The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents have discriminated against Petitioners based on Petitioners' national origin.
Findings Of Fact On August 28, 2009, Ms. Greene was a loan officer employed by CenterState Home Loans, LLC. The office where Ms. Greene worked was located inside CenterState Bank, N.A., located at 6930 Gall Boulevard in Zephyrhills, Florida. The office is separate from CenterState Banks, Inc. There is signage on a glass wall of her office stating, "CenterState Home Loans, LLC." Ms. Greene is paid by CenterState Home Loans, LLC. She is paid by commission. Thus, there is no incentive not to complete loan applications. CenterState Home Loans, LLC, is a separate corporation from CenterState Banks, Inc., and CenterState Bank, N.A. Both CenterState Banks, Inc., and CenterState Bank, N.A. are interest holders in CenterState Home Loans, LLC, but are not the managing members of CenterState Home Loans, LLC. Platinum Home Mortgage Corporation is the managing member of CenterState Home Loans, LLC. As the managing member, Platinum Home Mortgage manages the quality control and integrity of CenterState Home Loans, LLC. CenterState Home Loans, LLC, is not authorized to do Federal Housing Association (FHA) loans. Any FHA loans originated by CenterState Home Loans, LLC, are assigned to Platinum Home Mortgage. On August 28, 2009, Petitioners, Mr. Velez's mother, and Petitioners' young daughter came to Ms. Greene's office to discuss the possibility of obtaining a loan through CenterState Home Loans, LLC, and a loan through the Pasco County Home Buyers Program. The purpose of the Pasco County Home Buyers Program is to aid qualified home buyers in purchasing their primary residences. Initially, Petitioners were interesting in applying for an FHA loan. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Velez had telephoned Ms. Greene and asked what types of information would need to be submitted. Ms. Greene stated that he would need W-2 forms, paystubs, bank statements, and anything that showed proof of any assets or debts. Petitioners brought some of the documentation to the meeting. At the meeting, Petitioners supplied information to Ms. Greene, who typed the information into her computer using loan software entitled "Loan Soft." The information was placed on a Uniform Residential Application, which is called a Form 1003. No property was identified on the Form 1003 because Petitioners did not have a sales contract for a specific piece of property. They indicated that the property they wanted to purchase would be approximately $140,000. Mr. Velez told Ms. Greene that he was anticipating a 50 percent loan from Pasco County Home Buyers Program, which would leave approximately $70,000 to be financed plus closing costs. When Ms. Greene input the information into the computer program, it automatically calculated the approximate closing costs. The interest used to do the calculations was based on the interest rate on August 28, 2009, and was not a guaranteed rate. With Petitioners' permission, Ms. Greene pulled a credit report on each of them during the meeting on August 28, 2009. The credit report showed that there were some debts in collection and that there was an outstanding judgment against Ms. Guerrero. Additionally, based on CenterState Home Loan, LLC, guidelines, the credit scores did not qualify Petitioners for a second mortgage, which included a Pasco County Home Buyers Program loan. On August 28, 2009, Ms. Greene needed additional asset information from the Petitioners and requested that they provide her with information concerning checking, savings, or money market accounts for at least a two-month period. Mr. Velez did present a bank statement at the meeting, which showed a current balance of less than $200. Ms. Greene told Petitioners that the debts in collection and the outstanding judgment needed to be resolved. Additionally, Ms. Guerrero was an authorized signer on some of her mother's credit cards, and a statement would have to be provided that Ms. Guerrero was not responsible for the debts associated with those credit cards. The software program that Ms. Greene used automatically completes a page in the application titled, "Pre- Approval Cover Sheet and Check List." The program put "completed" by a number of items which had not been completed, such as the Form 1003 and current asset statements. Petitioners had supplied some pay stubs and some bank statements at the August 28, 2009, meeting. The Form 1003 did not indicate that Petitioners had been pre-approved for a loan. The meeting ran near to the time CenterState Home Loans, LLC, was closing and could not be completed before closing time. Ms. Greene printed out a copy of the Form 1003, with the information that had been completed, and gave it to Petitioners. Petitioners were to complete, sign, and return the Form 1003 to Ms. Greene. Additionally, Petitioners were to provide evidence that the debts had been paid and the judgment satisfied, along with evidence of current assets. Because the application was not completed and additional information was needed, Ms. Greene could not fully analyze the application. Sometime after the August 28, 2009, meeting, Ms. Greene reviewed the information that had been supplied to her by Petitioners and discussed the information with Mr. Velez on the telephone. Mr. Velez wanted to schedule a meeting to discuss the application. She advised him that, based on the credit scores and the limited funds in his bank account, he could not qualify for a loan with a second lien by the Pasco County Home Buyers Program. Thus, there would be no need to meet. Mr. Velez told her that he wanted to continue with the process. Petitioners set about paying off the debts in collection and satisfying the judgment against Ms. Guerrero. Mr. Velez had received a disability settlement and placed some money in a bank account. Petitioners did not supply updated information to Ms. Greene. Sometime in October or November 2009, Mr. Velez called Ms. Greene and requested that she send a realtor a pre-approval letter. Ms. Greene replied that she could not do that because she did not have the supporting documents to be able to give a pre-approval letter. Mr. Velez became very angry and demanded the documents he had previously provided at the August 28, 2009, meeting. Ms. Greene had only copies of the documents that he provided, but she placed them in an envelope and left them for Mr. Velez to pick up. Petitioners stated in Form 1003 that their ethnicity was Hispanic or Latino. Mr. Velez stated at the final hearing: My basis for my racial discrimination was the fact that she [Ms. Greene] denied us the opportunity to turn in updated information when stated that she would allow us to do so. Ms. Greene never stated that she would not take additional information because Petitioners were Hispanic. She has processed loans for other Hispanics which involved the Pasco County Home Buyers Program, and she has closed loans for other minorities. Ms. Greene never discussed Petitioners national origin with them. She did not base any decision regarding their loan application on their national origin. After Petitioners were advised by Ms. Greene that they would not qualify for a loan involving the Pasco County Home Buyers Program, they applied for loans at two other lending institutions and were turned down on the basis of too many inquiries or insufficient credit scores. They finally received a loan from Manhattan Mortgage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing Petitioners' Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2010, 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 3rd day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was properly denied mortgage assistance through Florida Housing Finance Corporation's ("Florida Housing") Hardest-Hit Fund Elderly Mortgage Assistance ("ELMORE") program based on a conviction for fraud allegedly in connection with a real estate transaction.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing. For purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is also considered the state's housing finance agency which means Florida Housing, at times, conducts business as if it were a financial institution. Florida Housing administers the Hardest-Hit Fund, using funds appropriated by the United States Congress through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to help stabilize housing markets and prevent foreclosures. The Hardest-Hit Fund comes directly to Florida Housing from the United States Treasury through a Housing Finance Agency ("HFA") Participation Agreement. The ELMORE program is one of the programs created under the umbrella of the Hardest-Hit Fund. The ELMORE program is designed to assist senior homeowners in Florida who are facing foreclosure due to the inability to pay property charges such as property taxes, homeowners insurance, and homeowners or condo association dues after the homeowner was paid all of the equity under a reverse mortgage. The HFA agreement is a summary guideline for the ELMORE program and its general requirements. The stated goal of the program is to help senior homeowners remain in their homes. The Summary Guidelines include certain borrower eligibility criteria, property/loan eligibility criteria, and program exclusions, among other guidelines. The program exclusions reference the "Dodd-Frank exclusion for having been convicted of a mortgage-related felony in the past ten years." The Dodd-Frank Act exclusion for criminal applicants is codified 12 U.S.C. § 5220b, and states in part: (d) Prevention of qualification for criminal applicants (1) In general No person shall be eligible to begin receiving assistance from the Making Home Affordable Program authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.), or any other mortgage assistance program authorized or funded by that Act, on or after 60 days after July 21, 2010, if such person, in connection with a mortgage or real estate transaction, has been convicted, within the last 10 years, of any one of the following: Felony larceny, theft, fraud, or forgery. Money laundering. Tax evasion. On or about February 27, 2017, Betty Baldwin, Power of Attorney for Tolz, submitted an application for mortgage assistance through Florida Housing's Hardest-Hit Fund for ELMORE benefits. On or about May 11, 2017, the application was denied. On or about November 8, 2018, Tolz submitted another application for mortgage assistance from the ELMORE program. On December 5, 2018, Florida Housing's Director of Homeownership Programs, David Westcott, issued a letter with an ineligibility determination to Tolz, which included a Notice of Rights.1/ Mr. Westcott is ultimately responsible for the final eligibility determinations on Hardest-Hit Fund mortgage assistance applications. The Denial of ELMORE Program Benefits Mr. Westcott denied Tolz's application for ELMORE program funds because she had, what Mr. Westcott determined to be, a disqualifying felony conviction in connection with a real estate transaction in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act provision. Mr. Westcott testified that pursuant to the HFA agreement with the United States Treasury, Florida Housing is prohibited from using ELMORE funds to assist applicants that have a disqualifying Dodd-Frank Act conviction. During the period of 2003 through 2010, Tolz used her position as a fiduciary in the role of bankruptcy trustee, receiver, and personal representative to misappropriate millions of dollars from bankruptcy estates, receiverships, and other matters, by writing or causing the writing of unauthorized checks from a variety of fiduciary accounts which contained funds she was appointed to safeguard. Tolz then used the misappropriated money for her own benefit and to conceal her previous misappropriations by restoring the balances of other fiduciary accounts from which she had previously taken funds in a Ponzi scheme framework. To conceal this theft, Tolz falsified documents and used a fictitious bank account. On or about December 12, 2011, Tolz was convicted in Broward County Circuit Court of grand theft in the first degree. Tolz was convicted on or about July 27, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. To secure a plea deal and in order to bolster her claim that her sentence should be reduced from the federal guidelines, prior to sentencing, Tolz surrendered five real estate properties, which she owned, to the United States