The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing, Corporation, or Respondent) rejection of the funding for the application submitted by Capital Grove Limited Partnership (Capital Grove) was contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications of Request for Applications 2014-114 (the RFA). If so, whether Florida Housing’s decision to fund the application submitted by HTG Wellington Family, LLC (HTG Wellington), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to applicants in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Applicants then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the owner would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax-credit property can offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of ten years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. Tax credits are made available by the U.S. Treasury to the states annually. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48), and adopted Florida Administrative Code chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Rule 67-60.002(1) defines “Applicant” as “any person or legally-formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter for one or more of the Corporation’s programs.” Applicants request in their applications a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants typically sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the Applicant entity) to an investor to generate the majority of the capital necessary to construct the Development. The amount of housing credits an Applicant may request is based on several factors, including but not limited to a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. Florida Housing’s competitive application process for the allocation of tax credits is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications. In this case, that document is Request for Applications 2014-114 (the RFA). The RFA was issued November 20, 2014, and responses were due January 22, 2015. Capital Grove submitted Application No. 2015-045C in RFA 2014-114 seeking $1,509,500 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 94-unit residential rental development in Pasco County (a Medium County), to be known as Highland Grove Senior Apartments. HTG Wellington submitted Application No. 2015-101C seeking $1,510,000 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 110-unit multifamily residential development in Pasco County, Florida, to be known as Park at Wellington Apartments. Florida Housing has announced its intention to award funding to nine Medium County Developments, including Park at Wellington in Pasco County (Application No. 2015-101C), but not Highland Grove Senior Apartments. Florida Housing received 82 applications seeking funding in RFA 2014-114, including 76 for Medium County Developments. The process employed by Florida Housing for this RFA makes it virtually impossible for more than one application to be selected for funding in any given medium county. Because of the amount of funding available for medium counties, the typical amount of an applicant’s housing credit request (generally $1.0 to $1.5 million), and the number of medium counties for which developments are proposed, many medium counties will not receive an award of housing credit funding in this RFA. Florida Housing intends to award funding to nine developments in nine different medium counties. The applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of RFA 2014-114; Florida Administrative Code chapters 67- 48 and 67-60; and applicable federal regulations. Florida Housing’s executive director appointed a Review Committee of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed “eligible,” based on whether the application complies with Florida Housing’s various content requirements. Of the 82 applications submitted to Florida Housing in RFA 2014-114, 69 were found “eligible,” and 13 were found ineligible, including Capital Grove. Florida Housing determined that Capital Grove was ineligible on the ground that its Letter of Credit was deficient under the terms of the RFA. A five-page spreadsheet created by Florida Housing, entitled “RFA 2014-114 – All Applications,” identifying all eligible and ineligible applications was provided to all Applicants. In addition to scoring, Applicants received a lottery number to be applied in tie situations, with the lower number given preference. Capital Grove received lottery number 12. HTG Wellington received lottery number 9. On March 11, 2015, the Review Committee met and considered the applications submitted in response to the RFA, and made recommendations regarding the scoring and ranking of the applications to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the Board). Capital Grove’s Letter of Credit The RFA provides for a Withdrawal Disincentive in which an applicant could either provide a $25,000 check or a $25,000 Letter of Credit that would be forfeited if the application was withdrawn by the applicant before a certain period of time. Applicants so withdrawing would also suffer a deduction from the full developer-experience point total in certain future Requests for Applications issued by Florida Housing. According to specifications in the RFA, any Letter of Credit submitted must be in compliance with all the requirements of subsection 4.a. of Section Three, Procedures and Provisions of the RFA, which provides in pertinent part: 4. $25,000 Letter of Credit. Each Applicant not submitting a $25,000 Application Withdrawal Cash Deposit (as outlined in 3 above) must submit to the Corporation a letter of Credit that meets the following requirements with its Application: a. The Letter of Credit must: Be issued by a bank, the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC, and which has a banking office located in the state of Florida available for presentation of the Letter of Credit. Be on the issuing bank’s letterhead, and identify the bank’s Florida office as the office for presentation of the Letter of Credit. Be, in form, content and amount, the same as the Sample Letter of Credit set out in Item 14 of Exhibit C of the RFA, and completed with the following: Issue Date of the Letter of Credit (LOC) which must be no later than January 22, 2015. LOC number. Expiration Date of the LOC which must be no earlier than January 22, 2016. Issuing Bank’s legal name. Issuing Bank’s Florida Presentation Office for Presentation of the LOC. Florida Housing’s RFA number RFA 2014- 114. Applicant’s name as it appears on the Application for which the LOC is issued. Development name as it appears on the Application for which the LOC is issued. Signature of the Issuing Bank’s authorized signatory. Printed Name and Title of the Authorized Signatory. The Sample Letter of Credit included in Exhibit C, Item 14 of the RFA reads: (Issuing Bank’s Letterhead) Irrevocable Unconditional Letter of Credit To/Beneficiary: Florida Housing Finance Corporation Issue Date: [a date that is no later than January 22, 2015] Attention: Director of Multifamily Programs 227 N. Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Letter of Credit No.: Expiration Date: [a date that is no earlier than January 22, 2016] Issuing Bank: Florida Presentation Office: FHFC RFA # 2014-114 Applicant: Development: Gentlemen: For the account of the Applicant, we, the Issuing Bank, hereby authorize Florida Housing Finance Corporation to draw on us at sight up to an aggregate amount of Twenty- Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($25,000.00). This letter of credit is irrevocable, unconditional, and nontransferable. Drafts drawn under this letter of credit must specify the letter of credit number and be presented at our Florida Presentation Office identified above not later than the Expiration Date. Any sight draft may be presented to us by electronic, reprographic, computerized or automated system, or by carbon copy, but in any event must visibly bear the word “original.” If the document is signed, the signature may consist of (or may appear to us as) an original handwritten signature, a facsimile signature or any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication. Payment against this letter of credit may be made by wire transfer of immediately available funds to the account specified by you, or by deposit of same day funds in a designated account you maintain with us. Unless we notify you in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the Expiration Date, the Expiration Date of this letter of credit must be extended automatically for successive one-month periods. This letter of credit sets forth in full the terms of our obligations to you, and such undertaking shall not in any way be modified or amplified by any agreement in which this letter is referred to or to which this letter of credit relates, and any such reference shall not be deemed to incorporate herein by reference any agreement. We engage with you that sight drafts drawn under, and in compliance with, the terms of this letter of credit will be duly honored at the Presentation Office. We are an FDIC insured bank, and our Florida Presentation Office is located in Florida as identified above. Yours very truly, [Issuing Bank] By Print Name Print Title Despite these requirements, Capital Grove submitted an “Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit” issued by PNC Bank National Association (PNC). Capital Grove’s Letter of Credit provides, in pertinent part: Beneficiary: Applicant: Florida Housing Finance Westbrook Housing Corp. Corp. Development, LLC 4110 Southpoint Blvd., 227 North Bronough Street Ste 206 Suite 5000 Jacksonville, Fl 32216 Tallahassee, Fl 32301 ATTENTION: DIR. OF MULTI- FBO CAPITAL GROVE FAMILY PROGRAMS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT OUR REFERENCE: 18123166-00-00 AMOUNT: USD $25,000.00 ISSUE DATE: JANUARY 20, 2015 EXPIRY DATE: JANUARY 22, 2016 EPIRY PLACE: OUR COUNTER RE: FHFC RFA #2014-114 DEVELOPMENT: HIGHLAND GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS GENTLEMEN: WE HEREBY ESTABLISH OUR IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 18123166-00-000 IN FAVOR OF FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE ACCOUNT OF WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LLC AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT AT OUR COUNTERS IN AN AMOUNT OF USD $25,000.00 (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 UNITED STATES DOLLARS) AGAINST BENEFICIARY'S PURPORTEDLY SIGNED STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS: "I (INSERT NAME AND TITLE) CERTIFY THAT I AM AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND HEREBY DEMAND PAYMENT OF USD (INSERT AMOUNT) UNDER PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 18123166-00-000. