating the proposed development), ServiceSource began a housing program in 1995. ServiceSource's permanent supportive housing development experience was summarized in shorthand as including 20 separate "HUD 202/811 awards." The unrefuted testimony established that this shorthand reference was properly understood by Mr. Aldinger to signify 20 permanent supportive housing developments for persons with disabilities. Two specific supportive housing projects for veterans, developed and operated by Boley working with the Bay Pines VA, were detailed in Duval Park's developer experience narrative. In 2007, Bay Pines VA awarded Boley a contract for "Safe Haven Model Demonstration Project" services, described in the notice of contract award as "a specialty model of HCHV residential care as mandated by the . . . zero-tolerance policy to end homelessness within the Veteran population." Through this contract, Boley acquired and rehabilitated a former 20-unit skilled nursing facility to establish Morningside Safe Haven (Morningside), which provides housing and a residential treatment program with counseling for veterans. Half of the 20 veterans housed there have service-connected disabling conditions, and one-third of the veterans transitioned from VA facilities. Pinellas County and HUD provide funding support for this VA pilot program. Osprey contends that Boley's experience developing and operating Morningside should have been ignored in scoring Duval Park's developer experience, because a residential treatment program is not permanent supportive housing. However, according to Mr. Humberg, Morningside is considered permanent supportive housing under HUD guidelines. Veterans sign a 12-month lease to reside in a unit. Although the intent is that tenants will complete treatment and move on, tenants are not required to leave at the end of their 12-month lease terms; they can stay as long as they need to, if they are otherwise compliant with their leases. Even if Morningside did not technically meet the RFP definition of permanent supportive housing, the discussion of Morningside still would be appropriate for this narrative, pursuant to the RFP instructions. The Morningside experience demonstrates Boley's "experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out" its roles and responsibilities for the proposed development, identified in the same narrative to include mental health counseling, case management, and VA coordination. Also described in Duval Park's narrative was Boley's 2010 development of Jerry Howe Apartments, with 13 units developed specifically for formerly homeless veterans, many of whom have service-connected disabling conditions. Funding for this development was provided by the VA and the City of Clearwater. Boley coordinates with Bay Pines VA in operating this development, with Bay Pines VA providing screening and referral services to identify veterans who are candidates to lease apartment units. Boley's staff members work closely with the veteran tenants to provide supportive services, preparing them for more independent living. Osprey quibbles with whether Jerry Howe Apartments technically qualifies as permanent supportive housing, noting that while the veteran tenants do sign a lease, the intent of the project is to serve as transitional housing for up to 24 months. However, Mr. Aldinger explained that transitional housing would meet the RFP's broad definition of permanent supportive housing if tenants are not required to leave after a finite period of 12 or 24 months. Mr. Humberg confirmed that veterans residing at Jerry Howe Apartments are not required to leave after 24 months, if they are not ready to move on. Mr. Humberg also clarified that Boley owned the apartments before they were redeveloped in 2010, specifically to meet the needs of veterans. Before the 2010 redevelopment, Boley operated the property as permanent supportive housing, just not specifically for veterans. In fact, two of the units remain occupied by prior non-veteran permanent supportive housing tenants, who did not want to move out in 2010 when the property was redeveloped. It is not necessary to debate whether Jerry Howe Apartments technically is permanent supportive housing, although the evidence demonstrated that the development is and has been permanent supportive housing, as defined in the RFP. Certainly, this project demonstrates Boley's experience and qualifications relevant to carrying out its roles and responsibilities for the proposed development and, therefore, is worthy of consideration as part of the developer experience narrative. Duval Park's developer experience narrative also detailed specific veterans' supportive service programs developed by both Boley and ServiceSource. The descriptions of these programs demonstrate experience and qualifications directly relevant to the described roles and responsibilities for Boley and ServiceSource with respect to the proposed development. Duval Park's experience narrative details the many accomplishments of ServiceSource's nationally-recognized Warrior Bridge program, which provides a wide variety of supportive services to veterans. Noteworthy is a 2012 award of over $1,000,000 from the City of St. Petersburg to ServiceSource to expand housing options for wounded veterans. Under this program, in the past year, ServiceSource partnered with Home Depot to modify 16 homes and facilities serving wounded veterans in the Tampa Bay area to increase accessibility, safety, and energy efficiency. This experience translates directly to the role ServiceSource will serve as a participant in designing the proposed housing development specifically to accommodate the unique accessibility and other needs of special-needs veterans with disabling conditions. ServiceSource's Warrior Bridge program also operates the "Veterans' Mall" in the vicinity of the proposed development. At the Veterans' Mall, household appliances, cookware, business attire, and necessities are made available to wounded veterans transitioning to more independent housing settings. According to Duval Park's narrative, the Veterans' Mall has served more than 325 veterans since opening in October 2011, through partnerships with Bay Pines VA and local community organizations serving veterans. ServiceSource's representative testified that ServiceSource recently secured a five-year commitment from T.J. Maxx to stock the Veterans' Mall with new suits for veterans going on job interviews. The Duval Park developer experience narrative regarding the Warrior Bridge program portrays ServiceSource's experience and qualifications to carry out its described roles and responsibilities for the proposed development, which include community outreach, physical disability counseling, employment assistance, job training, and VA coordination. Another program described in Duval Park's developer experience narrative is Boley's Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. This is a case management, training, and employment program specifically for veterans, conducted by Boley case managers and employment specialists, demonstrating that they are well-suited to carry out the described roles and responsibilities for Boley with respect to the proposed development, which includes the lead case management role. A reasonable person attempting to compare the two developer experience narratives might say that Osprey's narrative demonstrated greater quantitative experience in developing more units of permanent supportive housing generally, but that Duval Park's narrative demonstrated better qualitative experience among the developer-partners in developing supportive housing specifically for veterans with special needs. Duval Park's narrative was more directly focused on specific experience developing supportive housing that addresses the unique needs of those special-needs veterans who are transitioning from VA facilities. In addition, Duval Park's narrative better demonstrated experience and qualifications among the developer- partners that are directly relevant to their described roles and responsibilities in carrying out the proposed development. Both narratives were very good and responsive to the RFP instructions, while taking very different approaches. Mr. Aldinger reasonably applied the RFP instructions, reasonably evaluated the two narratives, and reasonably judged them both to be deserving of the same very high score. The credible evidence does not support Osprey's contention that its developer experience narrative was superior, or that Duval Park's narrative strayed beyond the RFP instructions, or that Duval Park's narrative was judged by different standards than Osprey's narrative.3/ Osprey also takes issue with the scoring of the two applications' narratives describing management company experience with permanent supportive housing. As noted, Mr. Aldinger evaluated these narratives and awarded each application the maximum ten points for this application section. Osprey's narrative identified Carrfour's not-for-profit subsidiary, Crossroads Management, LLC (Crossroads), as the manager for its proposed Liberty Village development. Although Carrfour was established in 1993, Crossroads was not created until 2007. Before Crossroads was created, Carrfour did not manage the housing projects it developed; instead, it turned the developments over to traditional property management companies. As Osprey's narrative acknowledges, this created problems, as the traditional management companies lacked the sensitivity and training to address special needs of permanent supportive housing tenants. Since 2007, Crossroads has been taking over management functions for Carrfour developments and is now managing most of the 16 developments listed in the developer experience narrative. Osprey's application was given credit for proposing management with ideal experience. For Duval Park's application, Boley is identified as the management company. In addition, Boley will engage Carteret Management Company (Carteret), which is owned and operated by James Chadwick, a principal of developer-partner Blue Sky, to assist with tax-credit compliance and other matters within Carteret's expertise during the initial phases of the project. Boley's specific experience managing supportive housing for veterans with special needs, previously detailed in the developer experience discussion above, could not reasonably be questioned. As described in the manager experience narrative, Boley manages 561 units of its own permanent supportive housing. Boley also manages 112 additional permanent supportive housing units owned by other not-for-profit companies (including an 88-unit development owned by ServiceSource). The management narrative describes the profile of the typical Boley-managed housing unit tenant as having mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder and/or substance abuse problems, requiring supportive services provided by Boley staff. These supportive services include mental health counseling, case management intervention, and transportation assistance--functions for which Boley will assume responsibility operating the proposed development. The narrative also describes Boley's property management personnel: seven housing staff who handle leasing, income certifications, and other leasing matters; eight maintenance staff to handle property repairs; three drivers who provide transportation; and four accounting staff for property management functions. Osprey does not articulate a specific reason why Duval Park's management company experience narrative should not be entitled to ten points, or why Osprey believes its narrative was qualitatively or quantitatively better than Duval Park's, except to the extent of Osprey's criticisms of the developer experience narratives. Yet Osprey's narrative for manager experience arguably should not fare as well as its narrative for developer experience, given the many more years of management experience demonstrated by Boley and the comparatively few years of management experience by the Crossroads management entity created by Carrfour in 2007. Nonetheless, Mr. Aldinger credited the Osprey application with the maximum points based on Crossroads' management experience since 2007. No credible evidence was presented to support the contention that Duval Park's management experience narrative was not entitled to at least the same number of points as Osprey's management experience narrative. As repeatedly acknowledged by all parties throughout the hearing, Florida Housing was fortunate to have received two excellent proposals by Osprey and Duval Park that were head and shoulders above the other responses. Florida Housing then was faced with the difficult task of deciding which, between two excellent choices, should receive the funding nod, if only one of the two could be funded. Based on the evidence and the findings above, Mr. Aldinger's assignment of the same number of points for developer experience (24 points out of a possible 25 points) and for management company experience (the maximum of 10 points) to the two excellent proposals was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition. His conclusion that both applicants demonstrated nearly ideal development experience and ideal management company experience for their proposals was reasonable. The evidence established that Mr. Aldinger made the points assignments he did after evaluating all of the relevant information he was allowed to consider pursuant to the RFP instructions. His scoring of these two application sections was shown to be an honest, good faith exercise of his expert judgment applied to sort out the various pros and cons of the responses. Osprey did not identify any statute or rule that it contends was violated by the scoring of the Osprey and Duval Park developer and management experience narratives. Osprey argued, but did not prove, that the scoring of these two applications was contrary to the RFP specifications. Osprey argued that Mr. Aldinger's evaluation was contrary to the RFP because he considered differences between the two projects in assessing developer experience. Osprey characterized this as double- counting, because the same aspects of the projects were scored in other sections. Osprey also contended that considering the differences between the two proposed developments and the different approaches by the two applicants was tantamount to applying different standards in evaluating the two applications. Osprey's criticism was not borne out by the evidence. Instead, Mr. Aldinger described a reasonable process, consistent with the RFP terms explaining that developer experience would be assessed in the context of the attributes of the target population described in the first section of the application, and also in context with the roles and responsibilities described for the developer team members in carrying out the proposed development. The same RFP instructions and the same standards were applied to the evaluation of the two applications; it was the applications that were different, not the standards.4/ Although not actually raised as a distinct challenge, Osprey suggested an additional argument in its PRO, not articulated in its written protest or in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Osprey argued in its PRO that Florida Housing should have used two evaluators to score the developer and manager experience narratives, as a "check and balance" against arbitrary scoring. Osprey's new argument stands in stark contrast to the only challenge to the evaluation process articulated in Osprey's written protest and in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Before the hearing, Osprey challenged the evaluation procedure used for two application sections that were scored by two evaluators. Rather than providing any check-and-balance comfort, the two- evaluator process was viewed as defective by Osprey because the initial scores independently assigned by each evaluator were reconciled in a public discussion meeting at which differences in scores were harmonized, meaning that when the initial scores differed, the evaluators agreed to adjust their initial scores. Osprey has established only that for some application sections, a single evaluator was used, while for other application sections, two evaluators were used and their separate scores were reconciled. No credible evidence was offered to prove that use of two evaluators was better than using one evaluator (or vice versa, as Osprey initially argued).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decision to award funding for the Duval Park, Ltd., proposed development, and dismissing the formal written protests of Osprey Apartments, LLC, and Duval Park, Ltd. