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 This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, in which the only disputed issues concern whether the Petitioner is a small business party and whether the Respondent was substantially justified in bringing the underlying proceeding.
Findings Of Fact The findings of fact which follow are based on “the pleadings and supporting documents, and the files and records of the Division of Administrative Hearings.” See Rule 60Q-2.035(7), Florida Administrative Code.1 In DOAH Case No. 96-4290, the Commissioner of Education filed an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Brown. By means of that Administrative Complaint, the Commissioner sought to take disciplinary action against Mr. Brown on the basis of allegations of misconduct by Mr. Brown in connection with his employment as a coach with the Dade County School System. An investigation was conducted prior to filing the Administrative Complaint and at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, the agency had in its possession affidavits and other evidence which, if believed, were sufficient to establish the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Prior to filing the Administrative Complaint, the evidence collected during the investigation was reviewed by agency legal counsel for the purpose of determining whether there was probable cause to file an Administrative Complaint. Upon review, the evidence appeared to be sufficient to warrant the issuance of an Administrative Complaint. Following discovery in the underlying case, the agency re-evaluated its position and, on the advice of counsel, decided to file a voluntary dismissal of the Administrative Complaint. The decision to dismiss the Administrative Complaint was based on the fact that, following discovery, the agency had serious doubts that it could prove its case by the required “clear and convincing” standard. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Brown was the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business. His principal office was in this state. He was domiciled in this state. He had fewer than twenty-five employees and a new worth of less than two million dollars. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Mr. Brown was not an employee of the Dade County Public School System. Rather, he was performing part-time coaching services essentially as an independent contractor.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(1)(o), and 489.1425, Florida Statutes (2007 & 2009),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1512005. At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was the primary qualifying agent for Bennett Marine Contracting and Construction, Inc. (Bennett Marine). On or about September 29, 2007, Jean Walker (Ms. Walker) entered into a contract with Bennett Marine to construct a dock and a tiki hut at 12305 Boat Shell Drive. The contract (the Walker contract) provided that the contractor would make application for a permit from Lee County, Florida. Mr. Organo signed the Walker contract for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Walker contract did not include a written statement explaining Ms. Walker's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On October 24, 2007, Bennett Marine applied for a permit to construct the dock. The application was denied October 29, 2007, because the site plan contained the tiki hut. When the tiki hut was removed from the application, the dock permit was approved. Ms. Walker paid Bennett Marine draws on the construction project. The payments were given to Mr. Organo. The payments totaled $9,200. By February 2008, a tiki hut had been constructed on Ms. Walker's property without a permit. Because the tiki hut was built without a permit, and it was in an illegal location, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. By April 2008, the tiki hut had been removed, and another tiki hut had been built in its place. Again, no permit was pulled for the tiki hut, and it was placed in an illegal location. Again, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. Mr. Organo subcontracted the construction of the tiki hut to Rick Fewell Chickees. Mr. Fewell of Rick Fewell Chickees, a Seminole Indian,2/ applied for a permit to build a tiki hut, but the application was rejected because the plot plan was not to scale, and the tiki hut did not meet the setback requirements from the water. Another tiki hut was built, and, in March 2009, Lee County again cited Ms. Walker for not having a permit for the tiki hut and for not meeting the setback requirements. In 2010, a permit was finally issued for the construction of a tiki hut on Ms. Walker's property. The permit was issued to Ms. Walker. Bennett Marine commenced work on the tiki hut without obtaining a building permit. On January 5, 2010, Bennett Marine entered into a contract with Chris Bevan (Mr. Bevan) to remove an existing dock, uninstall an existing boatlift, construct a dock, construct a tiki hut, and to reinstall the boatlift. The contract (the Bevan contract) required that the contractor obtain a City of Cape Coral building permit. The Bevan contract was signed by Mr. Organo for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Bevan contract did not contain a written statement explaining Mr. Bevan's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On March 17, 2010, Bennett Marine showed up on Mr. Bevan's property and commenced work, by knocking down a cantilever dock that was hanging over a seawall, removing old decking from the boatlift, and rough-framing part of the new dock. Bennett Marine worked until approximately March 25, 2010. That was the last that Mr. Bevan heard from Mr. Organo or Bennett Marine. Mr. Organo applied for a building permit for the Bevan contract on April 1, 2010. The permit was approved on April 13, 2010, but it was not issued. On May 14, 2010, the City of Cape Coral placed a stop-work order on the Bevan project. Mr. Bevan applied for an owner-builder permit for the dock construction, and the permit was issued on June 9, 2010. Mr. Bevan completed the dock construction at additional expense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Organo violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(o), and 489.1425; imposing a fine of $250 each for the Walker contract and the Bevan contract for a total of $500, for failure to advise the owners of the recovery fund; imposing a fine of $3,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for two years for beginning work without a permit for the Walker contract; and imposing a fine of $1,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for one year for beginning work on the Bevan contract without a permit with the one-year probation to run concurrently with the probation imposed for the Walker contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 13th day of April, 2011.