government. The value of these properties was then used to offset and lessen Tolz's restitution obligation to her victims. Tolz understood that these properties would not be accepted to satisfy her restitution obligation unless they were purchased, mortgaged, or improved with the assets of her victims. In the federal criminal case, Tolz executed a Factual Basis Supporting Change of Plea ("Factual Basis") on or about April 15, 2011. Tolz agreed not to contest the information in the Factual Basis. Further, Tolz agreed that it provided a sufficient factual basis for her plea of guilty in the case, and had the case proceeded to trial, that the United States would have proven the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Paragraph 11 of the Factual basis states: MARIKA TOLZ, directly or indirectly, utilized funds obtained through the fraudulent scheme to purchase, maintain and improve real properties, including, but not limited to the following real properties: 2344 North Federal Highway, Hollywood, Florida; 1804 Sherman Street, Hollywood, Florida; 704 SE 3rd Avenue, Hallandale, Florida; 815 SW 30th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; and 3031 North Ocean Blvd, Apartment 403, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. In making the ineligibility determination on Tolz's application for ELMORE program funds, Mr. Westcott determined that Tolz's conviction was in connection with a real estate transaction because Tolz agreed in the Factual Basis that she used funds obtained through the fraud to "purchase, maintain and improve real properties." Florida Housing determined that Tolz's conviction disqualified her from receiving mortgage assistance from the ELMORE program because: As part of the Hardest-Hit Fund, the ELMORE program funds are authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; Tolz was convicted of the enumerated offense of a "fraud;" The conviction occurred on or about July 21, 2011, which is within the last ten years; and The conviction was in connection with a real estate transaction because Tolz used funds obtained through the fraud to "purchase, maintain and improve real properties." "In Connection With" A Mortgage or Real Estate Transaction Tolz contends that her crimes were not "in connection with a mortgage or real estate transaction." At both her sentencing hearing in federal court and at the final hearing in this proceeding, Tolz stated that she owned these surrendered properties for 30 or 40 years. Tolz now argues that because she owned these properties well before the fraud of which she was convicted occurred, no mortgage or real estate transaction was involved in the crime and, therefore, she should not be disqualified from ELMORE benefits. Tolz now claims she surrendered these properties to facilitate the forfeiture on the advice of counsel, that she was heavily medicated at the time of sentencing, and that the prosecutor and the court knew that these properties were not associated with her underlying crimes. Tolz admitted at final hearing that she surrendered these properties to do an end-run around the system to reduce the more than two million dollars she owed in restitution. However, in that same sentencing hearing, the prosecutor representing the United States stated "I'll also indicate, although it's clear from the record, that notwithstanding the picture that she's somehow a pauper, or was a pauper, the fact of the matter is the forfeiture properties indicated in the forfeiture which she agreed to were her properties, at least partially paid for by the offense."2/ An impartial reading of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that during sentencing the United States believed that the properties involved in the criminal forfeiture were, in part, paid for by the crime for which Petitioner was convicted. The undersigned finds the facts, as offered by Tolz in her 2011 "Factual Basis" offered in support of a sentence reduction and reduction of her restitution obligation, to be more credible than her denial at final hearing that these properties were not purchased, improved, or maintained with the funds from her crimes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 30th day of April, 2019.
The Issue The issues are whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2020-208 (“RFA”), titled “SAIL and Housing Credit Financing for the Construction of Workforce Housing,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications and, if so, whether the challenged award was contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and/or capricious.
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 Quail Roost was an applicant for funding in the RFA. Quail Roost’s application was assigned number 2020-461SC and was preliminarily deemed eligible for consideration for funding, but was not selected for funding. Ali Baba was an applicant for funding in the RFA. Ali Baba’s application was assigned number 2020-476BS and proposed a development named City Terrace in Miami-Dade County. Ali Baba’s application was preliminarily deemed eligible and was selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. Florida Housing has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. For purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Housing credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for qualifying rental housing projects. These credits are then typically sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is to reduce the amount of money that the developer is required to borrow commercially. In return for the subsidized debt reduction, a housing credit property is required to offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers must also agree to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of thirty to fifty years. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funding, 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). Applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be awarded to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. A successful applicant usually sells the rights to the future income stream of housing credits to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. This sale is usually by way of an ownership interest in the applicant entity. The amount of funding that Florida Housing can award to an applicant depends on such factors as an RFA-designated 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. The RFA was issued on February 24, 2020, with responses due on March 30, 2020. The RFA was modified on March 13, 2020, and March 19, 2020, but the application deadline was unchanged. No challenges were made to the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing expects to award up to $17,954,000 in SAIL funding and up to $2,980,000 of housing credits through the RFA. Florida Housing received 22 applications 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 19 applications eligible and three applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, three applications were preliminarily recommended for funding, including that submitted by Ali Baba. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On June 11, 2020, Florida Housing’s Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee. Also, on June 11, 2020, at approximately 4:35 p.m., Quail Roost and all other applicants in the RFA received notice via the Florida Housing website of the Board’s eligibility determinations and of the preliminary selection of certain eligible applicants for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. The notice consisted of two spreadsheets, one listing the Board approved scoring results in RFA 2020-208 and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Ali Baba’s was one of the applications proposed for funding. Under the scoring and ranking mechanism of the RFA explained below, Quail Roost’s application would be selected for funding were Ali Baba’s application to lose points or be found ineligible. Quail Roost timely filed the Petition. Ali Baba timely intervened. The Petition was referred to the DOAH. The RFA provided point scoring for mandatory “eligibility items.” The RFA then set forth an “Application Sorting Order” of funding goals and priorities that were used to break ties in the point scoring. Only applications that met all the eligibility items could participate in the ranking scheme that determined funding selection. The RFA included only one point scoring item. Applicants could receive five points for submission of a Principals Disclosure Form stamped by Florida Housing as “Approved” during the Advance Review Process. The Advance Review Process is available online and includes instructions and samples to assist the applicant in completing the Principals Disclosure Form. Section Four A.3.c.(2) of the RFA states: “Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline.” The stated goal of the RFA was to fund one application in Monroe County and one application in a “Large County,” i.e., Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, Palm Beach, or Pinellas County. The Application Sorting Order was set forth as follows at Section Five B.2. of the RFA: The highest scoring Applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.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 Level which is outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that have a lower Leveraging Level listed above Applications with a higher Leveraging Level); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference (which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; and By lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The RFA’s “Funding Test” provision at Section Five B.3. stated that applications “will only be selected for funding if there is enough Workforce SAIL funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Workforce SAIL Request Amount, and, Monroe County Applications will only be selected for funding if there is enough Workforce SAIL funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Workforce SAIL Request Amount, and enough Competitive 9% Housing Credit funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Competitive 9% Housing Credit Request Amount.” The total available amount was $17,954,000 in SAIL funding, with at least $2,520,000 of that amount reserved for Monroe County. Section Five B.4. of the RFA described a “County Award Tally” that provided as follows: As each 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 Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. The RFA’s “Funding Selection Order” was set forth as follows at Section Five B.5.: The first Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Application that is eligible for Monroe County Goal. The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Application that is eligible for the Large County Goal. Once the goals are met or if there are no eligible Applications that can meet the goals, then the Corporation will select the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application(s) subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. If funding remains after funding all eligible Application(s) that can meet the Funding Test or because there is no eligible unfunded Application that can be fully funded, then no further Applications will be selected for funding and any remaining Total Remaining SAIL funding, as well as any unallocated 9% HC funding, will be distributed as approved by the Board. PRINCIPALS DISCLOSURE FORM The RFA required applicants to upload the Principals Disclosure Form, the full title of which is “Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form” (Form Rev. 05-2019). As an eligibility item, Section Four A.3.c.(1) of the RFA required that the Principals Disclosure Form: must identify, pursuant to Subsections 67- 48.002(94), 67-48.0075(8) and 67-48.0075(9), F.A.C., the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. As stated above, applicants received 5 points if the uploaded Principals Disclosure Form was stamped “Approved” during the Advance Review Process. Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form went through the Advance Review Process and was stamped “Approved for Housing Credits” by Florida Housing staff on March 16, 2020. Ali Baba’s application was awarded the requisite 5 points. Rule 67-48.002(94)(a) defines “Principal” for entities including corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, trusts, and public housing authorities. For a corporation, “Principal” means “each officer, director, executive director, and shareholder of the corporation.” Quail Roost alleges that Ali Baba is ineligible for funding and should lose 5 points for failure to disclose all of the principals of the applicant and its developer, Opa-Locka Community Development Corporation, Inc. (“Opa- Locka Corp.”). Specifically, Quail Roost alleges that the name of Chad Jackson, a member of the Board of Directors of Opa-Locka Corp., was not disclosed on Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. Ali Baba concedes that members of the Board of Directors of the Opa- Locka Corp. are by definition principals who must be included on the Principals Disclosure Form. Ali Baba also conceded that Mr. Jackson was a member of the Board of Directors and was not included on Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. Dr. Willie Logan, the President and CEO of Opa-Locka Corp., testified that Mr. Jackson is a local low-income housing resident who is an appointed member of the Board of Directors of Opa-Locka Corp. Dr. Logan testified that a resident such as Mr. Jackson must be on the Board of Directors in order for Opa-Locka Corp. to receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Though Mr. Jackson’s name is not included on the Principals Disclosure Form, Ali Baba did disclose Mr. Jackson’s name in a list of its 2019-2020 Board of Directors included as part of Attachment 3 of its application. Non-Profit entities are required to submit “the names and addresses of the members of the governing board of the Non-Profit entity” in Attachment 3. Ali Baba argues that this submission should be sufficient to render Ali Baba’s failure to include Mr. Jackson’s name on the Principals Disclosure Form a minor irregularity. Marisa Button, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, testified as to the reasons Florida Housing requires disclosure of all principals on the Principals Disclosure Form. The RFA includes a financial arrearage requirement stating that an application will be deemed ineligible for funding if the applicant or any affiliated entity is in financial arrears to Florida Housing. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing uses the information on the Principals Disclosure Form to ensure that the financial arrearage requirement is met and no principals are in financial arrearages to Florida Housing. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing also uses the Principals Disclosure Form as a cross-reference to determine whether any of the disclosed entities or individuals have been de-obligated or barred from participation in Florida Housing’s programs. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing considers it a material deviation from the RFA requirements when an applicant fails to disclose a principal on the Principals Disclosure Form. She testified that the disclosure of Mr. Jackson’s name elsewhere in Ali Baba’s application does not change the analysis because Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to presume that an individual not named in the Principals Disclosure Form is a principal of the applicant. Ms. Button explained that before adopting the RFA process in which a number of solicitations are issued for various funding sources over the course of a year, Florida Housing used a single annual application called the “Universal Cycle.” She stated that Attachment 3 is a holdover from the Universal Cycle process, which did not require the filing of a Principals Disclosure Form. Florida Housing used Attachment 3 to verify an applicant’s status as a nonprofit entity for those projects that included funding goals for nonprofits. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing currently reviews Attachment 3 to ensure that entities designating themselves as nonprofits have included their supporting information. It is in no way interchangeable with the Principals Disclosure Form. Ms. Button also noted that the list of Ali Baba’s Board of Directors included in Attachment 3 was dated March 26, 2020. The application deadline was March 30, 2020. Ms. Button testified that, even if Florida Housing were inclined to allow Attachment 3 to supplement the Principals Disclosure Form, the time difference between the two documents would render Attachment 3 unreliable as an indicator of Ali Baba’s principals as of the application deadline. Quail Roost pointed to another discrepancy in Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. As stated above, the name of the applicant entity is “675 Ali Baba, LLC.” The project manager of 675 Ali Baba, LLC, is “675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” However, Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form identified the manager as “Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” Ali Baba concedes that its manager was not accurately disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form. Dr. Logan testified that this was a mere typographical error and that to his knowledge no entity called “Ali Baba Manager, LLC,” existed. Ali Baba pointed to multiple other places in its application that correctly identified the manager as “675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing considers the misnaming of the management entity to be a material error for the same reason it finds the omission of an individual principal to be a material error: Florida Housing cannot perform due diligence checks on the entity if it is not correctly identified. Ms. Button acknowledged that Florida Housing has treated typographical or grammatical errors as minor irregularities in the past; however, this was not a minor irregularity because the failure to correctly name the manager affected Florida Housing’s ability to investigate the entity for financial arrears or debarment. As in the case of Mr. Jackson, the fact that 675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC, was correctly identified elsewhere in Ali Baba’s application did not affect the analysis. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing does not, and cannot, under its rules and the principles of competitive bidding, look beyond the Principals Disclosure Form to determine the identities of the applicant’s principals. SCATTERED SITES As an eligibility requirement in the RFA, applicants were required to provide information regarding the location of their proposed developments. Section Four A.5.d.(1) of the RFA required that a Development Location Point (“DLP”) be stated for the latitude/longitude coordinates in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. The DLP identified by Ali Baba is not in dispute in this proceeding. Section Four A.5.d.(2) of the RFA stated that if the proposed development consists of Scattered Sites, i.e, non-contiguous parcels,2 then in addition to the DLP information, the applicant must “provide the latitude and longitude coordinates of one point located anywhere on the Scattered Site” for each Scattered Site. As with the DLP, the coordinates for the Scattered Sites were required to be stated in decimal degrees and rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. In its application, Ali Baba proposed a development that included three Scattered Sites. Ali Baba provided the following latitude and longitude coordinates for those sites: A) 25.901060, -80.251883; B) 25.901267, -80.251473; and C) 25.901884, -80.253365. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing takes the coordinates in the application at face value and does not verify whether the coordinates provided for the Scattered Sites are actually on the proposed sites. During discovery in this proceeding, Quail Roost established that, due to a mapping error, Ali Baba’s identified coordinates for the three Scattered Sites were not located on the Scattered Sites, but approximately 35, 73, and 75 feet off the Scattered Sites, respectively. As an eligibility item, the RFA included a mandatory distance requirement. In Miami-Dade County, the distance between the DLP and the coordinates provided for any Scattered Sites must be at least 0.5 miles from the closest development that is identified as serving the same demographic as that proposed by the applicant. Ms. Button testified that the mandatory distance requirement ensures that Florida Housing does not fund developments in close proximity to other 2 A detailed definition of “Scattered Sites” is set forth in rule 67-48.002(106). recently funded developments serving the same demographic, thus avoiding issues with leasing and occupancy rates for new developments. To confirm distances from other developments, the RFA instructs applicants to use Florida Housing’s Development Proximity List, dated August 16, 2019 (“Proximity List”). The Proximity List contains information on recently funded developments, including latitude and longitude coordinates, addresses, and whether the demographic of the development is classified as Family, Elderly, Non-ALF, ALF, or Workforce Housing. Florida Housing uses the DLP and Scattered Sites coordinates provided by successful applicants to develop the Proximity List for the next funding cycle of applications. The developments receiving funding in this RFA will be added to the Proximity List for prospective applicants in the 2020-2021 funding cycle to evaluate for the mandatory distance requirement. Florida Housing has created a draft Proximity List for the next funding cycle that includes the coordinates provided in the Ali Baba application. The draft Proximity List puts future applicants on notice of applications that are in litigation, including the Ali Baba application. In its application, Ali Baba selected the Workforce Housing demographic. According to the Proximity List, the closest Workforce Housing development is approximately 5 miles from Ali Baba’s proposed development. Ali Baba argues that its inaccurate Scattered Sites coordinates should be considered a minor irregularity because the distances from the sites are less than 100 feet and did not change the finding that the Ali Baba development would not be located within 0.5 miles of the closest Workforce Housing development funded by Florida Housing. Ali Baba argues that because the draft Proximity List provides notice that its application is subject to litigation, no reasonable prospective applicant would rely on Ali Baba’s coordinates. Ali Baba notes that Florida Housing retains the authority to revise the coordinates on the draft Proximity List. Ali Baba contends that the purpose of the mandatory distance requirement is to measure proximity to the nearest development and that it is undisputed that Ali Baba’s proposed development is more than 0.5 miles away from the nearest Workforce Housing development funded by Florida Housing. Ali Baba urges that the minimal error as to the Scattered Sites coordinates in its application should be deemed a minor irregularity that conferred no competitive advantage on Ali Baba. Ms. Button testified that the error in Ali Baba’s coordinates for its Scattered Sites is a material deviation that renders the Ali Baba application ineligible for funding. The fact that the next closest Workforce Housing development was over 5 miles away does not make Ali Baba’s error a waivable minor irregularity because the coordinates provided did not meet the requirements of the RFA. Ms. Button testified that Scattered Sites coordinates are an eligibility item and Ali Baba’s error thus renders its application ineligible for funding. Absent litigation, Florida Housing would have no way of knowing that an applicant’s Scattered Sites coordinates were not accurate. Florida Housing takes the coordinates at face value and does not take measurements or have surveyors confirm the information. Instead, it relies on the application and the fact that the applicant certifies that the information in the application is true and correct. Ms. Button testified that inaccurate coordinates can affect a prospective applicant’s decision on whether to apply for funding because applicants rely on the coordinates in the Proximity List to determine whether or not they can meet the mandatory distance requirement. Florida Housing reasonably concludes that an applicant bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the information submitted in its application. The fact that litigation has in this case provided a correction to Ali Baba’s erroneous Scattered Sites coordinates does not transform Ali Baba’s failure to comply with an eligibility item into a minor irregularity.