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC HAS FAILED TO COMPLY UNDER THE PROJECT NAME: HIGHLAND GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS BETWEEN FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC." Ken Reecy, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, personally reviewed all Letters of Credit submitted by RFA applicants, and reported his findings to the Review Committee. The Review Committee recommended finding Capital Grove’s application nonresponsive and ineligible for funding because Capital Grove failed to include a responsive Letter of Credit. The Review Committee also found four other applications ineligible for failing to meet the Letter of Credit requirements, all of which used PNC Bank and involved entities related to Capital Grove, including Westbrook Housing Development, LLC, appearing as Co-Developer. All such PNC Letters of Credit failed for the same reasons. Mr. Reecy and the Review Committee found that the Letters of Credit from PNC Bank (including that submitted by Capital Grove) did not meet the facial requirements of the RFA, in that the Letters of Credit were not in the name of the applicant. The General Partner of the applicant, Capital Grove Limited Partnership, is Capital Grove GP, LLC. The Co-Developer entities are JPM Development, LLC, and Westbrook Housing Development, LLC. Co-Developer Westbrook Housing Development, LLC, a Michigan Company authorized to conduct business within the State of Florida, is a different legal entity from Co-Developer JPM Development, LLC. Mr. Reecy and the Review Committee also found the PNC Letters of Credit (including that submitted by Capital Grove) nonresponsive to the specification of the RFA because the Letters included a condition requiring Florida Housing, in order to draw on the Letter of Credit, to certify that the Co- Developer (and not the applicant) had “failed to comply under the project name: Highland Grove Senior Apartments.” However, under the RFA specifications, the action that is the basis for the presentment of the Letter of Credit is a withdrawal of the application by the applicant, not the developer. Only an applicant may withdraw an application. If the Letter of Credit cannot be drawn upon, the RFA provides that the applicant, “shall be responsible for the payment of the $25,000 to the Corporation; payment shall be due from the applicant to the Corporation within 10 calendar days following written notice from the Corporation.” Applicant Capital Grove is a single-purpose entity that has no assets. In order to collect on the Letter of Credit submitted by Capital Grove, Florida Housing would have to submit a different certification than that called for under the RFA sample letter of credit. According to Kathleen Spiers, Vice President of PNC Bank, to draw down the Letter of Credit, Florida Housing would have to copy the statement outlined in paragraph 2 of the Capital Grove Letter of Credit, sign it, and submit it to PNC to draw upon the letter of credit. At the final hearing, Mr. Reecy testified, “I am not prepared to certify to something that isn’t true. I am not going to certify that the developer didn’t comply by the Applicant withdrawing.” All other Letters of Credit submitted by applicants under this RFA were accepted as responsive. HTG Wellington’s Unit Count HTG Wellington indicated in its application to Florida Housing that its proposed Park at Wellington Development would be 110 multifamily units. In its application for Local Government Support, HTG Wellington described the Development as a 120-unit, multifamily development in five three-story buildings. The RFA requires a minimum $50,000 Local Government Contribution in Pasco County for an applicant to receive the maximum of five points. In order to obtain a Local Government Contribution, tax credit developers must submit an application to Pasco County at least six weeks before the matter is presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Pasco County, in turn, has their underwriter, Neighborhood Lending Partners ("NLP"), organize the applications and create an underwriting package. NLP does not make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for funding. Rather, NLP alerts Pasco County if there is a red flag concerning the Development and scores the applications based upon financial stability of the organization, financing of the project, and the development pro forma. HTG Wellington submitted an application for Local Government Contribution to Pasco County in November 2014. The application contemplated a 120-unit development. Impact fees schedules are adopted by the Pasco County Board of Commissioners. Pasco County has established an impact fee rate for affordable and non-affordable development and the difference between the two is multiplied by the number of units to determine the impact fee amount. The impact fee waiver amount approved for Park at Wellington Apartments was $219,600. This amount was calculated based upon 120 units contemplated in November 2014, multiplied by $1830.00, which is the difference between the normal impact fee rate, minus the rate for affordable housing development. The $219,600 figure was used in HTG Wellington’s application. At 110 units (as opposed to 120 units), the total Local Government Contribution available to HTG Wellington is $201,300. Either amount ($219,600 or $201,300) meets the minimum for HTG Wellington to receive five points for its Local Government Contribution. The change in the contribution amount would have no effect on the scoring of the HTG Wellington application. Pasco County’s Manager of Community Development and Officer of Community Development, George Romagnoli, testified that for approximately 15 years, Pasco County has employed a strategy to approve all applications for Local Government Contribution and then let Florida Housing choose which Development will receive tax credits. Pasco County is not concerned about the ultimate accuracy of the number of units submitted for a Contribution –- as stated by Mr. Romagnoli: "We funded 84, 120, whatever. It's really not material to the approval one way or the other." Although Florida Housing approved HTG Wellington’s application before discovering the discrepancy, had Florida Housing discovered the discrepancy in the number of units during the scoring process, the discrepancy would have been deemed a minor irregularity unless the discrepancy resulted in a change in scoring or otherwise rendered the application nonresponsive as to some material requirement and the discrepancy would generally be handled with a simple adjustment to the amount presented on the application Pro Forma, if necessary. Additionally, changes to the number of units in a development may be increased (but not decreased) under certain circumstances during the credit underwriting process which follows the competitive solicitation process. The discrepancy in the number of units does not provide any competitive advantage to HTG Wellington. The discrepancy in the number of units does not provide a benefit to HTG Wellington not enjoyed by others. Florida Housing’s waiver of the discrepancy in the number of units does not adversely impact the interests of the public. HTG Wellington’s Bus Stop The RFA allows an applicant to obtain 18 proximity points, including six points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Florida Housing awarded HTG Wellington 4.5 proximity points for its purported Public Bus Transfer Stop. The RFA defines a Public Bus Transfer Stop as: This service may be selected by all Applicants, regardless of the Demographic Commitment selected at question 2 of Exhibit For purposes of proximity points, a Public Bus Transfer Stop means fixed location at which passengers may access at least three routes of public transportation via buses. Each qualifying route must have a scheduled stop at the Public Bus Transfer Stop at least hourly during the times of 7 am to 9 am and also during the times of 4 pm to 6 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays on a year-round basis. This would include both bus stations (i.e. hub) and bus stop with multiple routes. Bus routes must be established or approved by a Local Government department that manages public transportation. Buses that travel between states will not be considered. In response to this requirement HTG Wellington submitted a Surveyor Certification Form which lists coordinates submitted to qualify for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. The site identified by HTG Wellington as a Public Bus Transfer Stop, however, is not a fixed location where passengers may access at least three routes of public transportation. While another bus stop which serves an additional two routes is within 700 feet, stops cannot be combined for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, the site designated as a Public Bus Transfer Stop by HTG Wellington is not a “fixed location” for purposes of the RFA and HTG Wellington is not entitled to obtain proximity points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Not including the 4.5 proximity points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop, HTG was awarded 11.5 total proximity points for selected Community Services. The required minimum total of proximity points for developments located in a medium county that must be achieved in order to be eligible to receive the maximum amount of 18 points as set forth in the RFA is 9. HTG had more than the required minimum total of proximity points to receive the maximum award of 18 proximity points based on its Community Services score alone. The disqualification of HTG’s submitted Public Bus Transfer Stop would have no effect on the scoring or ranking of the HTG Wellington application, nor affect its ranking relative to any other application, nor affect the ultimate funding selection. The RFA requires each applicant to read and sign at Attachment A, an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form (the Form). The signing of the Form is mandatory. Page 5, Paragraph 8 of the Form provides: In eliciting information from third parties required by and/or included in this Application, the Applicant has provided such parties information that accurately describes the Development as proposed in this Application. The Applicant has reviewed the third party information included in this Application and/or provided during the credit underwriting process and the information provided by any such party is based upon, and accurate with respect to, the Development as proposed in this Application. Even though there was a discrepancy in the unit numbers submitted to Pasco County for a Local Government Contribution and its application submitted in response to the RFA, HTG signed the Form. No evidence was submitted indicating that HTG signed the Form with knowledge of the discrepancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: Rejecting Capital Grove’s application as nonresponsive and denying the relief requested in its Petition; Concluding that Capital Grove lacks standing to bring allegations against HTG Wellington; and, Upholding Florida Housing’s scoring and ranking of the HTG Wellington application. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2015.
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 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 Whether, on the basis of her handicap, Respondent discriminated against Petitioner as alleged in Petitioner’s Housing Discrimination Complaint, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“FFHA”).