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)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, T L Consultants, Inc., is a corporation which manages health care facilities. Vettraino Associates Investment Company owns 90 percent of T L Consultants and Grace LaRocca owns the other 10 percent. Vettraino Associates Investment Company is owned in trust by the children of Henry Vettraino, Sr., who set up the trust. Louis Vettraino, son of Henry Vettraino, Sr., is one of the individual trustholders of Vettraino Associates Investment Company and acts as president of T L Consultants, Inc. Grace LaRocca acts as vice president of T L Consultants. In 1980, W. S. Samford, Residential Services Director for District 8 of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was overseeing the implementation of the cluster concept to initiate and aid in the development of Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR's) in his district. At the request of his supervisor, Mr. Samford returned a call from a Mr. Bundschu. Mr. Bundschu, who dealt in real estate and was involved in the construction company of Bundschu, Bundschu, Kraft and Vettraino, knew of the need for ICF/MR's and indicated he had some Michigan investors who were interested in starting up such a facility. Through Mr. Bundschu, Mr. Samford met with Louis Vettraino and Henry Vettraino, Sr., who indicated that they were interested in building and operating an ICF/MR. Subsequently, Louis Vettraino contacted Maurice Reisman concerning ownership of the facility. Mr. Reisman indicated he would be interested in owning such a facility and, together with Grace LaRocca and Louis Vettraino, he met with Mr. Samford to discuss the application for a certificate of need (CON). Prior to applying for a CON or construction of the facility, it was understood by all of the parties that Henry Vettraino's construction company would build the facility and lease it to Maurice Reisman who would contract with T L Consultants for management services. Louis Vettraino was aware from the beginning that a management firm could not own a facility and charge a fee. He acknowledged that the management firm had sought out the owner instead of the owner seeking out a management firm in the open market. Concerned about the propriety of the management structure which was contemplated, Mr. Reisman wrote Mr. Samford in February of 1981 and asked for a determination by HRS as to whether the proposal met the guidelines for reimbursement. In response to his inquiry, Mr. Reisman was notified that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services considered the structure to illustrate a "control" situation, subject to reimbursement limitations. In applying for the CON for the facility, Maurice Reisman relied heavily on the financial backing of Henry Vettraino, Sr. Although Mr. Reisman was applying for a CON for a 1.2 million dollar facility (later increased to 2.7 million dollars), he had only $142,000 in assets. To qualify for the CON, the assets of Henry, Sr., and Jennette Vettraino were included in both the original and amended CON applications. In the minutes of the Lee County Industrial Authority monthly meeting dated June 10, 1982, the bond issue for financing the facility is referred to as the "Vettraino bond issue." It was noted in the CON application that T L Consultants would be the management firm. The CON application was not prepared by Mr. Reisman, but by Grace LaRocca as Operations Director. Ms. LaRocca, a principal in T L Consultants, indicated in the CON application that she was on the Board of Directors of Sandy Park Rehabilitation Center, the corporation that Mr. Reisman formed to own the facility. In addition, when application was made for an amended CON, the request for expedited review listed T L Consultants as a Principal Party in the application. While waiting for the new facility to be built, Mr. Reisman and T L Consultants entered into an agreement to temporarily occupy the existing state facility. Concerned about his responsibilities, Mr. Reisman contacted Mr. Samford for clarification of the agreement. Mr. Samford indicated that although it seemed that Mr. Reisman was not in direct "financial interest" and control of the management firm, as holder of the CON, he was responsible for performance in meeting licensure requirements. This was a separate issue from the question of control for reimbursement purposes and was not a change in the Department's position on that issue. Notwithstanding the original opinion of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Mr. Reisman made application to the Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Unit (Medicaid) for reimbursement of management fees to be charged by T L Consultants. Mr. Reisman reiterated the fact that T L Consultants had contacted him and acknowledged that he had not sought competitive bids for management services. A proposed management agreement was submitted to Medicaid but was rejected because it had no termination clause. When a new management contract was submitted , the management fee had jumped from 7.5 percent to 10 percent without explanation. In submitting proof of Sandy Park's financial ability to Medicaid, a $100,000 line of credit from Lee County Bank was indicated. Investigation into that line of credit revealed that Henry Vettraino, Sr., had co-signed the loan for Maurice Reisman. These facts, along with the fact that Maurice Reisman had never previously owned a nursing home, the fact that T L Consultants had arranged the entire operation, and the facts surrounding the financing and involvement of Henry Vettraino, Sr., resulted in the denial of the management fees by Medicaid.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that management fees over and above the actual costs of services to T L Consultants, Inc. be allowed for reimbursement by Medicaid to Sandy Park Rehabilitation Center. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Fitzgerald, Esquire Sandra J. Frank, Esquire Fitzgerald, Hodgman, Kazul, Rutledge, Cawthorne & King 1000 First Federal Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Tern Bay Community Development District (Petition), dated December 18, 2003. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue Whether Respondent's License as a residential pool contractor should be suspended for alleged violation of Section 468.112(7), Florida Statutes. The Respondent did not appear at the hearing although proper notice thereof had been furnished under date of February 11, 1976 to him by the hearing officer. Accordingly, the hearing was conducted as an uncontested proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed as a registered pool contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board since June 20, 1974. The license was not renewed for 1975/76 (Exhibit 4). Respondent filed a Voluntary Petition in Bankruptcy in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Bankruptcy No. TBK 75-25, on March 13, 1975 (Exhibit 5).