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Housing's proposed action to deem Madison Landing eligible for an award of housing tax credit funds, as contemplated under Request for Applications 2020-202 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties ("the 2020 RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules or policies, or the 2020 RFA specifications. The standard of proof is whether Florida Housing's proposed action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, whose address is 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and for the purposes of these proceedings, an agency of the State of Florida. Madison Landing is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $1,950,000 in competitive housing credits in in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-021C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. Madison Park is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,881,960 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-004C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. WRDG is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,375,000 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-025C, was deemed eligible and was preliminarily selected for funding by Florida Housing. Florida Housing administers various affordable housing programs, including the Housing Credit Program, pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC" or "the Code") and section 420.5099, under which Florida Housing is designated as the Housing Credit agency for the State of Florida within the meaning of Section 42(h)(7)(A) of the IRC, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60. Florida Housing has established, by rule, a competitive solicitation process known as the Request for Applications ("RFA") to assess the relative merits of proposed developments, pursuant to chapters 67-48 and 67-60. An RFA sets forth the information required to be provided by an Applicant, which includes a general description of the type of projects that will be considered eligible for funding and delineates the submission requirements. While there are numerous references to Florida Housing's rules throughout the RFA, RFAs themselves are not adopted or incorporated by rule. Florida Housing issues many RFAs each year. Although an issued RFA may be similar to these issued in previous years, each RFA is unique. The RFA process begins when Florida Housing requests the Florida Housing Board of Directors ("the Board") to approve Florida Housing's plan for allocating its resources through the various RFAs. If the plan is approved by the Board, Florida Housing begins working on each individual RFA. Florida Housing posts draft documents to its website for public review, such as a draft of the RFA, and holds a workshop in which the RFA is discussed in detail, highlighting language that changed from the previous year. The public is given the opportunity to ask questions and submit written comments for further suggestions and/or additional edits prior to the RFA's issuance. Marisa Button, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, credibly and persuasively testified that Questions and Answers are provided as guidance, but do not provide new requirements to override the terms of an RFA. In the event of an inconsistency between Questions and Answers and another form of guidance for applicants, Florida Housing has maintained the position that the least restrictive guidance controls. Rule 67-60.006 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he failure of an Applicant to supply required information in connection with any competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter shall be grounds for a determination of non-responsiveness with respect to its Application." By applying, each Applicant certifies that: Proposed Developments funded under this RFA will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, inclusive of all Exhibits, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C. and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. On August 26, 2020, Florida Housing issued the 2020 RFA, proposing to provide an estimated $18,669,520 of Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. Modifications to the 2020 RFA were made on September 11 and October 12, 2020. The Application Deadline for the 2020 RFA was October 20, 2020. On or about October 20, 2020, 35 applications were submitted in response to the 2020 RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Board. The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible and one application ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the 2020 RFA, eight applications were recommended for funding. In accordance with the funding selection process set forth in the 2020 RFA, one application was selected from each of Duval, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange counties; two applications were selected from Broward County; and one application (WRDG) was selected from any of these counties. On December 4, 2020, the Board approved these recommendations. On December 17, 2020, Madison Landing timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0146BID. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and MHP FL II, LLC. On January 13, 2021, Madison Landing dismissed all of its allegations against MHP FL II, LLC. On December 17, 2020, Madison Park timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0147BID. An amended petition was filed on January 13, 2021. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and Madison Landing. On January 26, 2021, all parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Findings of Fact in which WRDG conceded that its application should have been found ineligible. WRDG is ineligible for funding under the 2020 RFA. With WRDG ineligible for funding, Madison Landing would be selected for funding in place of WRDG. If both WRDG and Madison Landing were found to be ineligible for funding, Madison Park would be selected for funding in place of WRDG and Madison Landing. No other Applicant selected for funding will be impacted regardless of the outcome of this case. No challenges were made to the terms of the 2020 RFA. Madison Landing's application includes an executed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form, which provides, "The Applicant, the Developer and all Principals are in good standing among all other state agencies and have not been prohibited from applying for funding." The phrase "good standing among all other state agencies" is not defined; and no evidence was presented as to the definitive meaning of the phrase. No evidence was presented that Madison Landing's Principals are not in good standing with any state agency or have been prohibited from applying for funding. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.a. provides that Applicants must disclose the name of the Applicant entity and provide evidence that it is legally formed: (2) The Applicant must be a legally formed entity [i.e., limited partnership, limited liability company, etc.] qualified to do business in the state of Florida as of the Application Deadline. Include, as Attachment 2 to Exhibit A, evidence from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, that the Applicant satisfies the foregoing requirements. Such evidence may be in the form of a certificate of status or other reasonably reliable information or documentation issued, published or made available by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Rule 67-48.002(9) (6/23/2020), defines "Applicant" as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a 'legal entity' means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.c. provides that Applicants must disclose Principals of both the Applicant and Developer entities. The 2020 RFA provides in pertinent part: c. Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer (5 points) (1) Eligibility Requirements To meet the submission requirements, upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 05-2019) ("Principals Disclosure Form") as outlined in Section Three above. Prior versions of the Principal Disclosure Form will not be accepted. To meet eligibility requirements, the Principals Disclosure Form must identify, pursuant to Subsections 67-48.002(94), 67-48.0075(8) and 67- 48.0075(9), F.A.C., the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. For Housing Credits, the investor limited partner of an Applicant limited partnership or the investor member of an Applicant limited liability company must be identified on the Principal Disclosure Form. Rule 67-48.002(94) defines "Principal" as follows: (94) "Principal" means: For a corporation, each officer, director, executive director, and shareholder of the corporation. For a limited partnership, each general partner, and each limited partner of the limited partnership. For a limited liability company, each manager and each member of the limited liability company. For a trust, each trustee of the trust and all beneficiaries of majority age (i.e., 18 years of age) as of the Application Deadline. Page 10 of 22. For a Public Housing Authority, each officer, director, commissioner, and executive director of the Authority. The requirement to provide evidence that the Applicant is a legally formed entity, as well as the requirement to provide a Principals for Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form, are identified as "Eligibility Items." Section Five A.1. of the 2020 RFA states that "only Applications that meet all of the following Eligibility Items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection." Madison Landing submitted Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form(s) with its application. Both forms were approved during the Advance Review Process. On the Principals of the Applicant form, Madison Landing II, LLC, was identified as the Applicant entity. The Principals of the Applicant entity were identified as Patrick E. Law, Manager; Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, Non-Investor Member; and Patrick E. Law, Investor Member. Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, filed Articles of Organization for Florida Limited Liability Company with the Florida Division of Corporations on January 5, 2021, with an effective date of December 31, 2020. The 2020 RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline; however, there is no explicit requirement in the 2020 RFA that each Principal of the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline. Ms. Button testified that her initial view was that the failure of Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, to incorporate by the application deadline should render the application ineligible. However, upon further research, she changed her position, believing that Florida Housing was precedentially bound by a previous final order, which found that an application was eligible under similar legal and factual circumstances. The previous case, on which Florida Housing relied, was decided before Florida Housing adopted the current RFA procedures for awarding funding. Ms. Button testified, however, that while some of the processes followed during the Universal Cycle, in place at that time, were different than the RFA process, the requirements for disclosure of Principals were essentially the same. Florida Housing allows interested parties to submit written questions to be answered by Florida Housing staff for each RFA that is issued. The Question-Answer period is referenced specifically within each RFA. The following Question and Answer are posted on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-111: Question 12: Do the entities listed on the Principal Disclosure Form have to be active as of the stamped "Approved" date or as of the Application Deadline? Answer: As of the Application Deadline. The Applicant may upload a Principals Disclosure Form stamped "Approved" during the Advance Review Process provided (a) it is still correct as of the Application Deadline, (b) it was approved for the type of funding being requested (i.e., Housing Credits or Non-Housing Credits) The same Question and Answer above are on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-110; RFA 2018-112; and RFA 2018-113. The same Question and Answer, however, do not appear in Questions and Answers for the 2020 RFA at issue in this case. Although Questions and Answers from past RFAs remain on the Florida Housing website, they are discrete to the specific RFA for which they were issued. Rule 67-48.002(9) (7/2018) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporations programs. For purposes of rules 67-48.0105. 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a legal entity means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company with a management and ownership structure that consists exclusively of all natural persons by the third principal disclosure level. For Applicants seeking Housing Credits, the Housing Credits Syndicator/Housing Credit investor need only be disclosed at the first principal level and no other disclosure is required. The terms "first principal disclosure level" and "third principal disclosure level" have the meanings attributed to them in the definition of "Principal." Rule 67-48.002(9) (11/2011) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legally formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a request for proposal for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67-48031, F.A.C., Applicants also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, did not demonstrate that it was a legally- formed entity as of the Application Deadline, and therefore, Madison Landing's Principal Disclosure Form did not satisfy the 2020 RFA's requirements. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's application should be deemed ineligible for funding as a result. Based on the weight of the credible evidence and the language of the 2020 RFA and the governing law, the undersigned finds that Florida Housing did not contravene the 2020 RFA, or any other applicable authority, through the process by which it determined that Madison Landing's application was eligible for the award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: (1) finding the application of WRDG ineligible for funding; (2) finding the application of Madison Landing eligible for funding; and (3) dismissing the protest of Madison Park. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2021. J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-231 Tallahassee, Florida 32312
The Issue The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: THE PARTIES Berkeley is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,500,000 in CDBG Development funding; $2,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $844,699 in non-competitive housing credits. The Berkeley Application, assigned number 2020-017D, was preliminarily deemed ineligible for consideration for funding. Brisas is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $5,000,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,674,839 in non-competitive housing credits. The Brisas Application, assigned number 2020-056D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Northside is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,300,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,588,014 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (“MMRB”). The Northside Application, assigned number 2020-024D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Beacon Place is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,925,500 in CDBG Development funding; $4,320,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,764,203 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in MMRB. The Beacon Place Application, assigned number 2020-045DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bella Vista is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $8,000,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,450,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $609,629 in non-competitive housing credits; and $13,000,000 in MMRB. The Bella Vista Application, assigned number 2020-038DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Solaris is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,420,000 in CDBG Development funding; $4,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $937,232 in non-competitive housing credits. The Solaris Application, assigned number 2020-039D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Metro Grande is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,175,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,041,930 in non-competitive housing credits. The Metro Grande Application, assigned number 2020-041D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Sierra Bay is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,650,000 in CDBG Development funding; $3,300,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,074,173 in non-competitive housing credits; and $16,000,000 in MMRB. The Sierra Bay Application, assigned number 2020-040DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bembridge is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,800,000 in CDBG Development funding; $564,122 in non-competitive housing credits; and $10,100,000 in MMRB. The Bembridge Application, assigned number 2020-046DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. East Pointe is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $4,680,000 in CDBG Development funding and $690,979 in non-competitive housing credits. The East Pointe Application, assigned number 2020-053D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and, for purposes of these consolidated cases, is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is tasked with distributing a portion of the CDBG-DR funding allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), pursuant to the State of Florida Action Plan for Disaster Recovery. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS AND RFA 2019-102 Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits and other named funding by section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process. Rule 67-60.009(1) provides that parties wishing to protest any aspect of a Florida Housing competitive solicitation must do so pursuant to section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a request for applications. Rule 67-60.009(4) provides that a request for application is considered a “request for proposal” for purposes of section 120.57(3)(f). The RFA was issued on July 30, 2019, with responses due on August 27, 2019. The RFA was modified four times and the application deadline was extended to September 24, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms and specifications of the RFA. Section Five of the RFA included a list of 48 “eligibility items” that an applicant was required to satisfy to be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. Applications that met the eligibility standards would then be awarded points for satisfying RFA criteria, with the highest scoring applications being selected for funding. No total point items are in dispute. Proximity Point items are contested as to the Beacon Place, East Pointe, and Bembridge Applications. Applicants could select whether they would be evaluated as Priority I, II, or III applications. All of the parties to these consolidated cases identified themselves as Priority I applications. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award an estimated $76,000,000 of CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding to areas impacted by Hurricane Irma, and in areas that experienced a population influx because of migration from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricane Irma. Florida Housing will award up to $66,000,000 for CDBG Development funding and an additional $10,000,000 for CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Applicants were not required to request CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Forty-four applications were submitted in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible for funding. The Review Committee found 8 applications ineligible, including that of Berkeley. Two applications were withdrawn. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On December 13, 2019, the Board met and accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee. The Board preliminarily awarded funding to 12 applications, including those of Sierra Bay, Solaris, Metro Grande, East Pointe, and Bembridge. Petitioners Berkeley, Brisas, Northside, Beacon Place, and Bella Vista timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. THE BERKELEY APPLICATION As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to identify an Authorized Principal Representative. According to the RFA, the Authorized Principal Representative: must be a natural person Principal of the Applicant listed on the Principal Disclosure Form; must have signature authority to bind the Applicant entity; (c) must sign the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form submitted in this Application; (d) must sign the Site Control Certification form submitted in this Application; and (e) if funded, will be the recipient of all future documentation that requires a signature. As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to submit an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. As an eligibility item, the RFA also required applicants to submit a Site Control Certification form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. In section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A of the RFA, the applicant is directed to enter the contact information of its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley entered the name, organization, and contact information for Jennie D. Lagmay as its Authorized Principal Representative, in response to section 3.e.(1). The name of Jennie D. Lagmay was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form required by the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form and the Site Control Certification form were executed by Jonathan L. Wolf, not Jennie D. Lagmay, the designated Authorized Principal Representative. On both forms, Mr. Wolf is identified as “Manager of Berkeley Landing GP, LLC; General Partner of Berkeley Landing, Ltd.” Jonathan L. Wolf is listed on the Principal Disclosure Form. Aside from section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, Jennie D. Lagmay’s name is not found in the Berkeley Application. Florida Housing determined that the Berkeley Application was ineligible for an award of funding for three reasons: 1) the Authorized Principal Representative listed was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form; 2) the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative; and 3) the Site Control Certification was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Two other applications for this RFA were found ineligible for identical reasons: Thornton Place, Application No. 2020-020D; and Berkshire Square, Application No. 2020-034D. In these, as in the Berkeley Application, Jennie D. Lagmay was named as the Authorized Principal Representative in section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, but Jonathan L. Wolf executed the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form and the Site Control Certification form as the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley concedes it made an error in placing the name of Ms. Lagmay in section 3.e.(1), but argues that this constituted a minor irregularity that should have been waived by Florida Housing. Berkeley contends that the entirety of its Application makes plain that Jonathan D. Wolf is in fact its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley argues that Florida Housing should waive the minor irregularity and determine that the Berkeley Application is eligible for funding. Berkeley points out that only two members of the Review Committee, Rachel Grice and Heather Strickland, scored the portions of the Berkeley Application that led to the ineligibility recommendation. Ms. Grice determined that the Authorized Principal Representative listed in the Berkeley Application was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form. Ms. Strickland determined that neither the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form nor the Site Control Certification form was executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Neither Ms. Grice nor Ms. Strickland conducted a minor irregularity analysis for the Berkeley Application. Rule 67-60.008, titled “Right to Waive Minor Irregularities,” provides as follows: Minor irregularities are those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Berkeley contends that because a minor irregularity analysis was not conducted by the Review Committee members, the Board was deprived of a necessary explanation for the preliminary recommendations of Ms. Grice and Ms. Strickland. Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations, agreed that the Review Committee members did not perform a minor irregularity analysis but testified that none was required given the nature of the discrepancy in the Berkeley Application. Ms. Button performed a minor irregularity analysis as Florida Housing’s corporate representative in this proceeding and concluded that the error could not be waived or corrected without providing an unfair competitive advantage to Berkeley. Ms. Button testified that the fact that the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms could not be considered a minor irregularity because the application demonstrated conflicting and contradictory information, creating uncertainty as to the applicant’s intentions. She stated that Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of the application. Ms. Button stated that Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to decide what the applicant intended when the information provided in the application is contradictory. Berkeley points to the fact that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form, signed by Mr. Wolf, includes the following language: “The undersigned is authorized to bind the Applicant entity to this certification and warranty of truthfulness and completeness of the Application.” Berkeley argues that it should have been clear to Florida Housing that Mr. Wolf is the person authorized to bind the company and that the inclusion of Ms. Lagmay’s name in section 3.e.(1) was in the nature of a typographical error. Florida Housing points out that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form also includes the following language below the signature line: “NOTE: Provide this form as Attachment 1 to the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Florida Housing notes that the Site Control Certification form includes similar language: “This form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Berkeley contends that Florida Housing was well aware that Jonathan L. Wolf has been the named Authorized Principal Representative on multiple applications filed under the umbrella of Wendover Housing Partners, the general developer behind Berkeley. In at least one of those previous applications, Ms. Lagmay, an employee of Wendover Housing Partners, was identified as the “contact person.” Ms. Button responded that Review Committee members are specifically prohibited from using personal knowledge of a general development entity in a specific application submitted by a single purpose entity. She further testified that if Florida Housing employees were to use their personal knowledge of an experienced developer to waive errors in a specific application, applicants who had not previously submitted applications would be at a competitive disadvantage. Ms. Button testified that Berkeley was established as a single purpose entity in accordance with the RFA’s requirements. She testified that she has known general developers to structure these single purpose entities in different ways, depending on the requirements of an RFA. An applicant might designate an employee, such as Ms. Lagmay, as a principal to give her experience as a developer. Again, Ms. Button emphasized that Florida Housing is not in a position to decide what the applicant “really meant” when there is a discrepancy in the information provided. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing has determined in prior RFAs that an applicant was ineligible because the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms. Florida Housing rightly concluded that there are only two possible ways to interpret the Berkeley Application. If Ms. Lagmay was the Authorized Principal Representative, then the application is nonresponsive because she was not listed on the Principal Disclosure form and she did not sign the required certification forms. If Ms. Lagmay was not the Authorized Principal Representative, the application is nonresponsive because no Authorized Principal Representative was identified. There is no way to tell from the four corners of the application which of these alternatives is the correct one. Florida Housing cannot step in and cure the defect in the application by making its own educated guess as to the intended identity of the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of ineligibility was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA, or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE SIERRA BAY APPLICATION The parties stipulated to the facts regarding the Sierra Bay Application, which are incorporated into this Recommended Order. Florida Housing deemed the Sierra Bay Application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Sierra Bay for funding. In order to demonstrate site control, the RFA required execution of the Site Control Certification form. Site control documentation had to be included in the application. One way to demonstrate site control was to include an “eligible contract.” The RFA required that certain conditions be met in order to be considered an “eligible contract.” One of those requirements was that the contract “must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance.” Sierra Bay acknowledged that the site control documentation included within its application did not meet the “eligible contract” requirement because it failed to include language regarding specific performance as a remedy for the seller’s default. Sierra Bay agreed that the omission of the specific performance language was not a minor irregularity and that Sierra Bay’s Application is ineligible for funding under the terms of the RFA. THE SOLARIS APPLICATION The RFA specified that a Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must hold 100 percent ownership in the land of any qualifying Priority I application. The RFA defined “Community Land Trust” as: A 501(c)(3) which acquires or develops parcels of land for the primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease which retains a preemptive option to purchase any such structural improvement at a price determined by a formula designed to ensure the improvement remains affordable in perpetuity. The RFA provided that if a Community Land Trust is the Land Owner, the Community Land Trust must provide the following documentation as Attachment 2 to the application to demonstrate that it qualifies as a Community Land Trust: The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier and that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is to provide or preserve affordable housing; and The Community Land Trust must provide a list that meets one of the following criteria to demonstrate experience of the Community Land Trust with owning property: (i) at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns; or (ii) one parcel of land that the Community Land Trust owns, consisting of a number of units that equals or exceeds at least 25 percent of the units in the proposed Development. The RFA required that the proposed development must be affordable in perpetuity. For purposes of the RFA, “perpetuity” means 99 years or more. Solaris identified Residential Options of Florida, Inc. (“Residential Options”), as the Community Land Trust owner in its Priority 1 Application. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included the Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Original Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on July 30, 2014. The purpose of the corporation as stated in the Original Articles was as follows: Said corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Amended Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on September 20, 2019. The Amended Articles retained the boilerplate statement of purpose of the Original Articles, but added the following paragraph: This shall include the purpose of empowering individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to successfully obtain and maintain affordable and inclusive housing of their choice and to provide affordable housing and preserve the affordability of housing for low- income or moderate income people, including people with disabilities, in perpetuity. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included the Articles of Incorporation of ROOF Housing Trust, Inc. (“ROOF Housing Trust”) filed with the Division of Corporations on July 17, 2017. The purpose of the corporation as stated in these Articles includes the following: “to acquire land to be held in perpetuity for the primary purpose of providing affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities.” Finally, Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included Articles of Merger, which were filed with the Division of Corporations on September 10, 2019. The Articles of Merger indicated that the Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust had merged, with Residential Options standing as the surviving corporation. The petitioners contesting the Solaris Application raise several issues. The first issue is whether the RFA requires only that the entity named as the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether the entity had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. The Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application, Residential Options, existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. The second issue is whether the June 28, 2018, date applies only to the existence of the Community Land Trust or whether the RFA requires that the Community Land Trust have been in existence and have had a stated purpose to provide or preserve affordable housing and have met the ownership experience criteria as of June 28, 2018. It is questionable whether Solaris would be eligible for funding if the RFA required the latter, because Residential Options did not have a stated purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing prior to its merger with ROOF Housing Trust, at least no such purpose as could be gleaned from the four corners of the Solaris Application. The third issue is whether the RFA’s definition of “Community Land Trust” requires the qualifying entity to have existing ground leases at the time of the application. Florida Housing and Solaris concede that Residential Options did not have operative ground leases at the time Solaris submitted its application. Hurricane Irma struck Puerto Rico and Florida in September 2017. Ms. Button testified that in creating this RFA, Florida Housing wanted to weed out opportunistic community land trusts created only for the purpose of obtaining this funding. Florida Housing initially proposed an RFA requirement that the community land trust have existed as of September 2017, but discovered through workshops with interested parties that the early date would exclude legitimate Community Land Trusts that had been established in response to the storm. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s intent was to make this RFA as inclusive as practicable. Florida Housing therefore selected June 28, 2018, as a date that would exclude opportunists without penalizing the genuine responders to the natural disaster. Both Florida Housing and Solaris point to the text of the RFA requirement to demonstrate that the date of June 28, 2018, should be read to apply only to whether the Community Land Trust existed as of that date. Solaris argues that the RFA states three independent criteria for eligibility: 1) that the Community Land Trust “has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier”; 2) that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is1 to provide or preserve affordable housing; and 3) the Community Land Trust must demonstrate its property ownership experience, one means of doing which is to name at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the first criterion by providing its Articles of Incorporation showing it has existed since July 30, 2014. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the second criterion by providing its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, which stated the purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the third criterion by identifying two properties in Immokalee, Independence Place, and Liberty Place as parcels that it currently owns. Florida Housing thus reached the conclusion that Residential Options met the definition of a Community Land Trust in the RFA as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing argues that, according to the definition in the RFA, a Community Land Trust must be a 501(c)(3) corporation, which Residential Options clearly is. It must acquire or develop parcels of land, which it has done. Finally, it must have the “primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s interpretation of the RFA’s Community Land Trust definition was that if Residential Options had the primary purpose of providing affordable housing in perpetuity through the use of long term ground leases, the definition has been met even if Residential Options had not actually entered into any ground leases at the 1 Both Florida Housing and Solaris emphasize that the second criterion is stated in the present tense, which suggests that it does not intend a backward look to June 28, 2018. time it submitted its application. This is not the only way to read the RFA’s definition, but it is not an unreasonable reading, particularly in light of Florida Housing’s stated intent to make the RFA as inclusive as possible in terms of the participation of legitimate community land trusts. Sheryl Soukup, the Executive Director of Residential Options, testified via deposition. Ms. Soukup testified that in 2017, Residential Options realized there was a need for housing for people with disabilities and decided to become a nonprofit housing developer of properties that would be kept affordable in perpetuity. To that end, ROOF Housing Trust was created to act as the community land trust for the properties developed by Residential Options. The two companies had identical Boards of Directors and Ms. Soukup served as Executive Director of both entities. In its application to the IRS for 501(c)(3) status, ROOF Housing Trust included the following: The organization does not own any property yet. ROOF Housing Trust intends to own vacant land, single family homes, and multi-family units. Some of the units will be provided as rental units. ROOF Housing Trust will sell some of the houses for homeownership, while retaining the land on which they are located. The land will be leased to homeowners at a nominal fee to make the purchase price affordable, using the community land trust model. Ground leases and warranty deeds not been developed yet [sic], but will be based on the sample documents provided by the Florida Community Land Trust Institute.