Findings Of Fact HABC is a PHA that administers vouchers used in Brevard County, Florida, as part of the HCV Program. Petitioner, Karenlee Krason, began receiving an HCV Program voucher ("voucher") in 2009. In 2019, she rented a two-bedroom house at 407 Ward Road Southwest, Melbourne, Florida, 32980 ("Ward Unit"). HABC granted a reasonable accommodation to Petitioner by approving a second bedroom for her oxygen equipment. On July 30, 2019, Petitioner's landlord notified her in writing that her lease would not be renewed for the Ward Unit. Ms. Alysha Connor, a Section 8 Technician at the HABC, scheduled a relocation appointment on October 9, 2019, to assess Petitioner's plan for finding new housing. HABC issued Petitioner a voucher authorizing her to find new housing within 60 days. HABC is not responsible for finding suitable housing for voucher recipients. However, HABC repeatedly attempted to assist Petitioner in finding a new place to reside. Petitioner notified HABC that she found a place to rent at Las Palmas Apartments, located at 1915 Agora Circle, Unit 101, Palm Bay, Florida 32909 (“Agora Circle Unit"). In an e-mail dated November 5, 2019, Petitioner requested that her voucher include reimbursement for expenses relating to her certified service animal. A Request for Tenancy Approval was submitted for the Agora Circle Unit for a potential move-in date of December 1, 2019. All rental units must meet minimum standards of health and safety and pass a Housing Quality Standard (“HQS”) inspection, as determined by HABC in cooperation with HUD. The Agora Circle Unit failed an inspection conducted by HABC on November 18, 2019. HABC identified the conditions/items needing to be addressed in order to pass inspection. In the meantime, HABC obtained an extension on Petitioner's Ward Unit lease with her landlord. The lease would not expire until December 31, 2019. An additional inspection of the Agora Circle Unit was performed on November 27, 2019, at which time the Agora Circle Unit passed HABC's re- inspection. However, Petitioner communicated to HABC that she no longer wanted to rent the Agora Circle Unit. Petitioner now expressed a desire to rent a unit at 409 Mercury Avenue Southeast, Unit 103, Palm Bay, Florida ("Mercury Unit"). The Mercury Unit passed HABC's inspection on December 11, 2019. However, issues arose with Petitioner refusing to submit an application for her daughter's background check. HABC had offered to pay the required application fee, but the landlord revoked Petitioner's application approval because she failed to comply with the landlord's request for the background check. By this time, Petitioner's lease extension for the Ward Unit had expired, as of December 31, 2019. However, Petitioner was still residing in the unit. On January 9, 2020, HABC attempted to obtain another extension on Petitioner's lease, but the landlord refused the request. Nonetheless Petitioner continued to live in the Ward Unit as she searched for alternative housing. On February 3, 2020, Petitioner's realtor, Bruce Reilly, contacted HABC regarding a unit located at 1642 Lizette Street Southeast, Palm Bay, Florida ("Lizette Unit"). Mr. Reilly inquired whether Petitioner could afford the unit. HABC provided Mr. Reilly its calculations on what Petitioner could qualify for. There were no further communications from Mr. Reilly. During this time, Petitioner's landlord at the Ward Unit provided her with notice to vacate the unit by February 29, 2020. Furthermore, the landlord communicated to HABC that he would no longer accept rent from HABC for the following month. Two days before her deadline to vacate the Ward Unit, Petitioner sent an email to HABC advising that she had located a unit at 3025 Thrush Drive, Unit 101, Melbourne, Florida (''Thrush Unit"). Petitioner advised HABC that the property needed to be inspected the following day. The Request for Tenancy Approval ('"RFTA") packet submitted by Petitioner for the Thrush Unit was incomplete. Although HABC was closed for business on Friday, February 28, 2020, HABC made arrangements for one of its employees to inspect the Thrush Unit that day. In addition, HABC's CEO, Michael Bean, accelerated the process to allow Petitioner to relocate to the Thrush Unit immediately so she would not become homeless. Later that day, Petitioner notified HABC that the Thrush Unit had been rented to another individual. Throughout the relocation process, Petitioner was granted numerous extensions on her voucher. At the end of each year, HABC conducts a mandatory review of the financial information provided by Section 8 voucher recipients through the Enterprise Income Verification (“EIV”) system. EIV provides a comprehensive online system for the determination and verification of various resident information and income that PHAs use to determine rental subsidies. On or about January 2020, EIV reported that Petitioner's daughter was working at Cumberland Farms. Petitioner had failed to disclose this fact. Upon contacting Petitioner to discuss this omission, Petitioner continued to assert that her daughter was not employed. HABC proceeded to investigate this matter further. Throughout its investigation, HABC retrieved employment records from Cumberland Farms. This documentation confirmed that Petitioner’s daughter indeed worked at Cumberland Farms. Moreover, Florida Power and Light billing records disclosed that Petitioner’s daughter no longer resided at the residence occupied by Petitioner. In light of the above revelations, HABC began the process of terminating Petitioner's voucher because she had violated HABC's policies and regulations. Specifically, Petitioner violated HABC’s policy by failing to disclose additional household income and by failing to disclose that her daughter was no longer living at the Ward Unit. On February 3, 2020, HABC emailed Petitioner, outlining its findings, and notifying her that HABC would be terminating her voucher effective March 31, 2020. HABC informed her she had the option to request a hearing before termination. Petitioner elected to have an informal hearing to contest her termination from the program. The informal hearing was held on February 14, 2020. Petitioner appeared by telephone. At the hearing, Petitioner was combative and refused to answer questions posed by Hearing Officer G. Phillip J. Zies. She abruptly ended the telephone call before the conclusion of the hearing. At the hearing, HABC recommended the Hearing Officer not terminate Petitioner's voucher. On the same day as the hearing, the Hearing Officer decided to make Petitioner's status "conditionally eligible" subject to her making arrangements with HABC to stay in the HCV Program within seven (7) days of the hearing. On February 19, 2020, HABC reached out to Petitioner via email providing a list of documents she needed to complete, including: A Retroactive Payment Plan; Nicole Krason’s tax returns from 2017, 2018, and 2019 tax years; Copies of updated driver's licenses from Petitioner and Nicole Krason; and An Updated Lease Agreement from Nicole Krason. As of October 9, 2020, the date of Ms. Disco’s affidavit, Petitioner has failed to provide any of the documents requested above. Notwithstanding Petitioner’s failure to comply with HABC's documentation requests, HABC has extended Petitioner's voucher until December 31, 2020. Petitioner’s voucher originally expired on November 30, 2019, but has been extended through December 31, 2020. During the period of the extension, Petitioner was required to complete her annual recertification in order to remain eligible under the HCV Program. HUD mandates HABC must conduct an annual re-examination of a participant's eligibility for the HCV Program. The purpose of the annual re-examination is to establish that every family's eligibility for assistance is based on their income, as determined in accordance with program rules. During the annual recertification process, Petitioner requested that her daughter be deemed a “live-in aid” so that her daughter's income would not count towards the household income. However, Petitioner declined to continue with this process because she wanted the voucher to transfer to her daughter. According to HUD guidelines, Petitioner's daughter would not qualify as a live-in aide, eligible for rental assistance or occupancy in a subsidized unit, because her daughter had lived as an "other household adult" between 2008 and 2019. HABC's administrative plan does not allow prior, or current, household adults to be live-in aides. Participants must provide information requested by HABC because changes in income or family composition can affect the amount of assistance a tenant is eligible to receive. Those who fail to cooperate in providing such information can have their voucher terminated. On or about July 30, 2020, HABC sent Petitioner an annual recertification packet in order for her to complete the annual recertification process. This packet needed to be completed by September 1, 2020. On September 17, 2020, HABC sent a letter to Petitioner advising her she had not completed the annual recertification packet and that she would need to complete the packet in order to remain eligible under the HCV Program. On September 23, 2020, Petitioner returned the packet, but it was incomplete. Specifically, Petitioner did not provide proper documentation for her out-of-pocket medical expenses. HABC requested the proper documentation be submitted to complete the annual recertification process. Petitioner did provide HABC with a letter from Health First Alliance Group confirming her continued need for medical equipment. Independent of the proceedings before FCHR, HUD also investigated the handling of Petitioner's case by HABC. The scope of HUD’s investigation was to determine whether HABC discriminated against Petitioner in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and its implementing regulations found at 24 CFR, Part 8. Section 504 provides that no otherwise qualified individual with disabilities shall, solely on the basis of disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity that receives federal financial assistance from HUD. HUD’s investigation led to a finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that an unlawful discriminatory housing practice had occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 24th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) LaShawnda K. Jackson, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. Suite 1400 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) KarenLee Krason c/o General Delivery Melbourne, Florida 32901 (eServed) Francis Sheppard, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. Suite 1400 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Michael D. Begey, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. Suite 1400 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Sarasota Housing Authority (the Housing Authority), discriminated against Petitioner, Patricia Myers (Ms. Myers), based on her medical disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (the Act), and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Myers testified she began her participation in the Sarasota community with the Sarasota Office of Housing and Community Development (development program) approximately 14 and one-half years ago, because she was unable to join the Housing Authority, when she was living in Venice. Further she testified she has multiple health issues. Based on an October 1, 2010, merger of the development program and the Housing Authority, Ms. Myers's participation in the Section 8 program came under the authority of the Housing Authority. The Housing Authority is a public housing authority that administers the Section 8 program, within Sarasota County, Florida. The Section 8 program is to assist low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford safe and sanitary housing in the private market. The Housing Authority is a municipal public housing authority, operated pursuant to chapter 421, Florida Statutes. Under the Section 8 program, the Housing Authority uses funds, supplied by HUD, to pay a percentage of the monthly expenses for its participants, within guidelines that have been established. Mr. Howard, a former director within HUD for the disabled community, testified that, when he was employed at HUD, and his office was contacted by Ms. Myers, he simply picked up the telephone and communicated with the appropriate housing authority, and the problems were resolved. However, Mr. Howard retired from HUD in 2007. Further he testified that he had not reviewed Ms. Myers's file with the Housing Authority, nor had he reviewed the Section 8 program guidebook or the Housing Authority's administrative plan. Mr. Howard did testify that the Housing Authority granted Ms. Myers's reasonable accommodation with respect to her annual or recertification housing inspection, in that the housing authority allowed Ms. Myers to have a telephone inspection of her rental unit.3/ Although Mr. Howard testified that he thought the Housing Authority failed