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 2020-208 finding that Ali Baba is ineligible for funding and awarding funding to Quail Roost, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 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 23rd day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: 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. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award funding pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-103, Housing Credit and State Apartment Incentive Loan ("SAIL") Financing to Develop Housing in Medium and Large Counties for Homeless Households and Persons with a Disabling Condition (the "RFA"), Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing" or "Respondent"), acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The question of whether the application of Northside Commons Residential, LLC ("Northside"), met the requirements of the RFA with respect to demonstrating the availability of water and sewer services as of the Application Deadline is the only question at issue in this case. No other parts of its Application are being challenged, and the parties all agree that its Application was otherwise properly scored. No parties have raised objections to any parts of Warley Park's application, and all parties agree that its Application was properly scored.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Warley Park, Ltd., is the applicant entity of a proposed affordable housing development to be located in Seminole County, Florida. Petitioners Warley Park Developer, LLC, and Step Up Developer, LLC, are Developer entities as defined by Florida Housing in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(28). Northside is a Florida limited liability company based in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. 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. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. The Programs The low income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect of this is to reduce the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of up 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. SAIL provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers each year. This money often serves to bridge the gap between the development's primary financing and the total cost of the development. SAIL dollars are available to individuals, public entities, not-for-profit, or for-profit organizations that propose the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low-income individuals and families. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate housing tax credits, SAIL funding, and other funding by means of request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48) and adopted chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its housing tax credits, which were made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). The RFA 2017-103 Housing tax credits and SAIL funding are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a RFA. A RFA is equivalent to a "request for proposal" as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). The RFA at issue here is RFA 2017-103, which was issued on March 22, 2017. A modification was issued on April 11, 2017, and responses were due April 20, 2017. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $6,075,000 of housing tax credits, along with $11,500,000 of SAIL financing, to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments. A review committee, made up of Florida Housing staff, reviews and scores each application. Florida Housing scored applicants in six areas worth a total of 145 points: General Development Experience; Management Company Experience with Permanent Supportive Housing; Tenant Selection for Intended Residents; Community-Based General Services and Amenities Accessible to Tenants; Access to Community-Based Resources and Services that Address Tenants' Needs; and Approach Toward Income and Credit Status of Homeless Households Applying for Tenancy. Florida Housing scored Northside as the highest scoring applicant, awarding it 128 points. Warley Park was the fourth highest scored applicant with 112 points. These scores are presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation is presented to Florida Housing's Board of Directors ("the Board") for final agency action. On June 16, 2017, Petitioners and all other participants in RFA 2017-103 received notice that the Board had determined which applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding and selected certain applications for awards of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the "eligible" and "ineligible" applications and one identifying the applications that Florida Housing proposed to fund, on Florida Housing's website, www.floridahousing.org. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to three developments, including Northside. Warley Park's application was deemed eligible, but it was not selected for funding. The RFA at Section Four A.5.g. requires the applicant to demonstrate its "Ability to Proceed" by including the following as attachments to its application: Availability of Water. The Applicant must demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline water is available to the entire proposed Development site by providing as Attachment 9 to Exhibit A: The properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form (Form Rev. 08-16); or A letter from the water service provider that is Development-specific and dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline. The letter may not be signed by the Applicant, by any related parties of the Applicant, by any Principals or Financial Beneficiaries of the Applicant, or by any local elected officials. Availability of Sewer. The Applicant must demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline sewer capacity, package treatment or septic tank service is available to the entire proposed Development site by providing as Attachment 10 to Exhibit A: The properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form (Form Rev. 08-16); or A letter from the waste treatment service provider that is Development-specific and dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline. The letter may not be signed by the Applicant, by any related parties of the Applicant, by any Principals or Financial Beneficiaries of the Applicant, or by any local elected officials. (emphasis added). Section 5.g. of Exhibit A to RFA 2017-103, the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, requires that the applicant include the following information: Ability to Proceed: As outlined in Section Four A.5.g. of the RFA, the Applicant must provide the following information to demonstrate Ability to Proceed: Availability of Water. The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 9 to Exhibit A, an acceptable letter from the service provider or the properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form (Form Rev. 08-16). Availability of Sewer. The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 10 to Exhibit A, an acceptable letter from the service provider or the properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form (Form Rev. 08-16). The Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form requires the service provider to certify that on or before the submission deadline for the RFA, "Sewer Capacity or Package Treatment is available to the proposed Development." Similarly, the Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form requires the service provider to certify that on or before the submission deadline for the RFA, "Potable water is available to the proposed Development." Each form also includes the following caveat: To access such [waste treatment] [water] service, the Applicant may be required to pay hook-up, installation and other customary fees, comply with other routine administrative procedures, and/or install or construct line extensions and other equipment, including but not limited to pumping stations, in connection with the construction of the Development. The RFA does not define the term "Development- specific," and the term is not used in Section 5.g. of Exhibit A to RFA 2017-103 where the requirement for the water and sewer letters is included. Further, the term "Development-specific" is not defined in any Florida Housing rule. Miami-Dade County has had a longstanding practice of refusing to complete Florida Housing's water and sewer verification forms. Florida Housing added the water and sewer letter as an additional method to demonstrate availability in light of the county's refusal. Thus, an applicant, such as Northside, has no alternative when proposing a Miami-Dade project other than providing a water and sewer letter as opposed to Florida Housing's Verification form. Northside's Water and Sewer Letter Accordingly, in response to this RFA requirement, Northside submitted a letter from Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department as Attachment 9 to its application. The letter was sought by Oscar Sol, one of the principals of the developer working with the applicant in the project at issue in this case. The WASA letter at issue in this case was dated December 12, 2016. It was addressed to "Northside Commons LTD," and referenced water and sewer availability for "Northside Commons," construction and connection of 108 apartments, located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The identical WASA letter was submitted as Attachments 10 and 11 to application 2017-155C in response to a prior RFA, RFA 2016-114. That prior application was submitted by Northside Commons, Ltd., for a 108-unit elderly development called Northside Commons, located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami- Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The application deadline for RFA 2016-114 was December 15, 2016. In the present case, Northside's application for RFA 2017-103, application 2017-254CSN, was submitted by Northside Commons Residential, LLC. It was for an 80-unit development for homeless persons and persons with disabling conditions, also to be called "Northside Commons," located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The application deadline for RFA 2017-103 was April 20, 2017. The WASA letter contains several paragraphs of details about hookups to water and sewer service, and also includes the following boilerplate language: "This letter is for informational purposes only and conditions remain in effect for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. Nothing contained in this letter provides the developer with any vested rights to receive water and/or sewer service." Warley Park raised three issues regarding the WASA letter. First, was the letter valid for more than 30 days after it was signed? Second, did the letter meet the requirement of the RFA that it be "development specific?" Third, did the letter demonstrate the availability of sewer services? Was the WASA letter valid for more than 30 days after it was signed? Florida Housing and Northside contend that there is no provision in the WASA letter stating that it becomes "invalid" after 30 days, or that water and sewer services will not be available after 30 days. Douglas Pile, the representative for Miami-Dade County, testified that the second and third paragraphs of the letter included the conditions necessary to service the availability of water and sewer, and that it was these conditions that remained in effect for 30 days. He described the purpose of the 30-day language as follows: We're not saying that availability disappears or terminates after 30 days. We're just saying this letter is good for informational purposes for 30 days. We don't want people to come back a year later and say I bought this property based upon this letter of availability saying I have water and sewer under certain conditions, and then a year later the conditions are different and maybe they have to put in a water main extension or maybe their local pump station is in moratorium. When asked specifically whether the entire letter was valid for only 30 days, he responded, "Right. Well, the conditions are – the nearby water and sewer facilities that the project would connect to." Mr. Pile explained that the letter is "a snapshot of what our facilities are at the time they make the request." He further stated that: the letter . . . has to have an expiration date either explicit or implicit. If a utility is going to give a letter saying they have water and sewer availability, that cannot be forever, you know. You assume a natural termination point . . . we just explicitly say this letter is good for 30 days. In its Pre-Hearing Position Statement, Florida Housing argued that it did not interpret this language to mean that the letter became invalid after 30 days. However, according to Mr. Reecy,1/ there was no "interpretation" done by Florida Housing. Specifically, when asked how Florida Housing interpreted the phrase, he stated: We have basically ignored that phrase. We actually do not know what--given the context of this situation, how, within 30 days, the--that information is only good for 30 days. So we have not considered that to be a relevant factor in our consideration of the information provided in the letter. A plain and common reading of the quoted language indicates Miami-Dade limited the validity of the information in the letters to 30 days. Florida Housing provided no explanation for its decision to ignore the language and made no attempt to inquire of Miami-Dade County as to what it intended by including the language. This 30-day limitation is generally known by the applicants and nearly every previously funded application included a letter from Miami-Dade County dated within 30 days of the application deadline. Only one Miami-Dade WASA letter submitted by applicants within the last two RFAs was dated outside of the 30-day window. That letter was deemed ineligible for other reasons. Had Petitioner wanted to demonstrate availability as of the application deadline, it only needed to request a letter from Miami-Dade County within the 30 days prior to the application deadline, giving Miami-Dade sufficient time to respond. In fact, the letter was initially submitted as part of a response to RFA 2016-114, with a due date of December 15, 2016. Because the letter was issued on December 12, 2016, it remained valid through the application deadline for RFA 2016-114. There is no limit to the number of times a developer can obtain a letter of availability from Miami-Dade County. The requirements of the RFA are clear that water and sewer availability must be shown "as of the Application Deadline." Because the WASA letter submitted with Petitioner's Application only provided a snapshot of availability for a 30-day window after the issuance of the letter (or until January 11, 2017), the letter failed to address the availability of water or sewer services as of April 20, 2017. As a practical matter, the WASA letter provides that water hook-up is readily available to existing infrastructure and sewer availability is dependent upon a developer building a pumping station. It could be inferred that these conditions would remain available at this location for 12 months. However, the testimony of Mr. Pile makes clear that Miami-Dade County is not willing to make that assumption for a period beyond 30 days due to the possibility of intervening events.2/ Presumably, this is why the vast majority of applicants for this type of RFA secures and provides a Miami-Dade WASA letter dated within 30 days of the RFA application deadline. Because the WASA letter was not valid beyond January 11, 2017, Petitioner cannot demonstrate availability of water and sewer as of the Application Deadline. The fact that the WASA letter was no longer valid is fatal to Petitioner's application in that it failed to satisfy a mandatory requirement of RFA 2017-103, i.e., the availability of water and sewer services. Was the WASA letter "development specific?" The RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate water and sewer service availability for "the entire proposed Development site," and it also requires that the letter from the service provider be "Development-specific." The application in this matter was filed by Northside Commons Residential, LLC, for an 80-unit development for the homeless and persons with disabling conditions. However, the WASA letter was issued to, and discussed the availability of water and sewer service for, a different entity, Northside Commons, Ltd., the applicant for a 108-unit elderly development. According to Mr. Reecy, the reuse of a letter that was previously submitted in a different application does not follow the "letter" of the criteria in the RFA. Florida Housing and Northside even agree that the letter does not reference the specific proposed development that is at issue and instead focuses on the location of the proposed development. Mr. Sol, Northside's representative, suggested that it is "irrelevant" to which entity the letter is issued because what is relevant is whether water and sewer availability exists. However, as stated by Mr. Reecy, what Florida Housing considers when determining whether a letter of availability is "Development-specific" is the location, the number of units, and the applicant. Because the WASA letter was issued to a entirely different applicant, based upon Mr. Reecy's testimony, it is not "Development-specific." However, Mr. Reecy noted that such a letter could be considered a Minor Irregularity if there is some commonality between the applicant entities. Northside argues that the failure of the letter to be "Development-specific" should be waived as a Minor Irregularity. This issue was not considered during scoring, nor was it a determination made by the Board of Florida Housing prior to awarding funding to Northside. Mr. Reecy acknowledged that it is a judgment call when determining whether a letter addressed to a different entity with different principals is a Minor Irregularity. That call depends upon the number of common principals. While the number of principals that must be the same is discretionary, there must be at least some commonality of principals for it to be considered a Minor Irregularity. The principals of Northside Commons, Ltd., the entity to which the letter was actually issued and the applicant that originally submitted the WASA letter, are completely different from the principals of Northside Commons Residential, LLC. Despite a full understanding of all the similarities between the two applications and the differences in the requirements of the RFA and being given a number of opportunities to change his position, Mr. Reecy repeatedly declined to do so. Mr. Sol suggested that it is common practice for Florida Housing to accept letters issued to entities other than the applicant and with different principals. After hearing Mr. Sol's opinion and discussing the issue further with Northside, Mr. Reecy remained steadfast in his position that the error in the Letter could not be waived as a Minor Irregularity. At the request of Northside, Mr. Reecy agreed to review past practices of the agency during a break in the hearing. As stated by counsel for Florida Housing, if it is established that Florida Housing has a long-standing practice of accepting similar letters, then the question is whether Northside Commons may rely upon that practice. The review during the break was limited to the issue of whether Florida Housing had previously accepted Miami-Dade letters addressed to an entity who was not the applicant and who shared no principals in common with the applicant. No such long- standing practice was demonstrated. Mr. Reecy directed staff to pull all of the Miami-Dade letters of availability from the last two RFAs, to determine, first, whether or not there were sewer letters addressed to someone other than the applicant entity. Second, for those so identified, staff was to compare the principals of the applicant entity and the entity that was the addressee for commonality. Mr. Reecy was provided a list of approximately a dozen letters from the past several RFAs that compared the applicant entity and the addressee entity. This list did not identify whether or not the letters were submitted by successful credit applicants. Based upon this list, Mr. Reecy then reviewed each letter to determine whether or not it was issued to the applicant. He then reviewed the principals list for the applicant as identified in the application and compared that to data from the state of Florida's Sunbiz.org website for the addressee of the letter. Mr. Reecy compared this information to determine if the two had any principals in common. After reviewing this information, Mr. Reecy recanted his earlier testimony and stated that he felt that Florida Housing historically accepted letters with addressees that were not the applicant entity and did not have common principals. Mr. Reecy further testified that based upon this understanding of Florida Housing's past practice, the Northside's letter should be accepted. The information Mr. Reecy reviewed, specifically that obtained from the state of Florida's Sunbiz.org website, did not demonstrate, as Mr. Reecy believes, that Florida Housing previously accepted Miami-Dade WASA letters from applicants in a similar position to that of Northside. Notably, Florida Housing does not accept documentation from the Sunbiz.org website to demonstrate the principals of the Application as required by this and other RFAs. The Sunbiz.org website does not identify the level of detail of principals which Florida Housing requests in its "Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form". Further, even if Sunbiz.org did identify all of the principals Florida Housing requires to be disclosed, in this case, the Sunbiz.org information reviewed was dated 2017.3/ As this information was filed after the application deadlines for the respective RFAs, it fails to identify any of the principals related to the entities in the "comparable" letters for the 2015 and 2016 RFAs. No information was provided as to any of the principals in either 2015 or 2016. Accordingly, Mr. Reecy and Mr. Sol's belief that Florida Housing had previously accepted letters in a similar position to that of Northside Commons' letter has not been demonstrated. Because Mr. Reecy's new position, that Northside Commons' letter should be accepted, is based upon this incorrect understanding, and the alleged prior agency action was not demonstrated, Mr. Reecy's initial testimony is found to be more credible. Therefore, the record demonstrates that the WASA letter was not "Development-specific" and, therefore, contrary to the solicitation specifications. Did the letter demonstrate availability of sewer services? The RFA requires each applicant to provide a form or letter demonstrating that "as of the Application Deadline sewer capacity, package treatment or septic tank service is available to the entire proposed Development site." Petitioner presented the testimony of Jon Dinges, P.E., an environmental engineer with expertise in designing wastewater systems who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering, specifically in the area of sewer infrastructure and design. Mr. Dinges' testimony was simply that the problem with the WASA letter in this case is that it does not actually say that capacity is available. In a prior RFA, Florida Housing rejected an application that included a Miami-Dade WASA letter because it specifically stated that no gravity sewer capacity analysis had been conducted. According to Mr. Dinges, without conducting a gravity sewer capacity analysis, it is not possible to determine whether capacity, if any, exists. However, the RFA makes no mention of requiring a gravity sewer capacity analysis to demonstrate availability. Mr. Reecy testified that Florida Housing has been accepting WASA letters without mention of gravity analysis from Miami-Dade County for many years. He stated that the detailed description of how a proposed project could connect to an existing sewer service met the requirement of the RFA that the Applicant demonstrate the availability of sewer service. He also testified that if Florida Housing were to change its position and determine that the form of the letter was not adequate to demonstrate capacity, it would do so in a public process. The testimony was clear that Florida Housing does not do any independent analysis of whether water and sewer service is actually available to a proposed development, but instead relies on the expertise of the local government to do this analysis. Applicants are not required to include or demonstrate the specific requirements or technical specifications of how a connection to water or sewer services will be made. This interpretation is consistent with the specifications of the RFA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order amending its preliminary decision awarding funding to Warley Park by: finding Northside ineligible for funding; and awarding funding to Warley Park as the next highest scoring eligible applicant. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 19th day of October, 2017.
The Issue By an information filed by the Florida Real Estate Commission, respondent Thomas F. Thayer was charged with fraud, dishonest dealing and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Florida Statutes s.475.25(1)(a). In essence, the information charges that respondent, as the real estate broker for the Jacobs and in order to obtain a ninety percent loan commitment for the Jacobs, falsely represented to a mortgage corporation that the Jacobs Intended to move into the duplex they planned to purchase and sell their present home.