[2] Ms. Soukup described ROOF Housing Trust as “a vehicle by which Residential Options of Florida could act as a community land trust…. [I]t was always the intention of Residential Options of Florida to develop and put into 2 The ROOF Housing Trust 501(c)(3) application was not a part of the Solaris Application. It was included as an exhibit to Ms. Soukup’s deposition. a community land trust property so that it would remain affordable in perpetuity for use by people of intellectual and development [sic] disabilities.” Residential Options acquired the aforementioned Independence Place and Liberty Place properties but never conveyed ownership to ROOF Housing Trust. Residential Options acted as a de facto community land trust. No ground leases have yet been entered into because the properties are at present rented directly by Residential Options to persons with developmental disabilities. Ms. Soukup testified that at the time ROOF Housing Trust was created, the Board of Residential Options was undecided whether to create a separate entity to act as a community land trust or to incorporate that function into the existing entity. The decision to incorporate ROOF Housing Trust was based on the Board’s intuition that a separate corporation would “allow us the most flexibility in the future.” In any event, Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were functionally the same entity. Ms. Soukup testified that plans to merge the two companies emerged from a situation in which Collier County refused to allow Residential Options to convey its two properties to ROOF Housing Trust. The Board that controlled both companies decided that there was no point in maintaining separate legal entities if ROOF Housing Trust could not perform its main function. As noted above, Articles of Merger were filed on September 10, 2019. Northside points to minutes from Residential Options’s Board meetings in August and September 2019, as indicating that the Board itself did not believe that Residential Options was a community land trust prior to the merger with ROOF Housing Trust. Northside contends that the September 2019 merger was initiated and completed mainly because Residential Options had been approached about serving as the Community Land Trust for the applications of Solaris and Sierra Bay in this RFA. Northside points to the “frenzied activity” by Residential Options to create an entity meeting the definition of Community Land Trust in the days just before the September 24, 2019, application deadline. Northside argues that Residential Options is the very kind of opportunistic community land trust that the June 28, 2018, date of creation was intended to weed out. Northside’s argument is not persuasive of itself, but it does point the way to an ultimate finding as to the Solaris Application. Both Florida Housing and Solaris gave great emphasis to Ms. Soukup’s testimony to refute the suggestion that Residential Options acted opportunistically. Ms. Soukup was a credible witness. Her explanation of the process by which Residential Options first created then merged with ROOF Housing Trust dispelled any suggestion that Residential Options was a community land trust created solely to cash in on this RFA. The problem is that Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee when it evaluated the Solaris Application. The only information about Residential Options that the Review Committee possessed was Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application. The dates of the merger documents and Amended Articles certainly give some credence to the suspicions voiced by Northside. However, the undersigned is less persuaded by the implications as to the intentions of Residential Options than by the contradictions between Florida Housing’s statements of intent and its reading of the RFA in relation to the Solaris Application. The decision to find the Solaris Application eligible for funding founders on the first issue stated above: whether the RFA requires only that the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether it had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. Ms. Button testified that the June 28, 2018, date was settled upon as a way of including community land trusts created in the wake of Hurricane Irma, while excluding those created to cash in on this RFA. During cross- examination by counsel for Northside, Ms. Button broadened her statement to say that Florida Housing’s intention was to exclude entities that had not been involved in affordable housing at all prior to June 28, 2018. Nonetheless, the RFA language is limited to Community Land Trusts. The RFA states: “The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating that it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier…” The Solaris Application shows that Residential Options existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. Residential Options did not become a Community Land Trust until it completed its merger with ROOF Housing Trust and filed the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019. Ms. Button’s statement of intent is accepted as consistent with the plain language of the RFA: the date of June 28, 2018, excludes Community Land Trusts created subsequently. It is inconsistent for Florida Housing to also read the RFA language to say that the qualifying entity need not have existed as a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018. It would be arbitrary for Florida Housing to set a date for the creation of Community Land Trusts then turn around and find that the date does not apply to this particular Community Land Trust. Ms. Soukup’s testimony was that Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were effectively a single entity and that Residential Options was in fact operating as a community land trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger. However, Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee, which was limited to one means of ascertaining whether an entity was a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018: the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. Residential Options’s Original Articles included no language demonstrating that it was a Community Land Trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger with ROOF Housing Trust and the filing of the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019.3 As set forth in the discussion of the Berkley Application above, Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of an application. It was contrary to the provisions of the RFA for Florida Housing to find that Residential Options’s mere existence as a legal entity prior to June 28, 2018, satisfied the requirement that the Community Land Trust must demonstrate that it existed prior to June 28, 2018. Ms. Button’s own testimony demonstrated that Florida Housing intended to exclude Community Land Trusts created after June 28, 2018. ROOF Housing Trust existed as a Community Land Trust in 2017, but ROOF Housing Trust was not the Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application. Ms. Soukup’s explanation of the circumstances showed that Residential Options was well intentioned in its actions, but her explanation was not a part of the Solaris Application that was before Florida Housing’s Review Committee. THE METRO GRANDE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Metro Grande Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, the Metro Grande Application was preliminarily selected for funding. Petitioner Brisas contends that the Metro Grande Application should have been found ineligible for failure to include mandatory site control documentation. Metro Grande submitted a Priority I application that was not seeking Land Acquisition Program funding. The site control requirements for such applicants are as follows: 3 This finding also disposes of Solaris’s arguments regarding the legal effect of corporate mergers. The RFA provided one simple way of demonstrating whether an entity was a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing’s Review Committee could not be expected to delve into the complexities of corporate mergers to answer this uncomplicated question. The Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must already own the land as the sole grantee and, if funded, the land must be affordable into Perpetuity.[4] Applicants must demonstrate site control as of Application Deadline by providing the properly executed Site Control Certification form (Form Rev. 08-18). Attached to the form must be the following documents: A Deed or Certificate of Title. The deed or certificate of title (in the event the property was acquired through foreclosure) must be recorded in the applicable county and show the Land Owner as the sole Grantee. There are no restrictions on when the land was acquired; and A lease between the Land Owner and the Applicant entity. The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline. Metro Grande did not include a deed or certificate of title in its application. In fact, no deed or certificate of title for the Metro Grande site exists. Miami-Dade County owns the Metro Grande site. Miami-Dade County acquired ownership of the Metro Grande site by eminent domain. The eminent domain process culminated in the entry of four Final Judgments for individual parcels which collectively compose the Metro Grande site. The Final Judgments were not attached to Metro Grande’s Application. There was no requirement in the RFA that Metro Grande include these Final Judgments in its application. The Final Judgments were produced during discovery in this proceeding. In its application, Metro Grande included a Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement Form executed by Maurice L. Kemp, as the Deputy Mayor of Miami-Dade County, stating that the county holds or will hold 100 percent ownership of the land where Metro Grande’s proposed 4 The RFA defined “Perpetuity” as “at least 99 years from the loan closing.” development is located. Additionally, in its application, Metro Grande stated that Miami-Dade County owned the property. The RFA expressly states that Florida Housing “will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation.” Florida Housing reserves the right to rescind an award to any applicant whose site control documents are shown to be insufficient during the credit underwriting process. Thus, the fact that no deed or certificate of title was included with Metro Grande’s site control documents was not considered by Florida Housing during the scoring process. Ms. Button testified that while this was an error in the application, it should be waived as a minor irregularity. The purpose of the documentation requirements was to demonstrate ownership and control of the applicant’s proposed site. There was no question or ambiguity as to the fact that Miami- Dade County owned the Metro Grande site. Florida Housing was not required to resort to information extraneous to the Metro Grande Application to confirm ownership of the site. The Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement form, executed by the Deputy Mayor as the Authorized Land Owner Representative, confirmed ownership of the parcels. Metro Grande’s failure to include a deed or certificate of title, therefore, created no confusion as to who owned the property or whether Miami-Dade County had the authority to lease the property to the applicant. There was no evidence presented that the failure to include a deed or certificate of title resulted in the omission of any material information or provided a competitive advantage over other applicants. Brisas contends that the RFA was clear as to the documents that must be included to satisfy the site control requirements. Metro Grande failed to provide those documents or even an explanation why those documents were not provided. Florida Housing ignored the fact that no deed or certificate of title was provided, instead relying on information found elsewhere in the application. It is found that Metro Grande failed to comply with an eligibility item of the RFA, but that Florida Housing was correct to waive that failure as a minor irregularity that provided Metro Grande no competitive advantage, created no uncertainty as to whether the requirements of the RFA were met, and did not adversely affect the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Brisas has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEACON PLACE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Beacon Place Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Beacon Place was not preliminarily selected for funding. The RFA provides that an application may earn proximity points based on the distance between its Development Location Point and the selected Transit or Community Service. Proximity points are used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference. Beacon Place is a Large County Application that is not eligible for the “Public Housing Authority Proximity Point Boost.” As such, the Beacon Place Application was required to achieve a minimum Transit Point score of 2 to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must also achieve a total Proximity Point score of 10.5 in order to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must achieve a total Proximity Point score of 12.5 or more in order to receive the RFA’s Proximity Funding Preference. Based on the information in its Application, Beacon Place received a Total Proximity Point score of 18 and was deemed eligible for funding and for the Proximity Point Funding Preference. The Beacon Place Application listed a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as its Transit Service. Applying the Transit Service Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 6 Proximity Points for its Transit Service. The Beacon Place Application listed a Grocery Store, a Pharmacy, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart in order to obtain Proximity Points for Community Services. Using the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 4 Proximity Points for each service listed, for a total of 12 Proximity Points for Community Services. Beacon Place has stipulated, however, that the Public School listed in its application does not meet the definition of “Public School” in the RFA and Beacon Place should not receive the 4 Proximity Points for listing a public school. The RFA defines a “Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop” as: [a] fixed location at which passengers may access public transportation via bus. The Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one bus that travels at some point during the route in either a lane or corridor that is exclusively used by buses, and the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one route that has scheduled stops at the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop at least every 20 minutes during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year- round basis. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. The Beacon Place Application included Metrobus Route 38 (“Route 38”) as a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. Route 38 has scheduled stops at the location identified in the Beacon Place Application at the following times during the period of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. Monday through Friday: 7:01, 7:36, 7:56, 8:11, 8:26, 8:41, and 8:56. Brisas and Northside contend that Route 38 does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop because there is a gap of more than 20 minutes between the 7:01 a.m. bus and the 7:36 a.m. bus. Applicants are not required to include bus schedules in the application. Florida Housing does not attempt to determine whether an identified stop meets the RFA definitions during the scoring process. During discovery in this litigation, Florida Housing changed its position and now agrees that Route 38 does not satisfy the definition. Nonetheless, the standard of review set forth in section 120.57(3) is applicable to Florida Housing’s initial eligibility determination, not its revised position. All parties stipulated that Route 38 meets the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. If the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not also meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Beacon Place would not be entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and would be ineligible for funding. Beacon Place cannot contest the fact that there is a 35 minute gap between the 7:01 and the 7:36 buses. Beacon Place has attempted to salvage its situation by comparing the language used in the RFA definition of a Public Bus Stop with that used in the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevant part as [a] fixed location at which passengers may access one or two routes of public transportation via buses. The Public Bus Stop must service at least one bus route with scheduled stops at least hourly during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm and 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year round basis…. Florida Housing has interpreted the “hourly” requirement of the Public Bus Stop definition to mean that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and at least once between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Beacon Place suggests that Florida Housing should interpret the “every 20 minutes” requirement for a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop similarly, so that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 7:20 a.m., once between 7:20 a.m. and 7:40 a.m., and once between 7:40 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Florida Housing has rejected this interpretation, however, noting that the language in the two definitions is explicitly