when it did not allow all of Ms. Myers's medical expenses, he acknowledged that he lacked specific knowledge regarding Ms. Myers's case and the Housing Authority's programs and procedures. As such, Mr. Howard's testimony is not credible with respect to the specifics of Ms. Myers's case presentation. Mr. Howard further testified that he did not know how the Housing Authority arrived at the disallowance of Ms. Myers's medical deduction, yet he professed a superior judgment to the Housing Authority or the current Miami HUD field office. This position makes his testimony less than forthright. With the merger of the two programs (development program and the Housing Authority) on October 1, 2010, Ms. Myers was one of approximately 425 family units affected by the merger. Additionally, she was one of eight family units who were found to actually live in another county, yet be serviced by the Housing Authority. Since the Housing Authority took over, participation requirements are different from the development program, and all the participants were notified that their benefits would be reviewed at their recertification time. Ms. Myers testified that she received a letter from the Housing Authority stating why there was a change in her assistance payments. Ms. Myers testified that she has been paid approximately $2,000 of her requested $5,000 medical expenses. She believes she should be reimbursed for it all because she has medical sensitivities which are a lot different than other people's issues. Ms. Myers did testify she was not totally denied her medical reimbursement. Ms. Hoffman, the director of the Section 8 program, confirmed that the development program and the Housing Authority merged on October 1, 2010. At the time of the merger, the Housing Authority had created an operational document that related to how it would determine payments or benefits to all its clients, including the 425 new families. Ms. Hoffman confirmed that the development program participants were allowed to maintain those program benefits until they reached their individual recertification cycle. She testified that, when each participant came up for renewal, the Housing Authority had to review their benefits, including a review of all their income, assets, medical expenses, bank statements and related expenses. The Housing Authority has an administrative plan, a guidebook as to how it handles participants. This administrative plan is approved by the Board of Commissioners. Ms. Hoffman was involved in Ms. Myers’s recertification, in that she reviewed the documentation and determined what was approvable and what was not approvable. At first, there were several items that were not approved, such as non-VOC paints and an air purifier. However, after discussions with the Miami HUD field office, the Housing Authority agreed to give Ms. Myers the non-VOC paints and an air purifier with filters as a one-time expense. The Housing Authority utilized the approved calculation method to determine what prescriptions or non- prescription items could be paid. Although the Housing Authority initially denied all of Ms. Myers's requested supplemental assistance purchases, upon additional review, it determined to provide her a 25 percent credit for those purchases. The Housing Authority determined that all people on the program must have food; however, because she does pay more for organic foods, an allowance was made. The Housing Authority simply applied the approved financial formula to Ms. Myers's submitted financial documents to reach the 25 percent credit for her items. The Housing Authority did not engage in any discriminatory practice to reach this determination. On March 24, 2011, the Housing Authority notified Ms. Myers of its determination to grant her the reasonable accommodation with respect to the annual recertification of her rental unit inspection as well as the basis for the 25 percent allowance for items such as food, water, clothing, and bedding. Ms. Hoffman credibly testified that the HUD field office was fully aware of the Housing Authority's decision and direction with this matter. Although not listed in her July 1, 2011, Petition filed with the FCHR, Ms. Myers was reasonably accommodated by the Housing Authority with respect to her housing recertification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Patricia Myers in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2011.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) employed an unadopted rule when it used rounding on a competing application to place Petitioner’s application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“HC” or “Tax Credits”) in the 2004 Universal Application Cycle in the “B” leveraging tie-breaker group, and if so, whether Florida Housing complied with the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, when it employed rounding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership. Reliance- Andrews, LLC, the sole general partner of Petitioner, is a non- profit entity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(81). Petitioner’s address is 516 Northeast 13th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304. The affected agency is the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”), 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized under Part V, Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing and refinancing houses and related facilities in Florida in order to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to persons and families of low, moderate, and middle income. Petitioner filed an application, number 2004-102C, with Florida Housing for tax credits under the Housing Credit (“HC”) program for a proposed development in Broward County, Florida, known as Flagler Point. Under the HC program, successful applicants receive a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal tax liability in exchange for the development of units to be occupied by low-income households. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for the State of Florida and is authorized to establish procedures necessary for the allocation of Tax Credits under Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing scores and ranks applications for the HC program pursuant to the Universal Application Package Instructions ("Application Instructions") which are adopted as rules pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(111). The applicants for housing credits are sophisticated, and the application process is highly competitive. Most applicants achieve a perfect score on applications, so Florida Housing has created a series of “tiebreakers” to determine which projects receive allocations of tax credits. These include “leveraging,” (the amount of requested funding over the number of set-aside units), proximity to services, proximity of other Florida Housing developments, and, finally, a lottery. Petitioner and numerous other applicants for the HC program received the maximum score on the application, 66 points. Florida Housing then ranked the applications that received perfect scores to determine priority for funding according to certain Ranking and Selection Criteria as outlined in the Application Instructions. Part of the Ranking Selection Criteria process includes "tie-breakers" as enumerated in the Application Instructions. The first of the applicable tie-breakers separates the applications into groups A and B based upon a formula used by Florida Housing to determine funding request per set-aside unit. Group A is comprised of the 80 percent of applications with the lowest amount of total funding request per set-aside unit. The 20 percent of applications with the highest per unit request amount are placed in Group B. Applications in Group A receive preference over Group B. The A/B leveraging tiebreaker alone does not determine who gets funded. Some leveraging Group B projects are funded. The total number of set-aside units for each Application is computed by multiplying the total number of units within the proposed development by the highest total set- aside percentage the applicant committed to in the Set-Aside Commitment section of the Application. Florida Housing rounded up the total set-aside units on application 2004-084C from 182.7 (the product of the total number of units (203) and the highest total set aside percentage (90%)) to 183. Rounding this figure produces a lower per unit funding request amount for application 2004-084C ($51,857.95 instead of $51,943.10). Petitioner's per unit funding request is $51,882.28, which would be lower than application number 2004-084C if the total set-aside unit figure was not rounded. Petitioner's application was placed in Group B instead of Group A. On May 7, 2004, Petitioner filed a Notice of Possible Scoring Error ("NOPSE") requesting correction of the set-aside unit rounding, which Petitioner contended was in error. Respondent did not adopt Petitioner’s NOPSE, and on May 28, 2004, issued its scoring summary for application number 2004- 084C indicating a per unit Florida Housing funding request of $51,857.95. On July 9, 2004, Respondent issued the 2004 Final Score Corporation Funding Per Set-Aside for A and B Groups indicating that Petitioner had been placed in Leveraging Group B. Florida Housing has used rounding to determine the number of set-aside units in the same manner each year from the 2002 Universal Application Cycle through the 2004 Universal Application Cycle. Applicants are encouraged to, and more often than not do, set aside 100 percent of the units for low or very low income tenants. As most applicants for Tax Credits do just that, rounding is not often an issue. The number of set-aside units represents a commitment the developer makes in return for funding, and the number in the application is the number of set aside units the developer must provide, and is used to determine whether the development is in compliance with its commitment to Florida Housing, and to the Internal Revenue Service. As a practical matter, the number of set-aside units cannot be a fraction of a unit. Rounding up to the next whole number is the only option, because if the unit number is rounded down, the percentage of set-aside units would be below the set- aside commitment, the IRS would deem that the property had not met its set-aside commitment, and the investors would not receive their tax credits. Florida Housing revises its Universal Cycle Application and Instructions through the rulemaking process each year, in response to stakeholder input, in reaction to litigation, and to clarify issues which arise during the year. During the rulemaking process, there is considerable dialogue between developers and Florida Housing. Public hearings (rule development workshops) are noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly, with the agendas being posted on Florida Housing’s website and also made available for distribution at the public hearings. The affordable housing development community is small and its members pay close attention to Florida Housing’s application process, which is intensely competitive. Petitioner is an experienced developer, and has previously received funding from Florida Housing. Petitioner is a member of a coalition of affordable housing developers, which meets before the rule development workshops to discuss the agenda, and to attempt to reach consensus on agenda issues. Petitioner is part of the development community, which normally participates in the rule development process, and Petitioner has been an active participant in the 2005 rule development process. An active member of the affordable housing developer’s coalition, and a veteran participant in the Florida Housing application and funding process, would have been aware of Florida Housing’s use of rounding to determine the number of set-aside units to which each applicant committed. The rounding issue that is at the heart of this proceeding has been addressed by Florida Housing in its proposed rule amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002 for the 2005 Universal Application Cycle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the petition and denying all relief sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 November, 2004.