Recommendation That the registration of William R. MacKinnon as a residential pool contractor be suspended until such time as he meets the qualifications and other requirements for renewal of registration and applies therefor. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: David Linn, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. William R. Mackinnon Route 3, Box 584C Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether, with respect to each application filed, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) review and decision-making process in response to the Request for Applications 2020-201 (RFA) was contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the RFA.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(a) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as “tax credits” or “housing credits”) was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These housing credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. The effect is to reduce the amount that the developer must otherwise borrow. Because the total debt is lower, the housing credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the housing credits. The demand for housing credits provided by the federal government exceeds supply. The Competitive Application Process Section 420.507(48) authorizes Florida Housing to allocate housing credits and other funding through requests for proposals or other competitive solicitations, and Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to prescribe the competitive solicitation process. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). Applicants for funding request, in their applications, a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally will sell the rights to the future stream of income housing credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount an applicant can receive depends on several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected total development cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. These are just examples of the factors considered, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Housing credits are made available through a competitive application process that starts with the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is considered to be a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA in this case was issued on August 26, 2020, and responses were due November 5, 2020. The RFA was modified September 11, 2020, and October 12, 2020, but with no change with respect to the response deadline. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $15,275,810 of housing credits to proposed developments in medium-sized counties, and up to an estimated $1,453,730 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 84 applications in response to RFA 2020-201. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board). The Review Committee found 79 applications eligible and five applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 10 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. The federal government enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CCA) in December 2020, and as a result, an additional $3,367,501 in housing credits became available for affordable housing for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay Counties, which were impacted by Hurricane Sally. The staff at Florida Housing recommended using the CCA funding to award housing credits to additional highest-ranking eligible applications in qualified disaster areas, subject to the county award tally, regardless of the county size in RFA 2020-201 and developed a chart listing its CCA funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On January 22, 2021, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee and staff for RFA 2020-201. At approximately 2:50 p.m. that day, all of the applicants in RFA 2020-201 were provided notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration of funding, and that certain eligible applicants were preliminarily selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Notice was provided by posting on the Florida Housing website two spreadsheets: one listing the Board-approved scoring results in RFA 2020-201; and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the January 22, 2021, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 24 applicants, including The Villages, Pinnacle at Hammock Springs, and Rosemary Place. Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceedings. All Intervenors have been properly recognized as such. The terms of RFA 2020-201 were not challenged. RFA 2020-201 Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A summary of the eligibility items is listed in Section 5.A.1. of the RFA, beginning at page 71. Only applications that meet all of the eligibility requirements will be eligible for funding and considered for the funding selection. This challenge does not raise any issues with respect to the point totals awarded to the applicants. The RFA has four funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund five Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a of the RFA, with a preference that three of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(1) of the RFA to be considered submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113, and two of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(2) of the RFA to be considered not submitted in RFA 2019-113. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.5.i of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund two Developments with a Demographic commitment of Family that select and qualify for the geographic Areas of Opportunity/ SADDA Goal outlined in Section Four A.10.a(1)(d) of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the SunRail Goal outlined in Section Four, A.5.e.(5) of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process, outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal with one exception: If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, the SunRail Goal will also be considered met. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp.75). At page 76 of Joint Exhibit 1, the RFA also sets forth the sorting order to be used when selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal: The highest scoring applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Priority I Medium County Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order. This will then be repeated for Priority II Applications: First, counties of the Applications that (i) qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal in FRA 2019-113 and (ii) were invited to enter credit underwriting will receive lower preference than other Medium Counties competing for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. This affects the following counties: Brevard, Lee, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, and Volusia. The remaining counties will receive higher preference. Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. Next, the RFA sets forth the sorting order for selecting applications to meet the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. It then sets for the sorting order after selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal (LGAO Designation) and Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. The RFA includes a funding test where a) small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding ($1,453,730) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount, and b) medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding ($15,275,810) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount. The RFA outlines a specific County Award Tally based on Priority Levels as follows: Priority I County Award Tally As each Priority I Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. Priority II County Award Tally As each Priority II Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority II Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp. 78-79) The RFA outlines the selection process at pages 79-81 as follows: Five Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal Applications that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not Awarded The first three Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not awarded, subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this preference is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this preference, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this preference is met. Applications that were not submitted in RFA 2019-113 The next Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were not submitted in 2019-113, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this Goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are not eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this Goal. One Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Two Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal The next two Applications select [sic] for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are no eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this goal. One Application that Qualifies for the SunRail Goal If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal described in a. above or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal described in b. above also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, this Goal will be considered met without selecting an additional Application. If none of the Applications selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization also qualify for the SunRail Goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Small County Applications that (i) can meet the Small County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Small County Priority I Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Priority I Application can meet the Small County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded Small County Priority II Application can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test, no further Small County Applications will be selected, and the remaining Small County Funding will be added to the Medium County funding amount. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Medium County Applications that (i) can meet the Medium County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Medium County Priority I Applications. If Medium County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority I Applications can meet the Medium County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority II Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Medium County Funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Application can meet the Medium County Funding Test, no further Applications will be selected and the remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. After the description of the sorting process, the RFA specifies: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or provisions outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 84 applications for RFA 2020-201 were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. The Fletcher Black Application During the scoring process, Florida Housing determined that the Fletcher Black application was eligible for funding, but ineligible for the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black was not selected for preliminary funding. If Fletcher Black’s application was eligible for the LGAO Designation, it would have been selected for funding. It would have been selected as the second of the three developments selected for the LGAO Priority I applications that qualified for the preference for those development applications submitted in RFA 2019-113, but not awarded as outlined on pages 69-70 of the RFA. Additionally, if Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, then The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs will be displaced from funding. In order to qualify for the LGAO Designation and