different. Ms. Button testified that if Florida Housing had intended these two distinct definitions to be interpreted similarly, it could easily have worded them differently. It could have required a Public Bus Stop to have stops “at least every 60 minutes,” rather than “hourly.” It could have required a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop to have “three stops per hour” rather than “every 20 minutes.” Ms. Button observed that the purpose of the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop definition is to award points for serving the potential residents with frequent and regular stops. The idea was to be sure residents had access to the bus during the hours when most people are going to and from work. Florida Housing’s interpretation of “every 20 minutes” is consonant with the plain language of the phrase and reasonably serves the purpose of the definition. Florida Housing also rejected the idea that the failure of the identified stop to meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop in the RFA should be waived as a minor irregularity. Ms. Button testified that allowing one applicant to get points for a stop that did not meet the definition would give it a competitive advantage over other applicants, including some potential applicants who did not apply because they could not satisfy the terms of the definition. Because the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop, Beacon Place is not entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and is thus ineligible for funding. Brisas and Northside have demonstrated that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility for Beacon Place was contrary to the specifications of the RFA. Florida Housing’s original recommendation would have been contrary to the terms of the RFA. THE EAST POINTE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the East Pointe Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, East Pointe was preliminarily selected for funding. Bella Vista challenged Florida Housing’s action alleging that the Medical Facility selected by East Pointe did not meet the definition found in the RFA. East Pointe proposed a Development in Lee County, a Medium County according to the terms of the RFA. Applicants from Medium Counties are not required to attain a minimum number of Transit Service Points to be considered eligible for funding. However, such applicants must achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. The East Pointe Application identified three Public Bus Stops and was awarded 5.5 Proximity Points based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart in Exhibit C to the RFA. However, East Pointe has stipulated that Public Bus Stop 1 listed in its application does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Stop because it does not have the required scheduled stops. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, East Pointe should receive a total of 3.0 Proximity Points for Transit Services for Public Bus Stops 2 and 3. East Pointe listed a Grocery Store, a Medical Facility, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart. Based on the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C to the RFA, East Pointe received 1 Proximity Point for its Grocery Store, 4 Proximity Points for its Medical Facility, and 3 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 8 Proximity Points for Community Services. East Pointe listed Lee Memorial Health System at 3511 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida, as its Medical Facility. The RFA defines “Medical Facility” as follows: A medically licensed facility that (i) employs or has under contractual obligation at least one physician licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, F.S. available to treat patients by walk-in or by appointment; and (ii) provides general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person. Facilities that specialize in treating specific classes of medical conditions or specific classes of patients, including emergency rooms affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals and clinics affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals, will not be accepted. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. If East Pointe’s selected Medical Facility does not meet the definition of “Medical Facility” in the RFA, East Pointe will lose 4 Proximity Points, reducing its total Proximity Points to 7. The East Pointe Application would still be eligible but would not receive the Proximity Funding Preference and, therefore, would fall out of the funding range of the RFA. Bella Vista alleged that East Pointe should not have received Proximity Points for a Medical Facility because the Lee Community Healthcare location specified in its application “only serves adults and therefore only treats a specific group of patients.” Lee Community HealthCare operates nine locations in Lee County, including the “Dunbar” location that East Pointe named in its application. Lee Community Healthcare’s own promotional materials label the Dunbar location as “adults only.” Robert Johns, Executive Director for Lee Community Healthcare, testified by deposition. Mr. Johns testified that as of the RFA application date of September 24, 2019, the Dunbar office provided services primarily to adults 19 years of age or over, by walk-in or by appointment. A parent who walked into the Dunbar office with a sick or injured child could obtain treatment for that child. A parent seeking medical services for his or her child by appointment would be referred to a Lee Community HealthCare office that provided pediatric services. Mr. Johns testified that the Dunbar office would provide general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person who presented at the facility, including children. Children would not be seen by appointment at the Dunbar facility, but they would be treated on a walk-in basis. The RFA requires a Medical Facility to treat patients “by walk-in or by appointment.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing reads this requirement in the disjunctive. A Medical Facility is not required to see any and all patients by walk-in and to see any and all patients by appointment. Florida Housing finds it sufficient for the Medical Facility to see some or all patients by walk-in or by appointment. Ms. Button opined that the Dunbar office met the definition of a Medical Facility because it treated adults by walk-in or appointment and treated children on a walk-in basis. Florida Housing’s reading is consistent with the literal language of the RFA definition. While it would obviously be preferable for the Dunbar facility to see pediatric patients by appointment, the fact that it sees them on a walk-in basis satisfies the letter of the RFA provision. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEMBRIDGE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Bembridge Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Bembridge was preliminarily selected for funding. Bembridge proposed a development in Collier County, a Medium County in RFA terms. As an applicant from a Medium County, Bembridge was required to achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. Medium County applicants are allowed, but not required, to claim both Transit Service points and Community Service points. As to Community Services, the RFA provides that an applicant may receive a “maximum 4 Points for each service, up to 3 services.” The RFA goes on to state: Applicants may provide the location information and distances for three of the following four Community Services on which to base the Application’s Community Services Score.[5] The Community Service Scoring Charts, which reflect the methodology for calculating the points awarded based on the distances, are outlined in Exhibit C. In its Application, Bembridge listed four, not three, Community Services. Bembridge was one of six Applicants that mistakenly submitted four Community Services instead of three. The Review Committee scorer reviewing Community Services in the applications stated on her scoring sheet: “After removing points for the service with the least amount of points, all still met the eligibility requirement.” 5 The four listed Community Services were Grocery Store, Public School, Medical Facility, and Pharmacy. Florida Housing interpreted the RFA as not specifically prohibiting an applicant from listing four Community Services, but as providing that the applicant could receive points for no more than three of them. As to the six applicants who submitted four Community Services, Florida Housing awarded points only for the three Community Services that were nearest the proposed development.6 Bembridge received 3 Proximity points for its Grocery Store, 3.5 Proximity Points for its Pharmacy, and 4 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 10.5 Proximity Points for Community Services. Thus, as originally scored, Bembridge met the Proximity Funding Preference. Florida Housing did not score the Medical Facility listed by Bembridge, which was the farthest Community Service from the proposed development. Ms. Button testified that this fourth Community Service was treated as surplus information, and because it did not conflict with any other information in the application or cause uncertainty about any other information, it was simply not considered. Ms. Button likened this situation to prior RFAs in which applicants included pharmacies as Community Services even though they were not eligible in proposed family developments. Florida Housing disregarded the information as to pharmacies as surplus information. It did not consider disqualifying the applicants for providing extraneous information. Ms. Button also made it clear that if one of the three Community Services nearest the proposed development was found ineligible for some reason, the fourth Community Service submitted by the applicant would not be considered. The fourth Community Service was in all instances to be disregarded as surplusage in evaluating the application. 6 When queried as to whether the fourth Community Service was removed because it was worth the fewest points, as the reviewer’s notes stated, or because it was farthest away from the proposed development, Ms. Button replied that the distinction made no difference because the service that is farthest away is invariably the one that receives the fewest points. Florida Housing did not consider disqualifying Bembridge and the other five Applicants that mistakenly listed an extra Community Service in their applications. Ms. Button stated, “They provided in all of them, Bembridge and the others that were listed in this, they did provide three Community Services. And so I don’t think it is reasonable to throw out those applications for providing a fourth that we would just not consider nor give benefit to for those point values.” Bella Vista contends that Florida Housing should have rejected the Bembridge application rather than award points for the three nearest Community Services. Ms. Button testified that this was not a reasonable approach if only because there was nothing in the RFA stating that an application would be rejected if it identified more Community Services than were required. Ms. Button also noted that this was one of the first RFAs to allow applicants to select among four Community Services. She believed the novelty of this three-out-of-four selection process led to six applications incorrectly listing four Community Services. She implied that the Community Services language would have to be tweaked in future RFAs to prevent a recurrence of this situation, but she did not believe it fair to disqualify these six applicants for their harmless error. The Review Committee scorer did not perform a minor irregularity analysis relating to the fourth Community Service provided by Bembridge and the other applicants. Ms. Button opined that the addition of an extra Community Service amounts to no more than a minor irregularity because it provided no competitive advantage to the applicant and created no uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the RFA have been met. The RFA allows up to six proximity points for Transit Services. It specifically provides: Up to three Public Bus Stops may be selected with a maximum of 2 points awarded for each one. Each Public Bus Stop must meet the definition of Public Bus Stop as defined in Exhibit B, using at least one unique bus route. Up to two of the selected Public Bus Stops may be Sister Stops that serves the same route, as defined in Exhibit B. The RFA defines “Sister Stop” as: two bus stops that (i) individually, each meet the definition of Public Bus Stop, (ii) are separated by a street or intersection from each other, (iii) are within 0.2 miles of each other, (iv) serve at least one of the same bus routes, and (v) the buses travel in different directions. The Bembridge Application listed two Public Bus Stops, the definition of which is set forth at Finding of Fact 107 above. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, Bembridge received a total of 1.0 Proximity Point for Transit Services for its two Public Bus Stops. Numerous questions were asked at the hearing about whether Bembridge’s identified bus stops were “Sister Stops” as defined in the RFA, and the evidence on that point was not definitive. However, whether they are Sister Stops is irrelevant because each stop identified by Bembridge independently met the definition of “Public Bus Stop” in the RFA and was therefore eligible for Transit Proximity Points. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to RFA 2019-102 finding that: The Berkeley Application is ineligible for funding; The Sierra Bay Application is ineligible for funding; The Solaris Application is ineligible for funding; The Metro Grande Application is eligible for funding; The Beacon Place Application is ineligible for funding; The East Pointe Application is eligible for funding and entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference; and The Bembridge Application is eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The threshold issue in this case is whether the decisions giving rise to the dispute, which concern the allocation and disbursement of funds appropriated to Respondent by the legislature and thus involve the preparation or modification of the agency's budget, are subject to quasi-judicial adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act. If the Division of Administrative Hearings were possessed of subject matter jurisdiction, then the issues would be whether Respondent is estopped from implementing its intended decisions to "de- obligate" itself from preliminary commitments to provide low- interest loans to several projects approved for funding under the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program; and whether such intended decisions would constitute breaches of contract or otherwise be erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or abuses of the agency's discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Pasco CWHIP Partners, LLC ("Pasco Partners"); Legacy Pointe, Inc. ("Legacy"); Villa Capri, Inc. ("Villa Capri"); Prime Homebuilders ("Prime"); and MDG Capital Corporation ("MDG") (collectively, "Petitioners"), are Florida corporations authorized to do business in Florida. Each is a developer whose business activities include building affordable housing. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("FHFC") is a public corporation organized under Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, to implement and administer various affordable housing programs, including the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program ("CWHIP"). The Florida Legislature created CWHIP in 2006 to subsidize the cost of housing for lower income workers performing "essential services." Under CWHIP, FHFC is authorized to lend up to $5 million to a developer for the construction or rehabilitation of housing in an eligible area for essential services personnel. Because construction costs for workforce housing developments typically exceed $5 million, developers usually must obtain additional funding from sources other than CWHIP to cover their remaining development costs. In 2007, the legislature appropriated $62.4 million for CWHIP and authorized FHFC to allocate these funds on a competitive basis to "public-private" partnerships seeking to build affordable housing for essential services personnel.1 On December 31, 2007, FHFC began soliciting applications for participation in CWHIP. Petitioners submitted their respective applications to FHFC on or around January 29, 2008. FHFC reviewed the applications and graded each of them on a point scale under which a maximum of 200 points per application were available; preliminary scores and comments were released on March 4, 2008. FHFC thereafter provided applicants the opportunity to cure any deficiencies in their applications and thereby improve their scores. Petitioners submitted revised applications on or around April 18, 2008. FHFC evaluated the revised applications and determined each applicant's final score. The applications were then ranked, from highest to lowest score. The top-ranked applicant was first in line to be offered the chance to take out a CWHIP loan, followed by the others in descending order to the extent of available funds. Applicants who ranked below the cut-off for potential funding were placed on a wait list. If, as sometimes happens, an applicant in line for funding were to withdraw from CWHIP or fail for some other reason to complete the process leading to the disbursement of loan proceeds, the highest-ranked applicant on the wait list would "move up" to the "funded list." FHFC issued the final scores and ranking of applicants in early May 2006. Petitioners each had a project that made the cut for potential CWHIP funding.2 Some developers challenged the scoring of applications, and the ensuing administrative proceedings slowed the award process. This administrative litigation ended on or around November 6, 2008, after the parties agreed upon a settlement of the dispute. On or about November 12, 2008, FHFC issued preliminary commitment letters offering low-interest CWHIP loans to Pasco Partners, Legacy, Villa Capri, Prime (for its Village at Portofino Meadows project), and MDG. Each preliminary commitment was contingent upon: Borrower and Development meeting all requirements of Rule Chapter 67-58, FAC, and all other applicable state and FHFC requirements; and A positive credit