The Issue Whether the intended decision of Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Respondent/Florida Housing) to fund the application of West River Phase 2, LP (West River/Intervenor), based on the scoring of its application, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Intervenor is a Florida limited partnership based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Respondent is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. This has the effect of reducing the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150, while a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. Florida Housing allocates housing tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation as authorized by section 420.507(48). Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA at issue here is 2016-113, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. The RFA was issued on October 28, 2016, a modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 30, 2016. A challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA by parties not associated with the instant case, but that challenge was ultimately unsuccessful. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,669,052 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments. A review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviews and scores each application. These scores are presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation is presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (Board) for final agency action. On May 5, 2017, Petitioner and all other participants in RFA 2016-113 received notice that the Board had determined which applications were eligible for consideration for funding and that certain applications were selected for awards of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” and “ineligible” applications and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven developments, including Intervenor. Petitioner’s application was deemed eligible and scored the maximum number of points, but it was not selected for funding due to having a higher lottery number than Intervenor. If Intervenor’s application had been deemed ineligible, Petitioner’s would have been selected for funding. In this proceeding, Petitioner alleges that Intervenor’s application is ineligible for two reasons. First, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to include all “principals” for its designated developer entity as required by the RFA. Next, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish that its designated developer entity, and specifically the identified “principal” of the developer entity, had the requisite developer experience required by the RFA. Disclosure of the Principals of the Developer The RFA at section Four (A)(3)(d) requires the disclosure of information as follows: Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer. The Application must include a properly completed Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 08- 16) (“Principals Disclosure Form”) that was uploaded as outlined in Section Three above. The Principals Disclosure form must identify the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline and must include, for each applicable organizational structure, ONLY the types of Principals required by subsection 67-48.002(93), F.A.C. A Principals Disclosure Form that includes, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals, will not be accepted by the Corporation to meet the Mandatory requirement to provide the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form. The term “principal” is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93)(b) with respect to a developer, and provides as follows when the developer entity is a limited liability company: A limited liability company, at the first principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company, and, with respect to any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company that is: A corporation, at the second principal disclosure level, any officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, A limited partnership, at the second principal disclosure level, any general partner or limited partner of the limited partnership, or A limited liability company, at the second principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the limited liability company. Florida Housing offers a pre-approval of the principals disclosure form to all potential applicants. The pre-approval process verifies that the disclosure form has been completed properly as to form. However, its purpose is not to determine the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant. Intervenor utilized the pre-approval process and its principal disclosure forms were pre-approved. In response to this RFA and rule requirement, Intervenor identified WRDG Boulevard, LLC, as its developer. On the principal disclosure form included within its application, Intervenor further identified Banc of America Community Development Corporation (BOACDC) as the “managing member” and the Housing Authority of the City of Tampa as “member” of WRDG Boulevard, LLC. The principal disclosure form submitted by Intervenor for its developer entity lists approximately 62 individuals that are principals of BOACDC and identifies them as officers, directors, and shareholders. However, two officers who met the definition of principal were omitted from Intervenor’s principals disclosure form for the developer entity. The evidence establishes that the annual report filed by BOACDC with the Florida Secretary of State’s office on March 31, 2016, lists four officers and directors for BOACDC. The listed officers and directors include Mr. Jason Pritchard as senior vice president and Mr. Nathan Barth as secretary. Neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on the principals disclosure form submitted to Florida Housing by Intervenor. Intervenor concedes that the principals disclosure form is missing these two principals, but asserts that neither Mr. Barth nor Mr. Pritchard had actual authority to bind BOACDC or had any direct involvement with the proposed project. Intervenor further points out that neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on Respondent’s past due report dated April 5, 2017, which was the most recently published past due report prior to the RFA review committee meeting on April 25, 2017. Intervenor also asserts that there is no specific language in the RFA that prohibits waiving this admitted deviation. Accordingly, Intervenor alleges that the failure to include these two principals should be waived as a minor irregularity. The RFA requires that principals be listed and does not include qualifiers or exemptions to these requirements in instances where the omitted principal is either not on the latest arrears list or does not have the authority to bind the designated entity. Mr. Reecy testified that while Respondent has waived other failures to submit certain information, it did so only when the missing information could be found elsewhere in the application. In the present case, there is no other place in the application where a list of the principals of the developer could be found. The evidence establishes that the accurate and complete disclosure of principals is important in the RFA process for several reasons. First, Respondent uses the disclosure of principals to determine if any individuals associated with a proposed development are in arrears or indebted to Florida Housing in connection with other developments previously funded by Florida Housing. A Florida Housing staff member, during the review process, checks each principal listed for arrearages and reports back to the review committee accordingly. Second, Respondent uses the information to determine if any principal associated with a proposed development is ineligible to participate in any Florida Housing program due to prior illegal acts or misconduct. Mr. Reecy testified as to several recent instances where individuals have been subject to “timeouts” due to misrepresentations made to Florida Housing. Mr. Reecy credibly testified that Florida Housing must know who it is dealing with for each applicant and developer entity, and that to not know this information would harm the basic structure of the RFA application process, which resultantly would adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing and the public. Developer Experience Chart Section Four, 4(a)(3) of the RFA provides, in part, as follows: General Development experience (5 Points): To be eligible to be awarded 5 points for General Development Experience, the Prior General Development Experience chart must meet the requirements of (a) below. At least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Development Experience requirements in (i) and (ii) below. General Development Experience: A Principal, which must be a natural person, of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1996, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2006. If the experience of a natural person Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the natural person Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity as the term Principal was defined by the Corporation at that time. Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each natural person Principal intending to meet the minimum general development experience reflecting the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. The RFA requires that at least one principal of the designated developer entity have completed at least three affordable rental housing developments since January 1996. If the designated principal is using experience from a previous developer entity, the named principal must have been a principal of that entity as the term principal “was defined by the Corporation at that time.” Intervenor submitted a general development experience chart as part of its application in accordance with the RFA. This chart listed Eileen M. Pope as its principal with the required developer experience, and specified three developments for which Ms. Pope was identified as a principal of the developer. Based upon this chart, Intervenor was awarded five points by the scoring review committee. One of these developments was First Ward Place Phase I, which was listed as being completed in 1998. In 1998, Ms. Pope was employed as a regional property manager for the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA). She was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the CHA. The RFA in this case requires an applicant to state the name of each developer, including all co-developers. It is thus relatively easy for applications submitted to Florida Housing in 2017 to determine whether or not a particular entity is considered a “co-developer” of a project. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to make this determination with respect to developers of projects located in North Carolina in 1998. There is no evidence directly identifying CHA as a “co-developer” of First Ward Place Phase I. However, Ms. Pope identified it as such, and there is evidence in the record that the CHA was in partnership with NationsBank Community Development Corporation (NBCDC), and that NBCDC was the developer of the project. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the CHA should not be considered a co-developer of First Ward Place Phase I. Whether Ms. Pope should be considered a principal of a co-developer, however, is another matter. The evidence is uncontroverted that she was employed by the CHA as a regional property manager. The CHA was governed by a board of directors along with several officers (president, CEO, CFO), any of whom would have been considered a principal of the CHA. Ms. Pope was not a director, officer, or shareholder of the CHA; for the First Ward Place Phase I project, she “worked on the development team middle-to-back-end piece.” She considered herself a member of the “senior management” of the CHA and part of the “development team.” She testified that the CHA was, to some extent, a regulatory agency, and that part of her job was to oversee compliance issues and to track how certain funds were being spent. She testified that it was her understanding that a “principal” was “a person in authority” and, thus, she considered herself to be a “principal.” However, she also testified that she did not claim to be a principal: I disagree with your first part of the comment in that you said that I said I was a principal of the housing authority. I didn’t say I was a principal. I said there were no principals, and I was asked if I viewed myself as a principal, and I said I don’t understand what the definition of the principal would be, that a principal is somebody in authority. So, if you’re asking me that, yes, I would have viewed myself as a principal. I never claimed to be a principal of the housing authority. (Jt. Ex. 8, pg. 53) Mr. Reecy testified that Ms. Pope was “an employee, but not a principal in any way that Florida Housing has ever defined principal in any regard.” Mr. Reecy also testified that Florida Housing had never considered a person other than an officer, director, shareholder, or managing member to be a principal of either an applicant or a developer. In fact, Mr. Reecy compared Ms. Pope’s position with the CHA to his own position with Florida Housing, in that both had a high level of responsibility, and both were integral to the operation of the entity, but that neither could be considered a principal. As noted above, the RFA requires that in order to gain points for developer experience, the natural person principal must have also been a principal of that previous developer entity as the term principal was defined by the Florida Housing “at that time.” There is no dispute that Respondent’s rules in effect in 1998 did not explicitly define a principal of a developer. Both Florida Administrative Code Rules 9I-48.002(69) and 67-48.002(77) defined “principal” to include only officers, directors, shareholders or general partners, but these rules specifically applied only to applicants. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that it has been Respondent’s position and practice that a principal did not include all employees of an applicant or developer, even those in positions of authority, but instead, included only the officers, directors, shareholders, or general partners of an applicant or developer. The greater weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Pope had some degree of experience. As Mr. Reecy indicated, however, simply having experience is only part of the equation; Ms. Pope must also have been a principal. There is no evidence establishing that Ms. Pope was an officer, director, or shareholder of either NBCDC or the CHA in conjunction with the First Ward Place Phase I development. It is, therefore, found that Ms. Pope was not a principal of either entity, and the award to Intervenor of five points for its developer experience was clearly erroneous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Florida Housing’s initial scoring decision regarding the West River application was erroneous, concluding that the West River application is ineligible for funding, and awarding funding to Blue Broadway. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 August, 2017.
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 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 issue in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation's, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2020-203 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in the state of Florida. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the state of Florida. Arthur Mays is a properly registered business entity in Florida and engaged in the business of providing affordable housing. Arthur Mays 2 On February 15, 2021, Florida Housing referred two other protests to RFA 2020-203 to DOAH, including DOAH Case Nos. 21-0611 and 21-0612. Florida Housing moved to consolidate all cases pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.108, which was granted. As part of the Order of Consolidation, MHP, who was Petitioner in Case No. 21-0612, was joined as a Respondent in Case No. 21-0610. MHP subsequently moved to dismiss its separate, independent action in Case No. 21-0612, and continue as a party in Case No. 21-0610. Thereafter, Petitioner in Case No. 21-0611 (Hibiscus Grove, LP) voluntarily moved to dismiss its case, and the motion was granted. submitted an application to RFA 2020-203 seeking funding to help finance its housing redevelopment project in Miami-Dade County known as Arthur Mays Senior Villas. Arthur Mays' application was deemed eligible for, but was not selected for an award of, housing credits under RFA 2020-203. Florida Housing has been designated as the housing credit agency for the state of Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low-income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of those credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. Florida Housing's low-income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as "housing credits" or "tax credits") was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. The affordable housing industry relies heavily on public funding, subsidies, and tax credits to support projects that may not be financially sustainable in light of the sub- market rents they charge. Because tax credits allow developers to reduce the amount necessary to fund a housing project, they can (and must) offer the tax credit property at lower, more affordable rents. As background, Florida Housing uses a competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing credits. Florida Housing initiates the solicitation process by issuing a request for applications ("RFA"). §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5093, Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code Chapters 67- 48 and 67-60. The RFA competitive solicitation process begins when Florida Housing requests its Board of Directors (the "Board") to approve Florida Housing's plan for allocating resources through various RFAs. If the Board approves the plan, Florida Housing begins work on each individual RFA. The RFA at issue in this matter is RFA 2020-203, entitled "Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami- Dade County." The purpose of RFA 2020-203 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing developments in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Through RFA 2020-203, Florida Housing intends to provide an estimated $7,420,440.00 of housing tax financing. Florida Housing's goal under RFA 2020-203 is to fund developments that qualified for the demographic commitment of Family, Elderly, and Urban Center Designation, selecting one Applicant per category. Florida Housing issued RFA 2020-203 on August 26, 2020.3 The RFA set forth the information each Applicant was required to provide. This information included a number of submission requirements, as well as a general description of the type of project that would be considered for funding. Applications were due to Florida Housing by November 17, 2020. Arthur Mays and MHP both timely applied for funding. Florida Housing appointed a Review Committee from amongst its staff to evaluate and score the applications. Florida Housing received 50 applications for housing credits under RFA 2020-203. The Review Committee reviewed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2020-203, as well as Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations.4 The Review Committee found 46 applications eligible for funding. Thereafter, through the ranking and selection process outlined in RFA 2020- 203, the Review Committee recommended three applications to the Board for funding for the Family, Elderly, and Urban Center Designation categories. On January 22, 2021, the Board formally approved the Review Committee recommendations. As part of its determinations, the Board selected MHP's development known as Southpointe Vista for the Urban 3 Florida Housing subsequently modified RFA 2020-203 on September 11, October 12, and November 9, 2020. 4 No protests were made to the specifications or terms of RFA 2020-203. Center Designation funding. The Board awarded $2,882,000 in tax credits to MHP to help finance Southpointe Vista. Arthur Mays protests the Board's selection of MHP's development instead of its own. Arthur Mays, the second ranked Applicant for the Urban Center Designation, challenges Florida Housing's determination of the eligibility of, and award to, MHP. If Arthur Mays successfully demonstrates that Florida Housing erred in accepting, then scoring, MHP's application, or the evidence demonstrates that MHP's application was ineligible or nonresponsive, then Arthur Mays will be entitled to an award of housing credits instead of MHP.5 Lewis Swezy testified on behalf of Arthur Mays. Mr. Swezy is a developer in South Florida and has vast experience developing major real estate developments in Miami-Dade County. Mr. Swezy also represented that he has significant experience with housing credit procurements having submitted well over 100 applications in response to Florida Housing RFAs. Mr. Swezy stated that Florida Housing has awarded him tax credits on approximately 20 occasions. Mr. Swezy raised two objections to MHP's application. Mr. Swezy argued that these two alleged deficiencies render MHP's application ineligible for funding. Therefore, Florida Housing should have disqualified MHP from an award of housing credits under RFA 2020-203. One of MHP's Principal Entities is not Registered to Transact Business in Florida as of the Application Deadline: First, Arthur Mays claims that information MHP included on its Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosures Form causes MHP's application to be ineligible for consideration for housing credits. Arthur Mays specifically complains that one of the Second Level Principals that MHP identifies on its Principal Disclosures for the Applicant form (the "Principal 5 No party alleged that Arthur Mays' application failed to satisfy all eligibility requirements or was otherwise ineligible for funding under RFA 2020-203. Disclosures Form") is a foreign entity not authorized to do business in Florida. Arthur Mays argues that Florida law prohibits a corporate entity who has not obtained a certificate of authority from the Florida Department of State to transact business in Florida from serving as a principal of an Applicant for housing credits. Consequently, Florida Housing acted contrary to Florida statutes by considering MHP's application for housing credits under RFA 2020-203. To set the stage, RFA 2020-203 requires an Applicant for housing credits to produce evidence that it is legally formed in the State of Florida. Specifically, RFA 2020-203 Section Four, A.3.a(2), directs that: 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. Thereafter, RFA 2020-203 Section Four, A.3.c, entitled "Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer," provides: (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. * * * 