Goal, applicants must “demonstrate a high level of Local Government interest in the project via an increased amount of Local Government contributions in the form of cash loans and/or cash grants.” The RFA outlines the types and amounts of contributions from Local Governments that will be accepted to meet the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black’s proposed development is in Bay County. Therefore, Fletcher Black would be required to demonstrate a contribution of at least $340,000 to be considered for the LGAO Designation. The RFA at page 67 expressly limits the number of applications from the same government jurisdiction as follows: Limit on the number of Applications within the same jurisdiction A proposed Development may only qualify where a jurisdiction (i.e., the county or a municipality) has contributed cash loans and/or cash grants for any proposed Development applying for this RFA in an amount sufficient to qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. A Local Government can only contribute to one Application that qualifies for the Local Government Area of Opportunity Designation, regardless of how the contribution is characterized. Any single jurisdiction may not contribute cash loans and/or cash grants to more than one proposed Development applying for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. If multiple Applications demonstrate Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding from the same jurisdiction and those Applications qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, then all such Applications will be deemed ineligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, regardless of the amount of Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding or how the contribution is characterized. However, Local Governments may pool contributions to support one Application (i.e., the county and the city may provide contribution to the same Development and each Local Government will submit its own form as an Attachment to the Application). Page 68 of the RFA describes the requirements for demonstrating LGAO funding: In order to be eligible to be considered Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding, the cash loans and/or cash grants must be demonstrated via one or both of the Florida Housing Local Government Verification of Contribution Forms (Form Rev. 07-2019), called “Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan” form and/or the “Local Government Verification of Contribution -- Grant” form. The forms must meet the Non-Corporation Funding Proposal Requirements outlined in 10.b.(2)(a) above, the qualifying funding must be reflected as a source on the Development Cost Pro Forma, and the applicable form(s) must be provided as Attachment 16 to the Application. Applications are not required to reflect the value (difference between the face amount and the net present value of the payment streams) on any Local Government Verification Forms. Similarly, Section 10.b.(2)(a) of the RFA specifies that, Note: Eligible Local Government financial commitments (i.e., grants and loans) can be considered a source of financing without meeting the requirements above if the Applicant provides a properly completed and executed Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Form 0702019) and/or the Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form (Form 07-2019). Fletcher Black submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Grant Form) from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000. Fletcher Black’s Grant Form was executed by Greg Bridnicki, as the Mayor of Panama City and “Approved as to Form and Correctness” by Nevin Zimmerman, City Attorney. Fletcher Black’s request for funding from Panama City was placed on the agenda for the City of Panama City City Commission’s August 25, 2020, meeting, and approved by the City Commission, which authorized Mr. Bridnicki to sign the Grant Form. Fletcher Black had obtained a similar LGAO Form in the previous year using the same established process. Fletcher Black did not submit any documentation in the RFA Application regarding the process used to gain approval of the grant. However, no party identified any requirement in the RFA that such a description must be included in the Application. Fletcher Black cannot be faulted for not supplying something that is not required. Another Applicant, Panama Manor App. No. 2021-074C, submitted a Grant Form from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000 executed by Michael Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s title is listed as the Director of Community Development/CRA/CDBG/SHIP. During the scoring process, Florida Housing’s scorer found that since both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor submitted documentation for the LGAO Designation from the same jurisdiction, the City of Panama City, according to the terms of the RFA, both applications were deemed ineligible for the LGAO Designation. The Grant Form submitted by both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor contains the following instruction regarding who is authorized to sign the form on behalf of the local government: This certification must be signed by the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approvals, Mayor, City Manager, County Manager/ Administrator/ Coordinator, Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners. … One of the authorized persons named above may sign this form for certification of state, federal or Local Government funds initially obtained or derived from a Local Government that is directly administered by an intermediary such as a housing finance authority, a community reinvestment corporation, or a state-certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Other signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed. To be considered for points, the amount of the contribution stated on this form must be a precise dollar amount and cannot include words such as estimated, up to, maximum, not to exceed, etc. Michael Johnson was not authorized by the City of Panama City to sign the Grant Form. Greg Bridnicki, as Mayor of Panama City, is an authorized signatory. Panama Manor’s request was not submitted to the City Commission for approval. Because the Grant Form was improperly signed, Panama Manor should not, by the terms of the RFA, receive credit for the LGAO Designation. Had Panama Manor’s application received the LGAO Designation, it would not