underwriting recommendation; and Final approval of the credit underwriting report by the Florida Housing Board of Directors. These commitment letters constituted the necessary approval for each of the Petitioners to move forward in credit underwriting, which is the process whereby underwriters whom FHFC retains under contract verify the accuracy of the information contained in an applicant's application and examine such materials as market studies, engineering reports, business records, and pro forma financial statements to determine the project's likelihood of success. Once a credit underwriter completes his analysis of an applicant's project, the underwriter submits a draft report and recommendation to FHFC, which, in turn, forwards a copy of the draft report and recommendation to the applicant. Both the applicant and FHFC then have an opportunity to submit comments regarding the draft report and recommendation to the credit underwriter. After that, the credit underwriter revises the draft if he is so inclined and issues a final report and recommendation to FHFC. Upon receipt of the credit underwriter's final report and recommendation, FHFC forwards the document to its Board of Directors for approval. Of the approximately 1,200 projects that have undergone credit underwriting for the purpose of receiving funding through FHFC, all but a few have received a favorable recommendation from the underwriter and ultimately been approved for funding. Occasionally a developer will withdraw its application if problems arise during underwriting, but even this is, historically speaking, a relatively uncommon outcome. Thus, upon receiving their respective preliminary commitment letters, Petitioners could reasonably anticipate, based on FHFC's past performance, that their projects, in the end, would receive CWHIP financing, notwithstanding the contingencies that remained to be satisfied. There is no persuasive evidence, however, that FHFC promised Petitioners, as they allege, either that the credit underwriting process would never be interrupted, or that CWHIP financing would necessarily be available for those developers whose projects successfully completed underwriting. While Petitioners, respectively, expended money and time as credit underwriting proceeded, the reasonable inference, which the undersigned draws, is that they incurred such costs, not in reliance upon any false promises or material misrepresentations allegedly made by FHFC, but rather because a favorable credit underwriting recommendation was a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of being awarded a firm loan commitment. On January 15, 2009, the Florida Legislature, meeting in Special Session, enacted legislation designed to close a revenue shortfall in the budget for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Among the cuts that the legislature made to balance the budget was the following: The unexpended balance of funds appropriated by the Legislature to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation in the amount of $190,000,000 shall be returned to the State treasury for deposit into the General Revenue Fund before June 1, 2009. In order to implement this section, and to the maximum extent feasible, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall first reduce unexpended funds allocated by the corporation that increase new housing construction. 2009 Fla. Laws ch. 2009-1 § 47. Because the legislature chose not to make targeted cuts affecting specific programs, it fell to FHFC would to decide which individual projects would lose funding, and which would not. The legislative mandate created a constant-sum situation concerning FHFC's budget, meaning that, regardless of how FHFC decided to reallocate the funds which remained at its disposal, all of the cuts to individual programs needed to total $190 million in the aggregate. Thus, deeper cuts to Program A would leave more money for other programs, while sparing Program B would require greater losses for other programs. In light of this situation, FHFC could not make a decision regarding one program, such as CWHIP, without considering the effect of that decision on all the other programs in FHFC's portfolio: a cut (or not) here affected what could be done there. The legislative de-appropriation of funds then in FHFC's hands required, in short, that FHFC modify its entire budget to account for the loss. To enable FHFC to return $190 million to the state treasury, the legislature directed that FHFC adopt emergency rules pursuant to the following grant of authority: In order to ensure that the funds transferred by [special appropriations legislation] are available, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall adopt emergency rules pursuant to s. 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Legislature finds that emergency rules adopted pursuant to this section meet the health, safety, and welfare requirements of s. 120.54(4), Florida Statutes. The Legislature finds that such emergency rulemaking power is necessitated by the immediate danger to the preservation of the rights and welfare of the people and is immediately necessary in order to implement the action of the Legislature to address the revenue shortfall of the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Therefore, in adopting such emergency rules, the corporation need not publish the facts, reasons, and findings required by s. 120.54(4)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Emergency rules adopted under this section are exempt from s. 120.54(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and shall remain in effect for 180 days. 2009 Fla. Laws ch. 2009-2 § 12. The governor signed the special appropriations bills into law on January 27, 2009. At that time, FHFC began the process of promulgating emergency rules. FHFC also informed its underwriters that FHFC's board would not consider any credit underwriting reports at its March 2009 board meeting. Although FHFC did not instruct the underwriters to stop evaluating Petitioners' projects, the looming reductions in allocations, coupled with the board's decision to suspend the review of credit reports, effectively (and not surprisingly) brought credit underwriting to a standstill. Petitioners contend that FHFC deliberately intervened in the credit underwriting process for the purpose of preventing Petitioners from satisfying the conditions of their preliminary commitment letters, so that their projects, lacking firm loan commitments, would be low-hanging fruit when the time came for picking the deals that would not receive funding due to FHFC's obligation to return $190 million to the state treasury. The evidence, however, does not support a finding to this effect. The decision of FHFC's board to postpone the review of new credit underwriting reports while emergency rules for drastically reducing allocations were being drafted was not intended, the undersigned infers, to prejudice Petitioners, but to preserve the status quo ante pending the modification of FHFC's budget in accordance with the legislative mandate. Indeed, given that FHFC faced the imminent prospect of involuntarily relinquishing approximately 40 percent of the funds then available for allocation to the various programs under FHFC's jurisdiction, it would have been imprudent to proceed at full speed with credit underwriting for projects in the pipeline, as if nothing had changed. At its March 13, 2009, meeting, FHFC's board adopted Emergency Rules 67ER09-1 through 67ER09-5, Florida Administrative Code (the "Emergency Rules"), whose stated purpose was "to establish procedures by which [FHFC would] de- obligate the unexpended balance of funds [previously] appropriated by the Legislature " As used in the Emergency Rules, the term "unexpended" referred, among other things, to funds previously awarded that, "as of January 27, 2009, [had] not been previously withdrawn or de-obligated . . . and [for which] the Applicant [did] not have a Valid Firm Commitment and loan closing [had] not yet occurred." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-2(29). The term "Valid Firm Commitment" was defined in the Emergency Rules to mean: a commitment issued by the [FHFC] to an Applicant following the Board's approval of the credit underwriting report for the Applicant's proposed Development which has been accepted by the Applicant and subsequent to such acceptance there have been no material, adverse changes in the financing, condition, structure or ownership of the Applicant or the proposed Development, or in any information provided to the [FHFC] or its Credit Underwriter with respect to the Applicant or the proposed Development. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-2(33). There is no dispute concerning that fact that, as of January 27, 2009, none of the Petitioners had received a valid firm commitment or closed a loan transaction. There is, accordingly, no dispute regarding the fact that the funds which FHFC had committed preliminarily to lend Petitioners in connection with their respective developments constituted "unexpended" funds under the pertinent (and undisputed) provisions of the Emergency Rules, which were quoted above. In the Emergency Rules, FHFC set forth its decisions regarding the reallocation of funds at its disposal. Pertinent to this case are the following provisions: To facilitate the transfer and return of the appropriated funding, as required by [the special appropriations bills], the [FHFC] shall: * * * Return $190,000,000 to the Treasury of the State of Florida, as required by [law]. . . . The [FHFC] shall de-obligate Unexpended Funding from the following Corporation programs, in the following order, until such dollar amount is reached: All Developments awarded CWHIP Program funding, except for [a few projects not at issue here.] * * * See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67ER09-3. On April 24, 2009, FHFC gave written notice to each of the Petitioners that FHFC was "de-obligating" itself from the preliminary commitments that had been made concerning their respective CWHIP developments. On or about June 1, 2009, FHFC returned the de- appropriated funds, a sum of $190 million, to the state treasury. As a result of the required modification of FHFC's budget, 47 deals lost funding, including 16 CWHIP developments to which $83.6 million had been preliminarily committed for new housing construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FHFC enter a Final Order dismissing these consolidated cases for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a portion of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a limited partnership and developer of affordable housing in Florida. The Petitioner is seeking to construct a 116-unit affordable housing family apartment complex ("Elmwood Terrace") in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner has standing to initiate and participate in this proceeding. The Respondent is a public corporation organized under Chapter 420, Florida Statutes (2010), to administer state programs that provide financial support to developers seeking to construct affordable housing. Such support is provided through a variety of mechanisms, including the use of federal tax credits. The federal tax credit program was created in 1986 to promote the construction and operation of privately-developed affordable housing. The tax credits relevant to this proceeding provide a dollar-for-dollar credit against federal tax liabilities for a period of ten years. The Respondent is the designated Florida agency responsible for distribution of the federal tax credits. The tax credits are awarded pursuant to a "Qualified Allocation Plan" (QAP) that must be annually approved by the Governor and adopted as an administrative rule by the Respondent. As a matter of course, developers receiving the federal tax credits sell them through syndicators for discounted cash. The sale of the tax credits generates debt-free cash equity for developers. Developers seeking financial support to build affordable housing units submit applications to the Respondent during an annual competitive process known as the "Universal Cycle." Every three years, the Respondent commissions a study (the "Shimberg Report"), which measures, within each Florida county, the number of "cost-burden" renters earning 60 percent or less of an area's median income (AMI) who pay more than 40 percent of their income in rent. The AMI is determined by the federal government. The cost-burden households are further classified into four groups: families, the elderly, farm workers, and commercial fishermen. The Shimberg Report also assesses needs related to homeless people in the state. Developers seeking to obtain affordable housing financing are required to set aside a portion of the proposed units for income-limited residents. Access to affordable housing units is generally targeted towards persons receiving no more than 60 percent of the AMI. The Universal Cycle process allows the Respondent to target specific housing deficiencies in terms of geographic availability and population demographics and to preserve the stock of existing affordable housing. During the Universal Cycle process, the Respondent identifies areas where additional affordable housing is unnecessary, to discourage additional development in weak markets and to encourage development in those locations where there is a lack of access to affordable housing. The Respondent classifies areas where there is little need for additional affordable housing as "Location A" areas. Each application filed during the Universal Cycle is evaluated, scored, and competitively ranked against other applications filed during the same Universal Cycle. After the Respondent completes the competitive ranking of the applications submitted in the Universal Cycle, the applicants are provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the evaluation and scoring of the proposals. Applicants may also cure defects in their own proposals. After the close of the review and comment period, the Respondent publishes a revised competitive ranking of the proposals. Developers may challenge the second ranking through an administrative hearing. After the second ranking process is final, developers achieving an acceptable score receive preliminary funding commitments and proceed into a "credit underwriting" evaluation process. The credit underwriting process is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. The Respondent selects an independent credit underwriter who reviews each proposal according to requirements set forth by administrative rule (the "Credit Underwriting Rule"). The cost of the credit underwriting review is paid by the developer. The credit underwriter considers all aspects of the proposed development, including financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning verification, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. The responsibility for the market study is assigned by the credit underwriter to an independent market analyst. The credit underwriter prepares a report for each applicant invited into the process. The reports are submitted to the Respondent's nine-member, statutorily-created Board of Directors (Board). The Board approves or denies each application for financial support. The Petitioner applied for funds for the Elmwood Terrace project during the 2007 Universal Cycle. The Petitioner's application received a perfect score, maximum points, and was allocated tax credits in the amount of $1,498,680. The Petitioner thereafter entered the credit underwriting process. The credit underwriting analysis was performed by Seltzer Management Group (SMG). SMG contracted with a market analyst, Vogt, Williams & Bowen Research, Inc. (VWB), to prepare the required market study. The affordable units at Elmwood Terrace were initially intended for persons receiving incomes no more than 60 percent of the AMI. The VWB research indicated that the Elmwood Terrace project would adversely affect the existing affordable housing developments, if the Elmwood Terrace units were available to the 60 percent AMI population. The existing affordable housing developments, also serving the 60 percent AMI population, included two developments that had participated in the Respondent's "Guarantee Fund" program, addressed elsewhere herein. VWB determined that the impact of the Elmwood Terrace project on the existing developments could be ameliorated were some of the Elmwood Terrace units targeted during "lease-up" to persons at income levels of not more than 50 percent of the AMI. The lease-up period is the time required for a new development to reach anticipated occupancy levels. The issue was the subject of discussions between the Petitioner, VWB, and SMG. To resolve the anticipated negative impact on the existing affordable housing developments, the Petitioner agreed to target the 50 percent AMI population. In September 2008, the credit underwriter issued his report and recommended that the Petitioner receive the previously-allocated tax credits. On September 22, 2008, the Respondent's Board accepted the credit underwriting report and followed the recommendation. In the fall of 2008, after the Petitioner received the tax credits, the nation's economic environment deteriorated considerably. As a result, the syndicator with whom the Petitioner had been working to sell the tax credits advised that the sale would not occur. The Petitioner was unable to locate an alternate purchaser for the tax credits. The Petitioner considered altering the target population of the project in an attempt to attract a buyer for the tax credits, and there were discussions with the Respondent about the option, but there was no credible evidence presented that such an alteration would have resulted in the sale of the Petitioner's tax credits. Lacking a buyer for the tax credits, the Petitioner was unable to convert the credits to cash, and they were of little value in providing funds for the project. The Petitioner was not alone in its predicament, and many other developers who received tax credits in the 2007 and 2008 Universal Cycles found themselves unable to generate cash through the sale of their tax credits. In early 2009, Congress adopted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111-5), referred to herein as ARRA, which incorporated a broad range of economic stimulus activities. Included within the ARRA was the "Tax Credit Exchange Program" that provided for the return by the appropriate state agency of a portion of the