Findings Of Fact At all relevant times to this proceeding, respondent was a registered real estate broker. Respondent had been an acquaintance of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Jacobs for a period of four to five years. Some two years before the transaction in question, Jacobs had expressed to respondent his desire to purchase property containing a duplex for purposes of a tax shelter. Mr. Jacobs testified that he intended the purchase to be an Investment somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000.00. There was also evidence that Mr. Jacobs understood that there were tax shelter benefits from living in half the duplex and depreciating the other half. In April of 1974, respondent showed the Jacobs a duplex. At the time, the Jacobs were living in a two bedroom, two bath waterfront home with a swimming pool, valued somewhere in the neighborhood of $60,000.00. The location of the duplex was in a lower rent neighborhood near some railroad tracks. However, the front portion contained three bedrooms, two baths, a thick shag carpet and a built-in bar. There were also two large screened-in patios. The Jacobs were impressed with the duplex, and on April 19, 1974, they signed a deposit receipt contract prepared by respondent to purchase the duplex for $41,000.00. This contract was subject to the Jacobs being able to obtain ninety percent financing at 9.25 percent annual Interest within fifteen days from the date of acceptance by the sellers. The contract also contained certain conditions regarding inspection of the rear apartment; electrical, plumbing, roofing and appliance defects; termite damage and the inclusion of a metal storage shed. Such conditions were included in the contract at the request of Mr. Jacobs. In order to obtain ninety percent financing, it was necessary that the lender be assured that the borrower actually intends to reside on the mortgaged property. This assurance comes about through either an affidavit executed by the borrower at the time of closing and/or the filing with the lender of a sales listing on the present home of the borrower. From this point forward, disputes in the testimony arise. Respondent testified that Mr. Jacobs was aware of the financing requirement that he would have to indicate an intent to sell his present home. Jacobs acknowledged that he was so aware, but testified that he never had any intent to move from his waterfront home to the duplex, and so informed respondent. However, when he went in to make the loan application with the mortgage company, he told its representative that he would be living in the duplex. Respondent then informed the mortgage company that he would be sending them a multiple listing form on the Jacobs' present residence. Jacobs stated at the hearing that he and his wife never intended to reside in the duplex and that he followed respondent's advice regarding the filing of a multiple listing only because he had faith and trust in respondent, who told him such things were done all the time. Respondent testified that the Jacobs never informed him that they did not intend to live in the duplex or that they did not intend to sell their present home. In fact, there was testimony from Mr. Jacobs that between the time of the deposit receipt contract and the first letter approving the mortgage loan commitment, he and his wife were looking at other homes on the water in which to live. The multiple listing form was signed by the Jacobs and delivered to the mortgage company by respondent, but it was never turned in to the multiple listing service. Sometime subsequent to receiving the mortgage loan commitment on May 29, 1974, Jacobs inspected the rear apartment of the duplex and became very upset and disgusted with its condition. Repairs were estimated at $1,000.00 and the sellers only offered to contribute approximately $75.00 toward such repairs. Jacobs then went to an attorney who advised him that it would be illegal to continue with the purchase because of the misrepresentation as to the Jacobs' intent to reside in the duplex. Jacobs then called the mortgage company and told them he did not intend to live in the duplex. Thereafter the mortgage company informed Jacobs that they were unable to obtain a mortgage commitment. Respondent testified that he first became aware that the Jacobs did not intend to live in the duplex the night after Jacobs inspected the rear apartment and spoke with his attorney. In summary, the testimony in this case is conflicting with respect to respondent's knowledge of the Jacobs' intent as to where they would actually reside. In order for respondent to be found guilty of fraud, dishonest dealing and breach of trust in a business transaction, as prohibited by Florida Statutes s 475.25(1)(a), the Real Estate Commission must prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent actually knew that the Jacobs never intended to reside at the duplex property. That proof is lacking in this case. Here, the substance of the matters in dispute are as readily susceptible of proving respondent's innocence as they are susceptible of proving guilt. Jacobs testified that he originally wanted the duplex as an investment which would provide a tax shelter and that he did not intend to live in it. Yet, he verbally represented to the mortgage company that he did intend to live in the duplex, signed a multiple listing agreement and actually did look at other homes to live in during the period of time between signing the deposit receipt contract and obtaining knowledge of the original loan commitment. There was no evidence that respondent had any knowledge of or was involved in the Jacobs' search for another home in which to live. Jacobs was willing to go through with the purchase of the duplex until he became aware of the extent of damages to the rear apartment. It was at this time that he Informed the mortgage company that he did not have any intention of living in the duplex or selling their house. And, it was at about this same time, according to respondent, that respondent first learned that the Jacobs did not intend to reside in the duplex. There is no clear and convincing evidence in this record that proved that respondent knew that the Jacobs did not plan to live in the duplex at the time respondent forwarded the multiple listing to the mortgage company on April 30, 1974. The most credible evidence tending to show such knowledge on respondent's behalf is the fact that after the multiple listing agreement was signed and delivered to the mortgage company, the house was never actually put up for sale, was not shown to anyone, and the agreement was not filed with the multiple listing service. Yet, this is consistent with the evidence that the Jacobs did not receive word of the loan commitment until after May 29, 1974 (later to be rescinded on July 5, 1974) and the fact that the Jacobs were in the process of looking for yet another home to purchase. It is logical to assume that they were not yet ready to sell their present home with the uncertainties that existed, and this Instructed respondent to delay the selling process. In summary, it is concluded that the Real Estate Commission failed in its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the misconduct charged; to wit: fraud, dishonest dealing and breach of trust in a business transaction. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the information charging respondent with a violation of Florida Statute 475.25(1)(a) be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of December, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Louis B. Guttman, III, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 James F. Spindler, Jr., Esquire and James R. Eddy, Esquire EDDY AND SPINDLER, P. A. 700 East Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33060
The Issue Whether Respondent, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Respondent), discriminated against Petitioner, Wikindson Philippe (Petitioner) in the origination of Petitioner's mortgage loan on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act, and, if so, what remedy is available.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Wikindson Philippe, is a black male of Haitian origin. He filed a Housing Discrimination Complaint against Respondent on November 5, 2008. At all times material to the allegations of the complaint, Respondent was a lender in partnership with KB Home, a construction entity developing a residential community described in the record as Blackstone. On May 20, 2007, Petitioner and his wife ventured forth to look at homes for purchase. They initially went to a KB Home development to inquire about homes but were told it was sold out. The proceeded to a nearby development, Blackstone, and met with a salesman who Petitioner described as "aggressive." The salesman showed Petitioner various lots and Petitioner and his wife were impressed by the community. In order to get "pre-qualified" for a loan to purchase a home, the KB Home salesman referred the couple to Lydia Lapotaire, a loan consultant who was located in Respondent's sales center. Mrs. Lapotaire was employed by Countrywide KB Home Loans, the preferred lender for KB Home residential properties. Working in tandem, KB Home the builder/developer and Countrywide KB Home Loans, the preferred lender, sought to accommodate Petitioner's interest in purchasing the Blackstone home. Both entities had a financial interest in securing Petitioner's business. Despite his concerns that he was being inappropriately pressured to purchase a home, Petitioner signed a contract to acquire a lot and single-family dwelling to be constructed on the lot. The purchase agreement recognized that the final purchase price could be stated in an addendum to the initial contract. Based upon the purchase agreement Petitioner planned to acquire a home with a total sales price of $302,490.00. At all times material to the negotiation of the purchase agreement, Petitioner had advised the salesman and Mrs. Lapotaire that he could not afford to pay more than $1,600.00 per month for a mortgage payment. Petitioner was not concerned regarding the amount of the loan so long as the total monthly payment did not exceed his cap. Because he relied on the representations of the salesman and the lender's consultant and wanted to have the home, Petitioner deposited $5,000.00 down on the purchase agreement. At all times material to the purchase, both Mrs. Lapotaire and the salesman assured Petitioner that the lender would work with him to allow him to acquire the home. Nevertheless, when Petitioner consulted a friend who had more experience in the purchase of homes, Petitioner became concerned that the home he desired could not be acquired for the amount he could pay. When Petitioner brought these concerns to the salesman's attention he was advised that he would lose his deposit if he attempted to cancel the contract. Petitioner believed that the only way he could recover his deposit money was to be denied for the loan. To that end, Petitioner and his wife selected upgrades from the base price of the home. In so doing, Petitioner was required to make additional deposits. In accordance with the time lines specified by the builder, Petitioner deposited a total of $20,000 toward the purchase price of the home. As evidenced by Petitioner's Exhibit B (also admitted into the record as Respondent's Exhibit 7), Petitioner's loan application for the Blackstone home was not approved. The Notice of Action Taken specified several reasons Countrywide KB Home Loans was unable to approve the loan. Petitioner claimed he did not receive the notice; it was sent to an incorrect address. Instead of being addressed to apartment 772, it was addressed to apartment 72. In the meanwhile, the lender continued to seek financing for Petitioner's purchase. At that time, Respondent had an affiliated company called Full Spectrum Lending that worked as a subprime unit. By going that route it was presumed the buyer was still actively seeking to purchase the home and that various lending scenarios could be explored to determine whether Petitioner might qualify. It is undisputed that Petitioner did not qualify for a loan under the standard loan scenario. None of the lending procedures used by Respondent, Countrywide KB Home Loans, or Full Spectrum Lending required Petitioner to disclose his race or ethnic origin. In fact, Petitioner did not prove that any of the loan processors or underwriters knew Petitioner's