have been selected for funding because its lottery number was too high. Michael Johnson is the Director of Community Development for the City of Panama City. While he is an employee for the City of Panama City, he also performs duties for Bay County through an interlocal agreement between the city and the county. The Grant Form submitted for Panama Manor stated on its face that it was signed on behalf of the City of Panama City, but Mr. Johnson testified that the form was supposed to reflect that it was for Bay County. Mr. Johnson testified that over the last 17 years, he has executed approximately 40 forms for applications for funding from Florida Housing. He acknowledged that there are multiple types of forms that may need signatures from city or county officials to complete a Florida Housing application, such as zoning forms and infrastructure-verification forms, as well as local government contribution forms. Since Florida Housing changed its process to use RFAs in 2013, Mr. Johnson could not recall if he signed the Grant Forms or whether the city manager did. He could not confirm signing a single Grant Form for either the city or the county since 2013. Mr. Johnson believed that he had the authority to sign Grant Forms on behalf of both the city and the county. Mark McQueen, the City of Panama City city manager and Mr. Johnson’s boss, does not share his belief. According to Mr. McQueen, whose testimony is credited, Panama City committed only to the Fletcher Black property, took no official action with respect to Panama Manor’s application, and Mr. Johnson was not authorized to sign the Grant Form committing funds on behalf of the City. When Mr. Johnson realized that the Panama Manor Grant Form stated that it was signed on behalf of Panama City as opposed to Bay County, he called the legal department for Florida Housing to explain the error. He testified that he spoke with several people at Florida Housing, including Jean Salmonson, David Weston, and someone in the multi-family development section. Mr. Johnson was not sure of the dates when these telephone calls were made, but it appears that the telephone calls were after the submission of the applications but before the posting of funding selections. Marissa Button is Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs. She testified that Florida Housing is aware of the contention that the form submitted by Panama Manor was signed in error and should have reflected that it was signed on behalf of Bay County. She was also aware that according to Mr. McQueen, Mr. Johnson did not have the authority to sign a Grant Form on behalf of the City of Panama City. She stated: Q. How does that information impact Florida Housing’s scoring decision? A. This --at this juncture it does not impact Florida Housing’s scoring determination as to the Panama Manor or Fletcher Black being designated as LGAO goal. … We take the requirement of the RFA specifically references the – the submission of what – when there’s a submission of multiple applications from the same jurisdiction, and so we, Florida Housing, consider that as of – as of the application deadline what this applicant has submitted is a form executed on behalf of the City of Panama City. To change the designation, which I understand from Mr. Johnson’s testimony it was a mistake, he intended to issue on behalf of Bay County and reflect that, we interpret that to be a – an improper amendment or modification to the application after the application submission. So we do not consider it to change the scoring designation of the – of either the Panama Manor application or the resulting consequence to the Fletcher Black application. * * * Q. Now, Fletcher Black may argue that it’s unfair to treat its application as ineligible for the LGAO designation and goals when the Fletcher Black [application] did not contain an error. What would your response be to that? A. You know, my response is, we score the application in accordance with the terms of the RFA. The applications are responsible for all parts of that – that RFA with regard to their application submission. It’s clear in this RFA that there would be a consequence if other applications were submitted from the same jurisdiction for an LGAO designation. And, unfortunately, that’s the mistake that happened, but the fairness – it is a fair process because we are – we are administering the RFA as it has been, you know – as the terms exist to the public and to the fellow applications that came in for funding. So, I – I do believe it’s unfortunate that that consequence impacts their application; however, it is – it is fair because that’s the consequence if it happens. (T-39-40, 45-46). Panama Manor’s application did not demonstrate local government funding because the Grant Form was not signed by someone with authority to do so. The RFA specifically states that “[o]ther signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed.” Where forms signed by local government officials are challenged, Ms. Button indicated that Florida Housing has in the past relied upon or deferred to local government officials to address the propriety of the forms signed. The issue usually arises with forms related to zoning or other facets encompassed in the Ability to Proceed forms. Here, the credible testimony of local officials is that the Grant Form for Panama Manor was intended to reflect a funding commitment from Bay County and the signator on Panama Manor’s Grant Form was not authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Panama City. It would be contrary to competition if Panama Manor were allowed to amend its application to correct the Grant Form. It is appropriate to disregard Panama Manor’s Grant Form, given the inaccuracies contained therein. If Panama Manor’s application is not selected for the LGAO Designation because of its failure to demonstrate that the City of Panama City is providing local support for Panama Manor’s project, then there is only one application with a valid Grant Form from the City of Panama City, and that is Fletcher Black. Ms. Button testified that it would provide a competitive advantage to Fletcher Black if Fletcher Black were considered for the LGAO Designation. However, she stated that applicants are responsible for all parts of their application submission. Fletcher Black did not make an error in its application and is not requesting that it be amended in any way. It is asking that the application be considered as submitted, just