unused tax credits in exchange for a cash distribution of 85 percent of the tax credit value. The State of Florida received $578,701,964 through the Tax Credit Exchange Program. The ARRA also provided additional funds to state housing finance agencies through a "Tax Credit Assistance Program" intended to "resume funding of affordable housing projects across the nation while stimulating job creation in the hard-hat construction industry." On July 31, 2009, the Respondent issued a Request for Proposals (RFP 2009-04) to facilitate the distribution of the ARRA funds. The Respondent issued the RFP because the 2009 QAP specifically required the Respondent to allocate the relevant federal funds by means of a "competitive request for proposal or competitive application process as approved by the board." The 2009 QAP was adopted as part of the 2009 Universal Cycle rules. Projects selected for funding through the RFP would be evaluated through the routine credit underwriting process. Participation in the RFP process was limited to developers who held an "active award" of tax credits as of February 17, 2009, and who were unable to close on the sale of the credits. The RFP included restrictions against proposals for development within areas designated as "Location A." Although the location of the Elmwood Terrace project had not been within an area designated as "Location A" during the 2007 Universal Cycle process, the Respondent had subsequently designated the area as "Location A" by the time of the 2009 Universal Cycle. The RFP also established occupancy standards for projects funded under the RFP that exceeded the standards established in the Universal Cycle instructions and an evaluation process separate from the Universal Cycle requirements. Although the restrictions in the RFP would have automatically precluded the Petitioner from being awarded funds, the Petitioner submitted a response to the RFP and then filed a successful challenge to the RFP specifications (DOAH Case No. 09-4682BID). In a Recommended Order issued on November 12, 2009, the Administrative law Judge presiding over the RFP challenge determined that certain provisions of the RFP, including the automatic rejection of Location A projects, the increased occupancy standards, and the RFP evaluation criteria, were invalid. The Respondent adopted the Recommended Order by a Final Order issued on December 4, 2009, and invited the Petitioner into the credit underwriting process by a letter dated December 9, 2009. The credit underwriter assigned to analyze the Petitioner's project was SMG, the same credit underwriter that performed the original analysis of the Petitioner's project during the 2007 Universal Cycle. SMG retained Meridian Appraisal Group, Inc. (Meridian), to prepare the required market study. The Respondent was not consulted regarding the SMG decision to retain Meridian for the market analysis. The decision to retain Meridian for the market analysis was entirely that of SMG. The Respondent did not direct SMG or Meridian in any manner regarding the assessment or evaluation of any negative impact of the proposed project on existing affordable housing developments. Meridian completed the market study and forwarded it to SMG on January 26, 2010. The Meridian market analysis included a review of the relevant data as well as consideration of the actual economic conditions experienced in Lee County, Florida, including the extremely poor performance of the existing housing stock, as well as significant job losses and considerable unemployment. The Meridian market analysis determined that the Elmwood Terrace development would have a negative impact on two existing affordable housing apartment developments that were underwritten by the Respondent through a Guarantee Fund created at Section 420.5092, Florida Statutes, by the Florida Legislature in 1992. The existing Guarantee Fund properties referenced in the SMG recommendation are "Bernwood Trace" and "Westwood," both family-oriented apartment developments within five miles of the Elmwood Terrace location. The Guarantee Fund essentially obligates the Respondent to satisfy mortgage debt with the proceeds of Florida's documentary stamp taxes, if an affordable housing development is unable to generate sufficient revenue to service the debt. Because the Guarantee Fund program essentially serves to underwrite the repayment of mortgage debt for a "guaranteed" affordable housing development, the program increases the availability, and lowers the cost, of credit for developers. The Guarantee Fund program has participated in the financing of more than 100 projects, most of which closed between 1999 and 2002. Since 2005, the Respondent has not approved any additional Guarantee Fund participation in any affordable housing developments. The Respondent's total risk exposure through the Guarantee Fund is approximately 750 million dollars. Prior to October 2008, no claims were made against the Guarantee Fund. Since November 2008, there have been eight claims filed against the Guarantee Fund. Affordable housing financing includes restrictions that mandate the inclusion of a specific number of affordable housing units. Such restrictions are eliminated through foreclosure proceedings, and, accordingly, access to affordable housing units can be reduced if a development fails. Presuming that the eight claims pending against the Guarantee Fund eventually proceeded through foreclosure, as many as 2,300 residential units could be deducted from the stock of affordable housing. When there is a claim on the Guarantee Fund, the Respondent has to assume payment of the mortgage debt. The claims are paid from the Guarantee Fund capital, which is detrimental to the Respondent's risk-to-capital ratio. The risk-to-capital ratio is presently four to one. The maximum risk-to-capital ratio acceptable to rating agencies is five to one. The eight claims against the Guarantee Fund have ranged between ten and 18 million dollars each. The Respondent's bond rating has declined because of the eight claims. A continued decline in the Respondent's bond rating could result in documentary stamp tax receipts being used for payment of Guarantee Fund claims and directed away from the Respondent's programs that are intended to support the creation of affordable housing. In an effort to prevent additional claims against the Guarantee Fund, the Respondent has created the "Subordinate Mortgage Initiative" to provide assistance in the form of two- year loans to troubled Guarantee Fund properties. When preparing the 2010 market study, Meridian did not review the VWB market analysis performed as part of the 2007 application. Although the Petitioner has asserted that Meridian should have reviewed the 2007 VWB analysis, there is no evidence that Meridian's decision to conduct an independent market study without reference to the prior market review was inappropriate. On February 8, 2010, SMG issued a recommendation that the Petitioner's funding request be denied "because of the proposed development's potential financial impacts on developments in the area previously funded by Florida Housing and an anticipated negative impact to the two Guarantee Fund properties located within five miles of the proposed development." There is no evidence that the Meridian analysis was inadequate or improperly completed. There is no evidence that the SMG's reliance on the Meridian analysis was inappropriate. For purposes of this Order, the Meridian analysis and the SMG credit underwriting report have been accepted. Elmwood Terrace, a newer development with newer amenities, would compete for residents with the Bernwood Trace and Westwood developments. The financing for Bernwood Trace and Westwood was premised on projections that the affordable housing units would be leased to the 60 percent AMI population; however, the developments have been unable to maintain full occupancy levels, even though a number of units in the two properties are leased at reduced rates based on 50 percent AMI income levels. A rent reduction implemented by an existing development, whether based on economic conditions or resulting from competition, constitutes a negative impact on the development. There is no credible evidence that the occupancy rates are attributable to any difficulty in management of the two developments. It is reasonable to conclude that the leasing issues are related to economic conditions present in Lee County, Florida. In January 2010, VWB conducted an alternative market analysis. The VWB analysis was not provided to SMG or to the Respondent at any time during the credit underwriting process. Based on the 2010 VWB analysis, the Petitioner asserted that economic conditions in Lee County, Florida, have improved since the first credit underwriting report was completed in 2008 and that the improvement is expected to continue. There is no noteworthy evidence that economic conditions have improved or will significantly improve in the Lee County, Florida, market in the predictable future, and the VWB analysis is rejected. The Petitioner offered to mitigate any negative impact on the Guarantee Fund properties by committing affordable units to 50 percent AMI income levels. Given the existing economic and rental market conditions in Lee County, Florida, the evidence fails to establish that the offer would actually alleviate the negative impact on the affected Guarantee Fund developments. The 2010 VWB analysis states that there is substantial unmet demand for housing at 50 percent AMI and that there will be no impact on the Guarantee Fund units if the Elmwood Terrace units were set aside for such individuals. There is no credible evidence that there is a substantial and relevant unmet affordable housing demand in Lee County, Florida. The VWB analysis is rejected. Following the completion of each annual Universal Cycle process, the Respondent actively solicits feedback from developers and the public and then amends the Universal Cycle requirements to address the issues raised, as well as to reflect existing affordable housing needs and general concerns of the Board. The amendments are applicable for the following Universal Cycle. In 2009, the Respondent amended subsection (10) of the Credit Underwriting Rule as part of the annual revisions to the Universal Cycle process. The relevant amendment (referred to by the parties as the "Impact Rule") added this directive to the credit underwriter: The Credit Underwriter must review and determine whether there will be a negative impact to Guarantee Fund Developments within the primary market area or five miles of the proposed development, whichever is greater. The amendment was prompted by the Respondent's experience in the fall of 2008 when considering two separate applications for affordable housing financing. The potential negative impact of a proposed development on an existing Guarantee Fund property was central to the Board's consideration of one application, and the Board ultimately denied the application. In the second case, the Board granted the application, despite the potential negative impact on a competing development that was not underwritten by the Guarantee Fund. The intent of the language was to advise developers that the existence of Guarantee Fund properties within the competitive market area would be part of the credit underwriting evaluation and the Board's consideration. Notwithstanding the language added to the rule, the credit underwriter is charged with reviewing the need for additional affordable housing. Even in absence of the added language, consideration of any negative impact to competing developments based on inadequate need for additional affordable housing would be appropriate. In rendering the 2010 credit underwriting report on Elmwood Terrace, the credit underwriter complied with the directive. Prior to determining that the Petitioner's funding application should be denied, the Respondent's Board was clearly aware of the Petitioner's application, the credit underwriting report and market analysis, and the economic conditions in Lee County, Florida. There is no credible evidence of any need for additional affordable housing in Lee County, Florida. There is no credible evidence that the Lee County, Florida, market can sustain the addition of the units proposed by the Petitioner without adversely affecting the financial feasibility of the existing Guarantee Fund developments. The Board was aware that the Elmwood Terrace development could attract residents from the nearby Guarantee Fund properties and that local economic conditions threatened the financial viability of the properties. Given current economic conditions, approval of the application at issue in this proceeding would reasonably be expected to result in a negative impact to existing affordable housing developments. The protection of Guarantee Fund developments is necessary to safeguard the resources used to support the creation and availability of affordable housing in the state.
The Issue In 2009, Elmwood Terrace Limited Partnership (Petitioner) filed an application with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Respondent), seeking funding to develop an affordable housing apartment complex in Ft. Myers, Florida. The Respondent denied the application. The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application should have been granted.
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 denying the application for funding filed by Elmwood Terrace Limited Partnership. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, & Purnell, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Wellington Meffert, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Della Harrell, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329
The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) intended decision to award Respondent, Brixton Landing, Ltd., low-income housing tax credits is contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Florida Housing, is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2015). Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Petitioners, Madison Hollow, LLC, and American Residential Development, LLC (Madison Hollow or Petitioners), are Florida limited liability corporations engaged in the business of affordable housing development. Brixton Landing, is a Florida limited liability corporation also engaged in the business of affordable housing development. Florida Housing is the housing credit agency for the State of 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, which are made available to the states annually by the United States Department of the Treasury. The State Housing Tax Credit Program is established in Florida under the authority of section 420.5093, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing is the designated entity in Florida responsible for allocating federal tax credits to assist in financing the construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing. Because the demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply available under the State Housing Tax Credit Program, qualified affordable housing developments must compete for this funding. On November 21, 2015, Florida Housing issued Request for Applications 2014-115, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties (the RFA). No challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA. According to the RFA, Florida Housing expected to award up to approximately $15,553,993 in tax credits for qualified affordable housing projects in those six large counties. Florida Housing received approximately 58 applications in response to the RFA. Madison Hollow, Brixton Landing, Sheeler Club Apartments, Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II, Banyan Station, Lauderdale Place, and Lake Sherwood timely submitted applications in response to the RFA requesting financing of their affordable housing projects from the funding proposed to be allocated through the RFA. Petitioners requested an allocation of $2,110,000 in annual tax credits for their development, Madison Hollow, located in Orange County. Brixton Landing requested an allocation of $1,330,000 in annual tax credits for Brixton Landing’s proposed development in Orange County. On May 8, 2015, the Board of Directors of Florida Housing approved the preliminary rankings and allocations, and issued its Approved Preliminary Awards/Notice of Intended Decision (Notice of Intended Decision), in which Florida Housing scored both Madison Hollow’s and Brixton Landing’s projects as eligible for funding and awarded each application 23 points. In addition, Sheeler Club Apartments, Sheeler Club Apartments- Phase II, Banyan Station, Lauderdale Place, and Lake Sherwood were all found to be eligible applications. On that same date, Florida Housing published on its website the Notice of Intended Decision, which included a three- page spreadsheet listing all applications made in response to the RFA and identifying those which were eligible and ineligible. Ranking and Selection Process Applications were evaluated for eligibility and scoring by a Review Committee appointed by Florida Housing’s executive director. Applications were considered for funding only if they were deemed “eligible,” based on the terms of the RFA. Of the 58 timely-submitted applications, 52 were deemed eligible and six were deemed ineligible. The highest scoring applications were determined by first sorting all eligible applications from highest score to lowest score. Pursuant to the RFA, applicants could achieve a maximum score of 23 points. Eighteen (18) of those 23 points were attributable to “proximity” scores based on the distance of the proposed development from services needed by tenants. The remaining five points were attributable to Local Government Contributions. In scoring housing tax credit applications, many applicants achieved tie scores. In anticipation of that occurrence, Florida Housing designed the RFA and rules to incorporate a series of “tie breakers” to separate any scores that tied as follows: First by the Application’s eligibility for the “SAIL RFA 2014-111 Unfunded Preference”, which is outlined in Section One of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference). Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.5.c.