race or ethnic origin. There is no evidence that Petitioner's race and ethnic origins were considered in the decision to approve or not approve the loan. The motivations of Respondent and KB Home were likely similar. As joint venture partners, they would have wanted Petitioner to be approved for a loan and to close on it. KB Home would not likely decline to sell to Petitioner nor want to refund his deposit. Respondent would not likely profit from not approving the loan. None of the business reasons for wanting the loan and sale to be consummated were based upon Petitioner's race or ethnic origin. In short, financial interests and not a desire to harm a person of Petitioner's race or ethnic origin were the key reasons for the seller and lender to work in concert to achieve the closing on Petitioner's home. After an extended amount of time, Petitioner did close on the home. He claimed that he was pressured into closing due to the fear that his deposit would be lost but he nevertheless signed all of the closing documents necessary to own and finance the home. It was undoubtedly too expensive for Petitioner. Petitioner has not been able to keep current on his mortgage obligation. Facing foreclosure, he now asserts that Respondent's actions were to take advantage of him based upon his race or ethnic origin. Respondent and KB Home may have unduly pressured Petitioner to purchase a home he could not afford, but there is no evidence they did so based upon his race or ethnic origin. Petitioner is an articulate person. Through out these proceedings he has stated his position on the issues of the case in a well-reasoned and cogent manner. He is understandably disenchanted with the financial results of his home purchase. He has, however, continued to enjoy the residence and his wife likes the home. Petitioner's purchase agreement provided, in pertinent part: 5.5 Failure to Obtain Commitment. Prior to the Loan Approval Deadline, if Buyer's loan application is denied or Buyer obtains an unsatisfactory loan approval (in Buyer's reasonable discretion) Buyer may cancel this Agreement with written notice to Seller and receive a refund of all Deposits. Based upon the Notice of Action Taken (dated July 13, 2007); Petitioner could have canceled the purchase agreement. He chose to close on the transaction. If Petitioner was not approved for a loan or if the terms of a loan were unreasonable, Petitioner did not have to accept the terms of the loan. Petitioner erroneously presumed he would not receive a refund of his deposit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint of discrimination filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert C. Graham, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2500 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Wikindson Philippe 2413 Country Pond Court St. Cloud, Florida 34771-8868 COPY FURNISHED BY CERTIFIED MAIL Sylvia Bakrevski Country Wide Home Loans 5220 Las Virgenes Road Calabasas, California 91302 (Certification No. 91 7108 2133 3935 7995 2966)
The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing, Corporation, or Respondent) rejection of the funding for the application submitted by Capital Grove Limited Partnership (Capital Grove) was contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications of Request for Applications 2014-114 (the RFA). If so, whether Florida Housing’s decision to fund the application submitted by HTG Wellington Family, LLC (HTG Wellington), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to applicants in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Applicants then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the owner would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax-credit property can offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of ten years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. Tax credits are made available by the U.S. Treasury to the states annually. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48), and adopted Florida Administrative Code chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Rule 67-60.002(1) defines “Applicant” as “any person or legally-formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter for one or more of the Corporation’s programs.” Applicants request in their applications a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants typically sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the Applicant entity) to an investor to generate the majority of the capital necessary to construct the Development. The amount of housing credits an Applicant may request is based on several factors, including but not limited to a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. Florida Housing’s competitive application process for the allocation of tax credits is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications. In this case, that document is Request for Applications 2014-114 (the RFA). The RFA was issued November 20, 2014, and responses were due January 22, 2015. Capital Grove submitted Application No. 2015-045C in RFA 2014-114 seeking $1,509,500 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 94-unit residential rental development in Pasco County (a Medium County), to be known as Highland Grove Senior Apartments. HTG Wellington submitted Application No. 2015-101C seeking $1,510,000 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 110-unit multifamily residential development in Pasco County, Florida, to be known as Park at Wellington Apartments. Florida Housing has announced its intention to award funding to nine Medium County Developments, including Park at Wellington in Pasco County (Application No. 2015-101C), but not Highland Grove Senior Apartments. Florida Housing received 82 applications seeking funding in RFA 2014-114, including 76 for Medium County Developments. The process employed by Florida Housing for this RFA makes it virtually impossible for more than one application to be selected for funding in any given medium county. Because of the amount of funding available for medium counties, the typical amount of an applicant’s housing credit request (generally $1.0 to $1.5 million), and the number of medium counties for which developments are proposed, many medium counties will not receive an award of housing credit funding in this RFA. Florida Housing intends to award funding to nine developments in nine different medium counties. The applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of RFA 2014-114; Florida Administrative Code chapters 67- 48 and 67-60; and applicable federal regulations. Florida Housing’s executive director appointed a Review Committee of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed “eligible,” based on whether the application complies with Florida Housing’s various content requirements. Of the 82 applications submitted to Florida Housing in RFA 2014-114, 69 were found “eligible,” and 13 were found ineligible, including Capital Grove. Florida Housing determined that Capital Grove was ineligible on the ground that its Letter of Credit was deficient under the terms of the RFA. A five-page spreadsheet created by Florida Housing, entitled “RFA 2014-114 – All Applications,” identifying all eligible and ineligible applications was provided to all Applicants. In addition to scoring, Applicants received a lottery number to be applied in tie situations, with the lower number given preference. Capital Grove received lottery number 12. HTG Wellington received lottery number 9. On March 11, 2015, the Review Committee met and considered the applications submitted in response to the RFA, and made recommendations regarding the scoring and ranking of the applications to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the Board). Capital Grove’s Letter of Credit The RFA provides for a Withdrawal Disincentive in which an applicant could either provide a $25,000 check or a $25,000 Letter of Credit that would be forfeited if the application was withdrawn by the applicant before a certain period of time. Applicants so withdrawing would also suffer a deduction from the full developer-experience point total in certain future Requests for Applications issued by Florida Housing. According to specifications in the RFA, any Letter of Credit submitted must be in compliance with all the requirements of subsection 4.a. of Section Three, Procedures and Provisions of the RFA, which provides in pertinent part: 4. $25,000 Letter of Credit. Each Applicant not submitting a $25,000 Application Withdrawal Cash Deposit (as outlined in 3 above) must submit to the Corporation a letter of Credit that meets the following requirements with its Application: a. The Letter of Credit must: Be issued by a bank, the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC, and which has a banking office located in the state of Florida available for presentation of the Letter of Credit. Be on the issuing bank’s letterhead, and identify the bank’s Florida office as the office for presentation of the Letter of Credit. Be, in form, content and amount, the same as the Sample Letter of Credit set out in Item 14 of Exhibit C of the RFA, and completed with the following: Issue Date of the Letter of Credit (LOC) which must be no later than January 22, 2015. LOC number. Expiration Date of the LOC which must be no earlier than January 22, 2016. Issuing Bank’s legal name. Issuing Bank’s Florida Presentation Office for Presentation of the LOC. Florida Housing’s RFA number RFA 2014- 114. Applicant’s name as it appears on the Application for which the LOC is issued. Development name as it appears on the Application for which the LOC is issued. Signature of the Issuing Bank’s authorized signatory. Printed Name and Title of the Authorized Signatory. The Sample Letter of Credit included in Exhibit C, Item 14 of the RFA reads: (Issuing Bank’s Letterhead) Irrevocable Unconditional Letter of Credit To/Beneficiary: Florida Housing Finance Corporation Issue Date: [a date that is no later than January 22, 2015] Attention: Director of Multifamily Programs 227 N. Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Letter of Credit No.: Expiration Date: [a date that is no earlier than January 22, 2016] Issuing Bank: Florida Presentation Office: FHFC RFA # 2014-114 Applicant: Development: Gentlemen: For the account of the Applicant, we, the Issuing Bank, hereby authorize Florida Housing Finance Corporation to draw on us at sight up to an aggregate amount of Twenty- Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($25,000.00). This letter of credit is irrevocable, unconditional, and nontransferable. Drafts drawn under this letter of credit must specify the letter of credit number and be presented at our Florida Presentation Office identified above not later than the Expiration Date. Any sight draft may be presented to us by electronic, reprographic, computerized or automated system, or by carbon copy, but in any event must visibly bear the word “original.” If the document is signed, the signature may consist of (or may appear to us as) an original handwritten signature, a facsimile signature or any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication. Payment against this letter of credit may be made by wire transfer of immediately available funds to the account specified by you, or by deposit of same day funds in a designated account you maintain with us. Unless we notify you in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the Expiration Date, the Expiration Date of this letter of credit must be extended automatically for successive one-month periods. This letter of credit sets forth in full the terms of our obligations to you, and such undertaking shall not in any way be modified or amplified by any agreement in which this letter is referred to or to which this letter of credit relates, and any such reference shall not be deemed to incorporate herein by reference any agreement. We engage with you that sight drafts drawn under, and in compliance with, the terms of this letter of credit will be duly honored at the Presentation Office. We are an FDIC insured bank, and our Florida Presentation Office is located in Florida as identified above. Yours very truly, [Issuing Bank] By Print Name Print Title Despite these requirements, Capital Grove submitted an “Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit” issued by PNC Bank National Association (PNC). Capital Grove’s Letter of Credit provides, in pertinent part: Beneficiary: Applicant: Florida Housing Finance Westbrook Housing Corp. Corp. Development, LLC 4110 Southpoint Blvd., 227 North Bronough Street Ste 206 Suite 5000 Jacksonville, Fl 32216 Tallahassee, Fl 32301 ATTENTION: DIR. OF MULTI- FBO CAPITAL GROVE FAMILY PROGRAMS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT OUR REFERENCE: 18123166-00-00 AMOUNT: USD $25,000.00 ISSUE DATE: JANUARY 20, 2015 EXPIRY DATE: JANUARY 22, 2016 EPIRY PLACE: OUR COUNTER RE: FHFC RFA #2014-114 DEVELOPMENT: HIGHLAND GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS GENTLEMEN: WE HEREBY ESTABLISH OUR IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 18123166-00-000 IN FAVOR OF FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE ACCOUNT OF WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LLC AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT AT OUR COUNTERS IN AN AMOUNT OF USD $25,000.00 (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 UNITED STATES DOLLARS) AGAINST BENEFICIARY'S PURPORTEDLY SIGNED STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS: "I (INSERT NAME AND TITLE) CERTIFY THAT I AM AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND HEREBY DEMAND PAYMENT OF USD (INSERT AMOUNT) UNDER PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 18123166-00-000. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC HAS FAILED TO COMPLY UNDER THE PROJECT NAME: HIGHLAND GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS BETWEEN FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC." Ken Reecy, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, personally reviewed all Letters of Credit submitted by RFA applicants, and reported his findings to the Review Committee. The Review Committee recommended finding Capital Grove’s application nonresponsive and ineligible for funding because Capital Grove failed to include a responsive Letter of Credit. The Review Committee also found four other applications ineligible for failing to meet the Letter of Credit requirements, all of which used PNC Bank and involved entities related to Capital Grove, including Westbrook Housing Development, LLC, appearing as Co-Developer. All such PNC Letters of Credit failed for the same reasons. Mr. Reecy and the Review Committee found that the Letters of Credit from PNC Bank (including that submitted by Capital Grove) did not meet the facial requirements of the RFA, in that the Letters of Credit were not in the name of the applicant. The General Partner of the applicant, Capital Grove Limited Partnership, is Capital Grove GP, LLC. The Co-Developer entities are JPM Development, LLC, and Westbrook Housing Development, LLC. Co-Developer Westbrook Housing Development, LLC, a Michigan Company authorized to conduct business within the State of Florida, is a different legal entity from Co-Developer JPM Development, LLC. Mr. Reecy and the Review Committee also found the PNC Letters of Credit (including that submitted by Capital Grove) nonresponsive to the specification of the RFA because the Letters included a condition requiring Florida Housing, in order to draw on the Letter of Credit, to certify that the Co- Developer (and not the applicant) had “failed to comply under the project name: Highland Grove Senior Apartments.” However, under the RFA specifications, the action that is the basis for the presentment of the Letter of Credit is a withdrawal of the application by the applicant, not the developer. Only an applicant may withdraw an application. If the Letter of Credit cannot be drawn upon, the RFA provides that the applicant, “shall be responsible for the payment of the $25,000 to the Corporation; payment shall be due from the applicant to the Corporation within 10 calendar days following written notice from the Corporation.” Applicant Capital Grove is a single-purpose entity that has no assets. In order to collect on the Letter of Credit submitted by Capital Grove, Florida Housing would have to submit a different certification than that called for under the RFA sample letter of credit. According to Kathleen Spiers, Vice President of PNC Bank, to draw down the Letter of Credit, Florida Housing would have to copy the statement outlined in paragraph 2 of the Capital Grove Letter of Credit, sign it, and submit it to PNC to draw upon the letter of credit. At the final hearing, Mr. Reecy testified, “I am not prepared to certify to something that isn’t true. I am not going to certify that the developer didn’t comply by the Applicant withdrawing.” All other Letters of Credit submitted by applicants under this RFA were accepted as responsive. HTG Wellington’s Unit Count HTG Wellington indicated in its application to Florida Housing that its proposed Park at Wellington Development would be 110 multifamily units. In its application for Local Government Support, HTG Wellington described the Development as a 120-unit, multifamily development in five three-story buildings. The RFA requires a minimum $50,000 Local Government Contribution in Pasco County for an applicant to receive the maximum of five points. In order to obtain a Local Government Contribution, tax credit developers must submit an application to Pasco County at least six weeks before the matter is presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Pasco County, in turn, has their underwriter, Neighborhood Lending Partners ("NLP"), organize the applications and create an underwriting package. NLP does not make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for funding. Rather, NLP alerts Pasco County if there is a red flag concerning the Development and scores the applications based upon financial stability of the organization, financing of the project, and the development pro forma. HTG Wellington submitted an application for Local Government Contribution to Pasco County in November 2014. The application contemplated a 120-unit development. Impact fees schedules are adopted by the Pasco County Board of Commissioners. Pasco County has established an impact fee rate for affordable and non-affordable development and the difference between the two is multiplied by the number of units to determine the impact fee amount. The impact fee waiver amount approved for Park at Wellington Apartments was $219,600. This amount was calculated based upon 120 units contemplated in November 2014, multiplied by $1830.00, which is the difference between the normal impact fee rate, minus the rate for affordable housing development. The $219,600 figure was used in HTG Wellington’s application. At 110 units (as opposed to 120 units), the total Local Government Contribution available to HTG Wellington is $201,300. Either amount ($219,600 or $201,300) meets the minimum for HTG Wellington to receive five points for its Local Government Contribution. The change in the contribution amount would have no effect on the scoring of the HTG Wellington application. Pasco County’s Manager of Community Development and Officer of Community Development, George Romagnoli, testified that for approximately 15 years, Pasco County has employed a strategy to approve all applications for Local Government Contribution and then let Florida Housing choose which Development will receive tax credits. Pasco County is not concerned about the ultimate accuracy of the number of units submitted for a Contribution –- as stated by Mr. Romagnoli: "We funded 84, 120, whatever. It's really not material to the approval one way or the other." Although Florida Housing approved HTG Wellington’s application before discovering the discrepancy, had Florida Housing discovered the discrepancy in the number of units during the scoring process, the discrepancy would have been deemed a minor irregularity unless the discrepancy resulted in a change in scoring or otherwise rendered the application nonresponsive as to some material requirement and the discrepancy would generally be handled with a simple adjustment to the amount presented on the application Pro Forma, if necessary. Additionally, changes to the number of units in a development may be increased (but not decreased) under certain circumstances during the credit underwriting process which follows the competitive solicitation process. The discrepancy in the number of units does not provide any competitive advantage to HTG Wellington. The discrepancy in the number of units does not provide a benefit to HTG Wellington not enjoyed by others. Florida Housing’s waiver of the discrepancy in the number of units does not adversely impact the interests of the public. HTG Wellington’s Bus Stop The RFA allows an applicant to obtain 18 proximity points, including six points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Florida Housing awarded HTG Wellington 4.5 proximity points for its purported Public Bus Transfer Stop. The RFA defines a Public Bus Transfer Stop as: This service may be selected by all Applicants, regardless of the Demographic Commitment selected at question 2 of Exhibit For purposes of proximity points, a Public Bus Transfer Stop means fixed location at which passengers may access at least three routes of public transportation via buses. Each qualifying route must have a scheduled stop at the Public Bus Transfer Stop at least hourly during the times of 7 am to 9 am and also during the times of 4 pm to 6 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays on a year-round basis. This would include both bus stations (i.e. hub) and bus stop with multiple routes. Bus routes must be established or approved by a Local Government department that manages public transportation. Buses that travel between states will not be considered. In response to this requirement HTG Wellington submitted a Surveyor Certification Form which lists coordinates submitted to qualify for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. The site identified by HTG Wellington as a Public Bus Transfer Stop, however, is not a fixed location where passengers may access at least three routes of public transportation. While another bus stop which serves an additional two routes is within 700 feet, stops cannot be combined for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, the site designated as a Public Bus Transfer Stop by HTG Wellington is not a “fixed location” for purposes of the RFA and HTG Wellington is not entitled to obtain proximity points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Not including the 4.5 proximity points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop, HTG was awarded 11.5 total proximity points for selected Community Services. The required minimum total of proximity points for developments located in a medium county that must be achieved in order to be eligible to receive the maximum amount of 18 points as set forth in the RFA is 9. HTG had more than the required minimum total of proximity points to receive the maximum award of 18 proximity points based on its Community Services score alone. The disqualification of HTG’s submitted Public Bus Transfer Stop would have no effect on the scoring or ranking of the HTG Wellington application, nor affect its ranking relative to any other application, nor affect the ultimate funding selection. The RFA requires each applicant to read and sign at Attachment A, an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form (the Form). The signing of the Form is mandatory. Page 5, Paragraph 8 of the Form provides: In eliciting information from third parties required by and/or included in this Application, the Applicant has provided such parties information that accurately describes the Development as proposed in this Application. The Applicant has reviewed the third party information included in this Application and/or provided during the credit underwriting process and the information provided by any such party is based upon, and accurate with respect to, the Development as proposed in this Application. Even though there was a discrepancy in the unit numbers submitted to Pasco County for a Local Government Contribution and its application submitted in response to the RFA, HTG signed the Form. No evidence was submitted indicating that HTG signed the Form with knowledge of the discrepancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: Rejecting Capital Grove’s application as nonresponsive and denying the relief requested in its Petition; Concluding that Capital Grove lacks standing to bring allegations against HTG Wellington; and, Upholding Florida Housing’s scoring and ranking of the HTG Wellington application. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2015.