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 67-48.0075(8) further instructs that: Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, disclosure of the Principals of the Applicant must comply with the following: The Applicant must disclose all of the Principals of the Applicant (first principal disclosure level). * * * The Applicant must disclose all of the Principals of all the entities identified in paragraph (a) above (second principal disclosure level); The Applicant must disclose all of the Principals of all of the entities identified in paragraph (b) above (third principal disclosure level). Unless the entity is a trust, all of the Principals must be natural persons; With its application, MHP submitted a Principals Disclosure Form per RFA 2020-203 Section Four, A.3.c. In the Principal Disclosures for the Applicant portion, in accordance with rule 67-48.0075(8), MHP disclosed three levels of principals. In the First Principal Disclosure Level, MHP listed "MHP FL I Manager, LLC" as both a "Manager" and "Non-Investor Member" of MHP. On the Second Principal Disclosure Level, MHP identified the principals associated with MHP FL I Manager, LLC, to include Archipelago Housing, LLC ("Archipelago"), W. Patrick McDowell 2001 Trust, and Shear Holdings, LLC. On the Third Principal Disclosure Level, MHP named the "natural person" principals of Archipelago as Kenneth P. Lee and Michael C. Lee. Arthur Mays, through Mr. Swezy, argues that Florida law requires all principals, i.e., Archipelago, to be legally formed entities authorized to do business in the State of Florida. At the final hearing, Mr. Swezy represented that Archipelago is legally registered in the State of Delaware. However, as of the application deadline for RFP 2020-203, Archipelago did not have a certificate of authority from the Florida Department of State to operate as a foreign limited liability company in Florida. Consequently, Florida Housing should have disqualified and rejected MHP's application. As legal authority for its position, Arthur Mays asserts that the provisions of chapter 605, Florida Statutes, apply to this procurement. Section 605.0902(1) states: A foreign limited liability company may not transact business in this state until it obtains a certificate of authority from the [Department of State]. From a philosophical standpoint, Mr. Swezy urged that obtaining authority to transact business in Florida is more than a mere ministerial act. A foreign entity that secures the appropriate certification from the Department of State must disclose the identities of all of its directors and officers to the State of Florida. In addition, Mr. Swezy explained that Florida Housing maintains a "bad actors" list of those persons who are disqualified from an award of housing credits, such as: individuals in arrears to Florida Housing, individuals with certain felony convictions, and members of the Florida Housing Board, among others. Because Archipelago did not register with the Department of State, however, Florida Housing has no effective avenue to confirm whether Archipelago's management team (and hence MHP's Third Level Principals) is eligible for an award of housing credits. Consequently, Florida Housing cannot know for certain whether MHP's Principal Disclosures Form is accurate. Florida Housing is also ignorant regarding what persons are actually making business decisions for MHP and/or its principals. Mr. Swezy further asserted that, because MHP was not required to ensure that all its principals (i.e., Archipelago) obtained the necessary certification to transact business in Florida, MHP gained a competitive advantage over other Applicants who fully disclosed all their management team members. MHP garnered an unfair advantage because Florida Housing could more easily verify corporate information on other Applicants' principals who were registered with the State of Florida. MHP's Site Control Documentation Contains a Material Misrepresentation: Second, Mr. Swezy questioned whether MHP's site control documentation complies with RFA 2020-203 requirements. Specifically, Mr. Swezy asserted that MHP made a "material misrepresentation" in its application by artificially increasing the cost of the land it purchased for its development. This maneuver allegedly allowed MHP to request a higher amount of housing credits. Therefore, Mr. Swezy insisted that MHP's improper distortion of the price of its property should render its application ineligible for tax credit funding. See § 420.518(1)(a), Fla. Stat. For the legal authority behind his argument, Mr. Swezy pointed to RFA 2020-203 Section Four, A.7, which required an Applicant to establish control over its development site. Under RFA 2020-203 Section Four, A.7.a, an Applicant demonstrated site control by submitting documentation showing "that it is a party to an eligible contract or lease, or is the owner of the subject property." MHP, to demonstrate evidence of its site control, included in its application an Agreement, dated November 15, 2020, wherein MHP agreed to buy certain real property from McDowell Acquisitions, LLC ("McDowell"), for a purchase price of $7,000,000. As revealed in an "Underlying Contract" dated October 22, 2020, McDowell acquired the property from Cutler Ridge Investment Group, LLC ("Cutler Ridge"), also for the amount of $7,000,000. The property McDowell bought from Cutler Ridge consists of a two- acre parcel of land that was divided into two separate lots. However, the subsequent sale between MHP and McDowell, only involved one of the two lots.6 Consequently, Mr. Swezy decried the fact that MHP agreed to pay $7,000,000 for a piece of property that was worth half that amount one month earlier. Compounding this turn of events, MHP, in its application, reported the "Total Land Cost" of its one-acre development (Southpointe Vista) as $7,000,000. Mr. Swezy argued that the two "eligible contracts" evince that MHP misrepresented the value for the land on which it intends to construct Southpointe Vista ($7,000,000 versus $3,500,000). Furthermore, based on this manipulation of the purchase price, Mr. Swezy asserts that MHP will be unjustly enriched by an additional $300,000 in housing credits annually (or over three million dollars in the aggregate) in excess of what it should receive from Florida Housing had MHP reported the true value of the land on which it will locate its development. Mr. Swezy stated that Arthur Mays computed the alleged housing credit overpayment using what he referred to as the "gap calculation" formula. Mr. Swezy explained that MHP sought $2,882,000 in housing credits, which was the maximum amount available under RFA 2020-203. See RFP 2020-203 Section Four, A.10(1)(a). Mr. Swezy contended that the "gap calculation" formula indicates that if MHP recorded the "true" cost of its 6 Mr. Swezy remarked that the other one-acre lot was attached to another application for RFA 2020-203 from MHP MD Senior I, LLLP ("MHP Senior"), which shares some of the same principals with MHP. MHP Senior submitted an application for a project called Southpointe Senior. (The Southpointe Senior application was not selected for funding by Florida Housing.) MHP Senior also reported the total value of its one-acre piece of property as $7,000,000. property ($3,500,000), then MHP would have been awarded only $2,517,380 in housing credits for Southpointe Vista.7 Based on MHP's material misrepresentation, Mr. Swezy argues that Florida Housing should have deemed MHP's application ineligible for funding under RFA 2020-203. Instead, Florida Housing should have awarded housing credits to Arthur Mays as the next eligible Applicant. Otherwise, Florida Housing will be allowing MHP to receive an undeserved financial windfall. Florida Housing, in support of its intended award to MHP, presented the testimony of Marisa Button. Ms. Button is Florida Housing's Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees Florida Housing's RFA process. At the final hearing, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing appropriately deemed MHP's application for Southpointe Vista eligible for funding. Ms. Button agreed with Mr. Swezy that RFA 2020-203 required the Applicant (MHP) to demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity qualified to do business in the State of Florida. (Which MHP did.8) However, she advised that no language in chapter 420, chapter 67-48, or the RFA explicitly requires the Applicant to establish that its principals were also qualified to do business in Florida. Ms. Button specifically pointed to the language of RFA 2020-203 Section Four, A.3.a(2), which only directs the "Applicant" (and the "Developer entity") to be "a legally formed entity … qualified to do business in the state of Florida as of the Application Deadline." See also RFP 2020-203 Section Five, A.1. Conversely, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing has never enacted or imposed a requirement that principals, other than the Applicant 7 As described in his testimony, the gap calculation determines the "gap need" between the total cost of the housing project and the housing credit financing actually needed to make the housing project feasible. 8 MHP filed to operate as a limited liability company with the Florida Department of State on October 9, 2020. itself, must register to transact business in Florida. The only related provision of RFA 2020-203 that applies to principals required that: [t]he Applicant, the Developer and all Principals are in good standing among all other state agencies and have not been prohibited from applying for funding.[9] Since the information in MHP's application reported that Archipelago was legally formed to operate in the State of Delaware, Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing was satisfied that MHP met this condition at the time of the application deadline. Although, Ms. Button conceded that Florida Housing did not independently verify the veracity of MHP's Principal Disclosures Form. Instead, Florida Housing accepted MHP's application as valid on its face (as it did for all Applicants). As Mr. Swezy commented, Ms. Button articulated that the purpose behind the Principal Disclosures Form is to allow Florida Housing the means to survey all names associated with an application to ensure that no principal (or Applicant or Developer) is included on Florida Housing's "bad actors" list. Such entities, which would include companies or individuals who owe arrearages to Florida Housing or have taken part in certain criminal activities, are prohibited from participating in a competitive solicitation for housing credits. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.004(2). Consequently, an Applicant that does not fully disclose or misrepresents its principals may be rendered ineligible for an award through an RFA. Regarding MHP's application, Ms. Button was not aware of any principal identified on MHP's Principal Disclosures Form (particularly Archipelago) who was precluded from participating in RFA 2020-203. To further support her position, Ms. Button relayed that Florida Housing faced a similar situation in the case of Heritage Village Commons, Ltd v. Florida Housing Finance Corporation, FHFC Case No. 2012-013-UC (Fla. FHFC RO May 23, 2012; FO June 8, 2012). In Heritage Village, following an informal hearing under section 120.57(2), Florida Housing ultimately determined that neither the administrative rules (at that time) nor the relevant solicitation specifications required the Developer of an Applicant to be a legally formed entity in the State of Florida. Florida Housing reasoned that, because the governing law did not require the Developer to be a legally formed entity, Florida Housing could not penalize the applicant "for failure to comply with a nonexistent rule." Ms. Button advanced that Heritage Village offers an instructive analysis to apply to the present matter. Ms. Button further commented that Florida Housing believes that Heritage Village creates a precedent that it should follow regarding the legal status of a principal of an RFA Applicant. Regarding the applicability of chapter 605, Ms. Button asserted that chapter 605 does not control Florida Housing's competitive solicitation process. Instead, procurements involving housing credits are governed by the provisions of chapter 420, which do not contain any requirement that an Applicant's principals must be registered to transact business in the state of Florida. Ms. Button maintained that the specific language of section 605.0902(1) does not dictate who may receive housing credits under chapter 420 or chapters 67-48 and 67-60. Neither has Florida Housing incorporated section 605.0902 into the RFA competitive solicitation process. Similarly, Ms. Button stated that the terms of RFA 2020-203 only required MHP as the Applicant, as well as Southpointe Vista's Developer, to be legally formed entities qualified to do business in the state of Florida, not Archipelago, as one of MHP's Second Level Principals. Finally, Ms. Button testified that whether MHP's principals were officially registered to transact business in Florida was not considered during the scoring of RFA 2020-203. Therefore, the fact that Archipelago was 9 See RFA 2020-203, Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form ("Certification and Acknowledgement Form"), para. 13. registered in the State of Delaware, not Florida, did not have any impact on Florida Housing's selection of MHP's application for housing credits. Neither did it somehow give MHP's application a competitive advantage. Accordingly, because Florida Housing's governing statutes, administrative rules, and the RFA 2020-203 specifications did not independently require an Applicant's principals to be registered to transact business in the State of Florida, Ms. Button took the position that MHP's application is eligible for funding, despite Archipelago's legal status in Florida as of the application deadline. Therefore, since MHP disclosed the required information regarding its principals in its application, Ms. Button declared that Florida Housing's decision to award housing credits to MHP did not contravene applicable law. Regarding Arthur Mays' claim that MHP's application should be disqualified for misrepresenting the cost of the land MHP intends to use for its housing site, Ms. Button relayed that the property cost of a development's location has no relation to an Applicant's eligibility for housing credits. Therefore, the fact that MHP allegedly represented that its development property cost twice its actual value is not a "material" representation that would affect Florida Housing's award of tax credits. Ms. Button explained that Florida Housing only reviews the land cost during the credit underwriting phase, which occurs after the competitive solicitation process is completed.10 Consequently, the cost for MHP to obtain the Southpointe Vista property had no bearing on the Review Committee's evaluation of its application for tax credits under RFA 2020-203. Expanding on her testimony, Ms. Button initially expressed that the cost of purchasing land is not an "eligible cost" that Florida Housing considers in determining whether an Applicant qualifies for housing credits. In practice, an Applicant is required to submit with their application information regarding its "Total Land Cost" on a Development Cost Pro Forma form (the "Development Cost Form"). See RFA 2020-203 Section Four, A.10.c, and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.0075(3). The Development Cost Form reports an Applicant's funding "sources/uses." In layman's terms, to provide Florida Housing a better understanding of the financial viability of its housing development, the Applicant completes the Development Cost Form to identify its funding "sources," as well as the anticipated expenses (i.e., "uses") of bringing its development to fruition. If an Applicant shows that its "sources" equal or exceed its "uses," then the Development Cost Form demonstrates to Florida Housing that an Applicant's development is financially feasible. MHP, on its Development Costs Form, wrote that its Total Land Cost was $7,000,000 (as attested by Mr. Swezy). MHP included this figure in calculating its Total Development Cost, which MHP anticipated would reach 10 See RFA 2020-203 Section Four, A.7.a, which states that Florida Housing: [W]ill not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring the Corporation will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. … During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, [Florida Housing] may rescind the award. a combined amount of $41,747,241. On the other side of the ledger, MHP reported that its anticipated funding sources equaled $45,704,400. Based on these numbers, Ms. Button relayed that MHP showed that its development carries a funding surplus of $3,957,159. Therefore, MHP demonstrated that its housing development, Southpointe Vista, is financially feasible. (Conversely, if MHP's Development Cost Form revealed a funding shortfall, i.e., that the costs ("uses") to develop Southpointe Vista exceeded the funding "sources," then Florida Housing would have had serious concerns regarding the development's financial health, which would have led to Florida Housing finding MHP ineligible for funding.) Regarding Arthur Mays' allegation that MHP doubled the actual cost of its land from $3,500,000 to $7,000,000, Ms. Button was not alarmed that MHP may have overstated the value of the property on which it intends to locate Southpointe Vista. Because MHP reported a funding surplus, Ms. Button stated that even if the actual cost of the land was half of what MHP reported ($3,500,000), MHP still would have reported a funding surplus for its project. (In fact, the surplus would have been $3,500,000 larger.) Consequently, Ms. Button contended that the fact that MHP may have overvalued the cost of its property on its Development Cost Form did not affect MHP's eligibility for housing credits under the terms of RFA 2020-203. Further, Ms. Button rejected Arthur Mays' charge that by increasing its land cost, MHP was able to improperly request a larger tax credit. Ms. Button relayed that after Florida Housing selects an application for award of housing credits, the Applicant is invited to enter the credit underwriting process. During this stage, Florida Housing underwriters will evaluate the application to ensure that it complies with all RFA eligibility requirements.11 As part of this review, a property appraisal report will typically be ordered to calculate the impact of the land cost on the Applicant's development. The credit underwriters also specifically assess the "gap calculation result" in recommending the actual housing credit allocation. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.0072(28)(e), (f), and (g) and 67-48.0075(3). Ms. Button reemphasized that the property cost for MHP's development is only considered during the credit underwriting phase, not during the scoring of its application. Ms. Button expressed that based on the results of the credit underwriting review, the total tax credits that MHP requested for Southpointe Vista are not necessarily the amount that it will receive. Ms. Button relayed that if credit underwriting determines that an award of housing credits to MHP would be inappropriate based on the circumstances, or that MHP materially misrepresented information in its application, then Florida Housing would likely reduce, if not completely reject, the award of housing credits for MHP's development. Finally, Ms. Button reiterated that the development property cost that MHP associated with Southpointe Vista had no bearing on the Review 11 Florida Housing's credit underwriting procedures are described in rule 67-48.0072, which provides: Credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding … The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team's experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. The credit underwriting review shall include a comprehensive analysis of the Applicant, the real estate, the economics of the Development, the ability of the Applicant and the Development team to proceed, the evidence of need for affordable housing in order to determine that the Development meets the program requirements and determine a recommended … Housing Credit allocation amount … , if any. (emphasis added) Committee's evaluation of its application. The Review Committee did not consider land acquisition cost when it scored MHP's application. Therefore, Ms. Button maintained that the fact that MHP listed its Total Land Cost as $7,000,000 did not give MHP a competitive advantage. Neither did the fact that MHP may have overstated its Total Land Cost by $3,500,000 increase its chance of winning the housing credits. Consequently, the numbers MHP listed on its Development Costs Form did not adversely prejudice other Applicants. Neither did they provide MHP a scoring benefit during the competitive solicitation process. Ms. Button asserted that MHP's Total Land Cost did not have any impact on Florida Housing's decision to select MHP's development for award of tax credits under RFA 2020-203. Ms. Button also testified that RFA 2020-203 did not require applicants to provide a property appraisal to substantiate the land cost recorded on the Development Cost Form. She further added that no evidence shows that MHP's agreement to purchase the property from McDowell was an invalid contract, or that $7,000,000 was not a reasonable price for the one-acre lot for Southpointe Vista. Consequently, Ms. Button contended that the fact that MHP may have inflated the cost of its development site to twice its actual value is not a "material" representation that affected Florida Housing's award of tax credits to MHP. Ms. Button's explanation detailing why MHP's application was eligible for consideration for housing credits under RFA 2020-203 is credible and is credited. Ms. Button persuasively testified that the information MHP included in its application legally complied with RFA requirements and allowed Florida Housing to effectively evaluate its request for funding for its housing development. Ms. Button further capably refuted Arthur Mays' allegation that MHP somehow received a competitive advantage during the solicitation process. Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, Arthur Mays did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing's award of housing credits to MHP was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, Arthur Mays did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing's intended award of housing credit funding to MHP under RFA 2020-203 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
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 dismissing the protest of Arthur Mays. It is further recommended that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation select MHP's application as the recipient of housing credit funding for the Urban Center Designation under RFA 2020-203. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 26th day of May, 2021. Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey Stephen Woodburn, Esquire Woodburn & Maine 204 South Monroe Street Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kristen Bond Dobson, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street Suite, 750 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Jason L. Maine, General Counsel Woodburn & Maine, Attorneys at Law 204 South Monroe St Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329