(1)(a)(iii) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.12.e. of the RFA, (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next by the Application’s Leveraging Classification (applying the multipliers outlined in Exhibit C below and having the Classification of A be the top priority); Next 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 Finally by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The Leveraging Classification is essentially a ranking of eligible applications based upon the cost per unit (referred to in the RFA as Total Corporation Funding Per Set-Aside Unit), with the most cost-effective project at the top of the list and the least cost-effective at the bottom. The top 90 percent of applications on the list were classified as Group A and the bottom 10 percent of applications classified as Group B. Applicants in Group B are not eligible for funding until all applicants in Group A are funded. Pursuant to Item 9 of Exhibit C to the RFA, Florida Housing classified Brixton Landing and Madison Hollow in the Group A Leveraging Classification, and classified Sheeler Club Apartments, Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II, Banyan Station, and Lauderdale Place in the Group B Leveraging Classification. Both Brixton Landing and Madison Hollow were scored identically by Florida Housing, and both developments are located in Orange County. Because the RFA provided that only one project will be funded in each county, and because Brixton Landing had a lower lottery number than Madison Hollow, Brixton Landing was selected for funding. A total of 52 applications were found to be eligible for funding. According to the leveraging calculations, the Group B applications were removed from consideration for funding. Brixton Landing was number 45 on the list, thus classified in Group A. Brixton Landing will be moved to Group B classification, if at least two of the five applications in Group B are found to be ineligible. If Brixton Landing is moved into Group B, Madison Hollow will be eligible for funding. The Challenged Applications Madison Hollow alleges that the applications for Sheeler Club Apartments and Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II should have each been found ineligible for failure to demonstrate the “ability to proceed” required in the RFA. Madison Hollow also alleges that the applications for Banyan Station and Lauderdale Place should have each been found ineligible for failure to fully disclose the principals of the applicant and developer.1/ Madison Hollow is thus in the unusual position of challenging four applicants who were not selected for funding and are not parties to this case. Brixton Landing is in the equally unusual position of defending the applications of those four unfunded applicants. Sheeler Club Atlantic Housing Partners (Atlantic) submitted two applications in response to the RFA. Sheeler Club Apartments was an application for development of affordable multifamily units to serve a family demographic. Sheeler Club Apartments- Phase II was an application for development of multi-family garden homes to serve an elderly demographic. The projects were proposed to be located adjacent to each other. The RFA sets forth the following specific requirements for applicants to demonstrate the ability to proceed: 5.f. Ability to Proceed: The Applicant must demonstrate the following Ability to Proceed elements as of Application Deadline, as outlined below. * * * Status of Site Plan Approval. The Applicant must demonstrate the status of site plan approval as of the Application Deadline by providing, as Attachment 7 to Exhibit A, the properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments form (Form Rev. 11-14). Appropriate Zoning. The Applicant must demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline the proposed Development site is appropriately zoned and consistent with local land use regulations regarding density and intended use or that the proposed Development site is legally non-conforming by providing, as Attachment 8 to Exhibit A, the applicable properly completed and executed verification form: The Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations form (Form Rev. 11-14); or The Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification that Permits are not Required for this Development form (Form Rev. 11-14). Similarly, the RFA requires applicants to submit forms to demonstrate availability of electricity, water, sewer, and roads to serve the proposed development. The Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval form (Site Plan form) must be completed by the local government official responsible for determination of issues related to site plan approval within the applicable jurisdiction. The official must choose between two optional paragraphs related to proposals for new construction: (1) the proposed development “requires additional site plan approval or similar process” and the “final site plan . . . was approved on or before the submission deadline for the” RFA; or (2) the proposed development “requires additional site plan approval or similar process” and either the jurisdiction requires preliminary or conceptual site plan approval, “which has been issued,” or (b) the jurisdiction provides neither preliminary nor conceptual site plan approval, “nor is any other similar process provided prior to issuing final site plan approval,” but the site plan, in the applicable zoning designation, has been reviewed. Orange County provides neither preliminary nor conceptual site plan approval. Thus, the local government official must certify that the site plan for the proposed project has been reviewed. The Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations form (Zoning form), requires that the local government official responsible for issues related to comprehensive planning and zoning certify the following: (1) the zoning designation applicable to the property; (2) that the proposed number of units and intended use are consistent with current land use regulations and the zoning designation; (3) that there are no additional land use regulation hearings or approvals required to obtain the zoning classification or density proposed; and (4) that there are no known conditions that would preclude construction of the proposed development on the site. It is undisputed that Atlantic submitted both verification forms with its application. Olan Hill, Chief Planner for Orange County, reviewed, completed, and signed each of these forms, attesting that in his opinion both of the proposed projects would be in compliance with local zoning and land use regulations. Mr. Hill was fully authorized to sign the forms on behalf of Orange County. The two Atlantic projects are proposed adjacent to one another on a site which has a Planned Development (PD) zoning approval for development of 152 single-family townhome units in the Medium Density Residential Future Land Use category (MDR), which allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre. The County’s PD zoning approval was based on review of Atlantic’s Land Use Plan (LUP) for the site. According to Mr. Hill, the LUP is a “bubble plan” outlining the general entitlements and development program for the site. In the case at hand, the Atlantic site also has an approved preliminary subdivision plan (PSP), which is the first step to subdivide the property. Under the PSP, the property is proposed to be subdivided into 152 lots for development of single-family townhomes. For purposes of certifying the Site Plan and Zoning forms, Mr. Hill reviewed the PD LUP, not the PSP. Regarding the Site Plan form, Mr. Hill certified that, although the County requires no preliminary or conceptual site plan approval process and the final site plan approval has not yet been issued, the site plan for the project in the applicable zoning classification, the PD LUP, had been reviewed. With respect to the Zoning form, Mr. Hill first certified that the proposed number of units and intended use are consistent with current land use regulations and the PD zoning designation. The PD LUP limits the total number of units to 152, which would accommodate either of the Sheeler Club applications (Sheeler Club Apartments proposes 88 units, while Sheeler Club-Phase II proposes 64 units). The MDR land use category allows the multi-family uses proposed for the development up to 20 units per acre. Under the MDR category, the 21.4-acre site could be approved for well over 152 units. Mr. Hill next certified that there are no additional land use regulation hearings or approvals required to obtain the zoning classification or density described in that zoning classification. The PD zoning is final and is not dependent upon whether Atlantic goes forward with subdivision of the property as proposed in the existing PSP. Atlantic could subdivide the property for a different number of lots, or in a different configuration, without changing the zoning of the property. Finally, Mr. Hill certified that there are no known conditions that would preclude construction of the referenced Development on the proposed site, assuming compliance with the applicable land use regulations. There are numerous county approvals needed throughout the development approval process. The Zoning form does not require the local government official to certify that no additional approvals are needed following site plan review, or that the proposed project is ready to begin construction. Petitioners contend that neither of the Sheeler Club applications should have been deemed eligible because, despite Mr. Hill’s authorized certifications to the contrary, the projects do not have the ability to proceed. Petitioners do not contend that Mr. Hill was not authorized to execute the forms, or that the certifications were obtained through fraud or other illegality. As to the Site Plan form, Petitioners contend first that Mr. Hill did not review a site plan for either project proposed by Atlantic: Sheeler Club Apartments, 88 multi-family units; or Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II, 64 garden apartments. Instead, Mr. Hill reviewed and certified the site plan for Sheeler Avenue Townhomes PD, which provides for development of single-family townhomes in a single phase over the entire site. Petitioners argue that the PD is conditioned upon development of townhomes in single ownership complying with section 38-79(20) of the Orange County Code of Ordinances, which is unrelated to construction of the “garden apartments” proposed by Atlantic in its application to Florida Housing for financing. Thus, Petitioners conclude, Mr. Hill has not reviewed a site plan for either Sheeler Club Apartments or Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II. Mr. Hill testified that his certification did not depend on whether either or both of the proposed projects was eventually developed, but that the overall site has a PD zoning approval for a total of 152 units. Ken Reecy is the Director of Multi-family Programs for Florida Housing. He testified the purpose of the Site Plan form, and, for that matter, the Zoning form, is to verify “high- level” approval of the site. For example, if the applicant proposes a 64-unit project, Florida Housing wants verification that the developer will be able to deliver 64 units. As to the Zoning form, Petitioners present a parade of objections. Petitioners argue that the proposed use of the property for multi-family apartments and garden apartments is inconsistent with the zoning approval for single-family townhomes; thus, additional land use regulation approvals are required, contrary to the certified Zoning form. Petitioners point to the PSP approved for the subdivision of the property and argue that neither Sheeler Club project could be built in conformity with the PSP, which proposes to subdivide the property into 152 townhome lots. Relying on the PSP, Petitioners also argue that Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II has no public road access without the Sheeler Club Apartments development, thus, Mr. Hill’s certification as to Phase II was incorrect and the project is not ready to proceed. Moreover, Petitioners argue that Atlantic “gerrymandered” the boundaries of the two projects in order to secure the most advantageous location for the “development location point”; therefore, the lot layout proposed in the PSP cannot be achieved on either of the two projects. Likewise, Petitioners argue the boundary is a change from the approved PSP, which requires additional land use approvals from the Board of County Commissioners. It is Florida Housing’s practice to accept the zoning and land use certifications by local officials, which it followed in this case. Florida Housing does not have the expertise, resources, or authority to evaluate local zoning and land use decisions. Petitioners would have the undersigned perform the analysis that Florida Housing did not and make a determination whether the Atlantic projects, as proposed, meet the requirements for zoning and land use approvals set forth in the certifications signed by Mr. Hill. Petitioners would have this tribunal interpret the Orange County Code of Ordinances and make findings regarding: whether the LUP PD would have to be amended for Atlantic to build the projects proposed in its funding application to Florida Housing; whether said amendments would constitute “substantial changes” to the approved PD, thus requiring additional public hearings; and, ultimately, whether the Site Plan and Zoning forms were executed in error. The undersigned declines to do so, as set forth more fully in the Conclusions of Law. In this particular case, Mr. Reecy testified that Orange County was aware of the issues raised by Madison Hollow and that he relied on Mr. Hill’s knowledge to make the right call on these forms. While there was certainly an abundance of testimony attempting to call into question the decisions of the Orange County authorities, the evidence does not support a finding that Florida Housing’s proposed action is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications, or that it was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. In light of that finding, the audio recordings of Orange County Commission Meetings proffered by both Petitioners and Brixton Landing are not admitted. The recordings are irrelevant in this proceeding and have not been relied upon by the undersigned. Banyan Station and Lauderdale Place Madison Hollow alleges that two other applications, Banyan Station and Lauderdale Place, should have been found ineligible for failure to disclose the principals of the applicant and the developers, as required by RFA section Four.A.3. Both the applicants for, and developers of, Banyan Station and Lauderdale Place are limited liability companies (LLCs). Section Four.A.3.d.(2) requires applicants that are LLCs to provide a list identifying the principals of the applicant and the principals of each developer as of the application deadline. The RFA also directs applicants to Section 3 of Exhibit C “to assist the [a]pplicant in compiling the listing.” Exhibit C provides, “[t]he Corporation is providing the following charts and examples to assist the Applicant in providing the required list[.] The term Principal is defined in Section 67-48.002, F.A.C.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93) reads, in relevant part, as follows: (93) ‘Principal’ means: With respect to an Applicant or Developer that is a limited liability company, any manager or member of the Applicant or Developer limited liability company, and, with respect to any manager or member of the Applicant or Developer limited liability company that is: 3. A limited liability company, any manager or member of the limited liability company. Exhibit C provides the following chart applicable to disclosures by LLC applicants: Identify All Managers And Identify all Members and For each Manager that is a Limited Partership: 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. Exhibit C further provides examples of fictitious applicants and developers followed by disclosure listings of managers, members, general and limited partners, officers, directors, and shareholders, as applicable. Banyan Station, applicant, HTG Banyan is a limited liability company. HTG Banyan listed its managers as Matthew and Randy Rieger, and its members as Camillus-Banyan, LLC, and Housing Trust Group, LLC. It then listed Camillus House, Inc., and RER Family Partnership, Ltd., as sole members of those LLCs, respectively. Applicant’s developer is also a limited liability company, HTG Banyan Developer, LLC. HTG Banyan Developer listed Matthew and Randy Rieger as the developer’s managers, and Camillus-Banyan, LLC, HTG Affordable, LLC, and Reiger Holdings, LLC, as its members. It listed Camillus House, Inc., RER Family Partnership, Ltd., and Balogh Family Investments Limited Partnership, as members of those LLCs. HTG Banyan Developer disclosed Matthew Reiger as the sole member of Rieger Holdings. Likewise, Lauderdale Place applicant, HTG Anderson, LLC, identified its managers and members, although some members were identified as LLCs. In each case, the applicant identified the principals of the applicant and the developer down “two levels” of organizational structure, even though in some cases this did not result in the disclosure of natural persons. Petitioners urge an interpretation of the disclosure requirement that would require an LLC to continue to identify members and managers until natural persons are identified. Respondents maintain that the rule and the RFA require disclosure of only “two levels” of organizational structure, as shown on the charts in Exhibit C. Petitioners did not make a showing that Florida Housing’s interpretation of the rule and the RFA is unreasonable. The definition of “principal” of an LLC includes members which are likewise LLCs. The assistive chart includes disclosures at only two levels of organizational structure. Furthermore, in Exhibit C, example 3, the disclosure for ABC, LLC, includes XYZ, LLC, as a member without further disclosure. In support of its argument, Petitioners rely upon the language below the chart which states, “[f]or any Manager and/or Member that is a natural person (i.e., Samuel S. Smith), no further disclosure is required.” The plain language of the chart states that when disclosing managers and members of an LLC, for any manager or member who is a natural person, no further disclosure is required. The language does not state, as Petitioners would prefer, when disclosing managers and members of an LLC, disclosure must be made until all natural persons are disclosed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order affirming Brixton Landing for funding under RFA 2014-115. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2015.