as other applications are considered. Florida Housing’s decision to find Fletcher Black ineligible for the LGAO Designation is clearly erroneous, in light of the clear demonstration that Panama Manor did not demonstrate a local funding commitment from the City of Panama City, and Fletcher Black is the only entity that did so. The Rosemary Place Application Florida Housing deemed the Rosemary Place application to be eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Rosemary Place for funding. One of the requirements for eligibility under the RFA is that applicants demonstrate Site Control by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Site Control Certification form (Site Control Form). For the Site Control Form to be considered complete, the applicant must attach documentation demonstrating that it is a party to an eligible contract or lease or is the owner of the subject property. Applicants can demonstrate Site Control by providing documentation that meets the requirements in the RFA for an eligible contract, deed or certificate of title, or a lease. The RFA specifies at pages 39-40 that an eligible contract must meet the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021; It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant: and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The RFA notifies applicants that Florida Housing’s review of the Site Control documents is limited. At page 40, the RFA states: Note: The Corporation will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, the Corporation will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. The Corporation has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. The RFA also requires that, for the purpose of demonstrating Site Control, “documentation must include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” A “scattered site” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(106) as “a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition ‘contiguous’ means touching at a point or along a boundary. …” Rosemary Place submitted a properly completed and executed Site Control Form which was accepted by Florida Housing during its review, scoring, and ranking process. As an attachment to its Site Control Form, Rosemary Place attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement (Rosemary Place Agreement) between Kyle McDorman as the Seller and RM FL XX Prime, LLC (the applicant entity for Rosemary Place) as the Purchaser. The Rosemary Place Agreement has a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021, and states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The Rosemary Place Application identified the address of the proposed development as “690’ N of intsctn of 331-Bus & Azalea Dr on W side of 331- Bus; within city limits of Freeport, FL (Walton County).” (J-16, page 5). The Development Location Point, consisting of latitude and longitude coordinates was correctly identified, and the Rosemary Place Application stated that the proposed development did not consist of scattered sites. Exhibit A of the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement identifies the property as follows: That Thirteen (13.0) Acres situated in the City of Freeport, FL (Distrct 2); Section 10, Township 1S, Range 19, and which is part of Walton County, FL Parcel 10-1S-19-23000-009-0020 which is further described in the land records of Walton County, FL as 210FT SQ FT IN THE SE/C OF THE W1/2 OF THE NE1/4 OF SW1/4 IN SEC 10-1S-19W, 204-184, 1204-279, 2660- 2976, 3084-4417 and which is recorded in that Warranty Deed from Grantor Aaron M and Rachel N Sloan Elkins to Grantee Kyle J. McDorman which Warranty Deed is recorded in the land records of Walton County, FL at Book 3084 and Page Number 4417. The Property is further described and identified as the shaded area denoted with an X in the image below. Based on the Walton County Property Appraiser map, the shaded area denoted with an X is contained within Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000, which is owned by the Seller, Kyle McDorman, as opposed to Parcel No. 10- 1S-19-23000-009-0020. Timshell contends that the shaded area denoted with an X overlaps parcels outside of Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000. Timshell contends that the submitted Site Control documentation submitted by Rosemary Place is not consistent with the requirements of the RFA because of the uncertainty of the property that is actually being purchased and where the proposed Development site is actually located. Timshell also contends that the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement, as written and submitted to Florida Housing, denotes scattered sites which were not disclosed by Rosemary Place in its application. Rosemary Place contends, and Florida Housing agrees, that the shaded area denoted with an X on Exhibit A to the Rosemary Place Agreement sufficiently identifies the property being purchased through the agreement as the Development site. Moreover, the visual depiction of the property is consistent with the written description of the development location in the Rosemary Place Application at J-16, page 5. The Rosemary Place Application does not depict scattered sites. Even assuming that the parcel number included in Exhibit A were part of the purchase reflected in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, an eligible contract may involve the purchase of multiple properties or a larger parcel of property than will be developed. What is most important is that the documents show where the development will be located, which Rosemary Place’s application demonstrates, and that the applicant will have control over the location. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing did not consider the Rosemary Place Application to be proposing a scattered sites development. Rosemary Place affirmatively stated that it was not proposing a scattered sites development; did not list coordinates for scattered sites; and did not identify the location of scattered sites on other forms required by the RFA. Exhibit A to the Purchase and Sale Agreement contains typographical errors in the written description of the property being sold. Stewart Rutledge, who prepared the Purchase and Sale Agreement, testified credibly that parcel numbers are listed on the Walton County Property Appraiser website, and that to see a particular parcel description, the user clicks on the parcel number he or she wants to see. When preparing the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mr. Rutledge mistakenly clicked on the parcel number immediately above the parcel number he wanted, and he did not notice the error. The parcel number reflected in the Purchase and Sale Agreement references another parcel owned by the seller, Kyle McDorman. Florida Housing considered the typographical error within Exhibit A that results in the listing of the wrong parcel number and property description to be a waivable minor irregularity because the error did not result in the omission of any material information; did not create uncertainty that a term of the RFA was met; and did not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. The same could be said for other typographical error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, such as capitalizing the word “property” when it should not have been. Ms. Button also noted that the RFA does not require applicants to submit a land survey of the proposed development site with its application. The RFA states that Florida Housing reserves the right to waive minor irregularities. A minor irregularity is defined in rule 67-60.008 as: those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Timshell presented the testimony of Stephen Rutan, a professional land surveyor. Mr. Rutan believed that, based on the property description in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the proposed development site overlapped with another parcel not owned by the seller. Mr. Rutan did not perform a professional land survey and admitted that the boundary lines in his informational Exhibit (Timshell Exhibit 4) were not completely accurate. Given that the measurements that Mr. Rutan provided were estimates and not the result of a survey, and the testimony by Mr. Rutledge that the parcel identification was the result of a clerical error, Mr. Rutan’s testimony is given little weight, and does not demonstrate that the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement included in Rosemary Place’s application created any real uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met. Florida Housing’s determination that the error in Rosemary Place’s application was a waivable minor irregularity is not clearly erroneous. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove Florida Housing determined that the Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove Applications were eligible for funding but ineligible for the “submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 Preference.” Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove were not selected for preliminary funding. Within the LGAO Designation and Goal, the RFA contained preferences for funding. One of those preferences was for developments that were submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 (the 2019-113 Preference). In order to qualify for the 2019-113 Preference, an Applicant must meet the following requirements: The question at 11.b.(1) of Exhibit A must reflect confirmation that the Development was submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113; The Application in RFA 2019-113 must have provided a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan or Grant form demonstrating the minimum Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Amount outlined in RFA 2019-113; The Development Location Point and latitude and longitude coordinates for all scattered sites stated at question 5. of Exhibit A for the proposed Development must be located on the same site(s) as the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. These coordinates do not need to be identical to the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. All entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical; and The Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 was not invited to enter credit underwriting. Florida Housing scored Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove as qualifying for all requirements of the 2019-113 Preference except for the requirement that “[a]ll entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical.” (Identical Principals Requirement). The Principals disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form for Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove in RFA 2019- 113 were identical to the Principals disclosed in the applications submitted for RFA 2020-201. The plain language of the RFA only requires that the “entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) be identical.” The plain language of the RFA does not require that the Applicant and Developer entities be identical to those listed in the 2019-113 application. Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove met the requirements for the 2019-113 preference. However, even though Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, they would not be selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. The Villages Florida Housing determined that The Villages Application is eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, The Villages has been preliminarily selected for funding. During scoring, Florida Housing reviewed the Villages’ Zoning Form and determined that it met the requirements of the RFA to demonstrate appropriate zoning. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove alleged in their Petitions that The Villages failed to demonstrate Ability to Proceed and appropriate zoning as required by the terms of the RFA. Prior to hearing, Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove withdrew their challenge to The Villages’ eligibility for funding. However, should Florida Housing determine, as recommended, that Panama Manor’s Grant Form did not demonstrate a funding commitment from Panama City, then Fletcher Black would receive funding as opposed to The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to Case No. 21-0515BID, finding that Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, and awarding funding to Fletcher Black, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting; that with respect to Case Nos. 21-0516BID, 21-0517BID, and 21-0518BID, finding that Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, but are not selected for funding; and with respect to Case No. 21-0520BID, finding that the decision to award funding to Rosemary Place was not clearly erroneous, and the error in its application was a minor waivable irregularity. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
