The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) employed an unadopted rule when it used rounding on a competing application to place Petitioner’s application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“HC” or “Tax Credits”) in the 2004 Universal Application Cycle in the “B” leveraging tie-breaker group, and if so, whether Florida Housing complied with the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, when it employed rounding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership. Reliance- Andrews, LLC, the sole general partner of Petitioner, is a non- profit entity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(81). Petitioner’s address is 516 Northeast 13th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304. The affected agency is the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”), 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized under Part V, Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing and refinancing houses and related facilities in Florida in order to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to persons and families of low, moderate, and middle income. Petitioner filed an application, number 2004-102C, with Florida Housing for tax credits under the Housing Credit (“HC”) program for a proposed development in Broward County, Florida, known as Flagler Point. Under the HC program, successful applicants receive a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal tax liability in exchange for the development of units to be occupied by low-income households. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for the State of Florida and is authorized to establish procedures necessary for the allocation of Tax Credits under Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing scores and ranks applications for the HC program pursuant to the Universal Application Package Instructions ("Application Instructions") which are adopted as rules pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(111). The applicants for housing credits are sophisticated, and the application process is highly competitive. Most applicants achieve a perfect score on applications, so Florida Housing has created a series of “tiebreakers” to determine which projects receive allocations of tax credits. These include “leveraging,” (the amount of requested funding over the number of set-aside units), proximity to services, proximity of other Florida Housing developments, and, finally, a lottery. Petitioner and numerous other applicants for the HC program received the maximum score on the application, 66 points. Florida Housing then ranked the applications that received perfect scores to determine priority for funding according to certain Ranking and Selection Criteria as outlined in the Application Instructions. Part of the Ranking Selection Criteria process includes "tie-breakers" as enumerated in the Application Instructions. The first of the applicable tie-breakers separates the applications into groups A and B based upon a formula used by Florida Housing to determine funding request per set-aside unit. Group A is comprised of the 80 percent of applications with the lowest amount of total funding request per set-aside unit. The 20 percent of applications with the highest per unit request amount are placed in Group B. Applications in Group A receive preference over Group B. The A/B leveraging tiebreaker alone does not determine who gets funded. Some leveraging Group B projects are funded. The total number of set-aside units for each Application is computed by multiplying the total number of units within the proposed development by the highest total set- aside percentage the applicant committed to in the Set-Aside Commitment section of the Application. Florida Housing rounded up the total set-aside units on application 2004-084C from 182.7 (the product of the total number of units (203) and the highest total set aside percentage (90%)) to 183. Rounding this figure produces a lower per unit funding request amount for application 2004-084C ($51,857.95 instead of $51,943.10). Petitioner's per unit funding request is $51,882.28, which would be lower than application number 2004-084C if the total set-aside unit figure was not rounded. Petitioner's application was placed in Group B instead of Group A. On May 7, 2004, Petitioner filed a Notice of Possible Scoring Error ("NOPSE") requesting correction of the set-aside unit rounding, which Petitioner contended was in error. Respondent did not adopt Petitioner’s NOPSE, and on May 28, 2004, issued its scoring summary for application number 2004- 084C indicating a per unit Florida Housing funding request of $51,857.95. On July 9, 2004, Respondent issued the 2004 Final Score Corporation Funding Per Set-Aside for A and B Groups indicating that Petitioner had been placed in Leveraging Group B. Florida Housing has used rounding to determine the number of set-aside units in the same manner each year from the 2002 Universal Application Cycle through the 2004 Universal Application Cycle. Applicants are encouraged to, and more often than not do, set aside 100 percent of the units for low or very low income tenants. As most applicants for Tax Credits do just that, rounding is not often an issue. The number of set-aside units represents a commitment the developer makes in return for funding, and the number in the application is the number of set aside units the developer must provide, and is used to determine whether the development is in compliance with its commitment to Florida Housing, and to the Internal Revenue Service. As a practical matter, the number of set-aside units cannot be a fraction of a unit. Rounding up to the next whole number is the only option, because if the unit number is rounded down, the percentage of set-aside units would be below the set- aside commitment, the IRS would deem that the property had not met its set-aside commitment, and the investors would not receive their tax credits. Florida Housing revises its Universal Cycle Application and Instructions through the rulemaking process each year, in response to stakeholder input, in reaction to litigation, and to clarify issues which arise during the year. During the rulemaking process, there is considerable dialogue between developers and Florida Housing. Public hearings (rule development workshops) are noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly, with the agendas being posted on Florida Housing’s website and also made available for distribution at the public hearings. The affordable housing development community is small and its members pay close attention to Florida Housing’s application process, which is intensely competitive. Petitioner is an experienced developer, and has previously received funding from Florida Housing. Petitioner is a member of a coalition of affordable housing developers, which meets before the rule development workshops to discuss the agenda, and to attempt to reach consensus on agenda issues. Petitioner is part of the development community, which normally participates in the rule development process, and Petitioner has been an active participant in the 2005 rule development process. An active member of the affordable housing developer’s coalition, and a veteran participant in the Florida Housing application and funding process, would have been aware of Florida Housing’s use of rounding to determine the number of set-aside units to which each applicant committed. The rounding issue that is at the heart of this proceeding has been addressed by Florida Housing in its proposed rule amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002 for the 2005 Universal Application Cycle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the petition and denying all relief sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2004.
The Issue The issue in Case No. 98-3441RX is whether a 15 percent penalty provision of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's 1998 Application Package for Low Income Housing Tax Credits, adopted and incorporated into the Florida Administrative Code, by reference pursuant to Rules 67-48.002(10) and 67-48.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The issue in Case No. 98-3873 is whether Respondent appropriately applied the 15 percent penalty to Petitioner on its 1998 Application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Lakewood Senior Apartments Limited Partnership (hereinafter referred to as "Lakewood"), was an applicant for 1998 Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding. Respondent, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "FHFC"), has been designated by the State of Florida to administer a Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes. FHFC is governed by a nine-member board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"). The members of the Board are appointed by the Governor. Intervenors, LCA Development, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "LCA"), The Gatehouse Group, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Gatehouse"), Vestcor Equities, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Vestcor"), and The Wilson Company (hereinafter referred to as "Wilson"), were all applicants for 1998 Low Income Housing Tax Credit funding. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. To encourage the development of low-income housing for families, Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, creates federal income tax credits that are allocated to each of the states for award through state-administered programs to developers of rental housing for low-income and very low-income families. Tax credits allocated to developers through the program may be sold by the developer to generate a substantial portion of the funding necessary for construction of low-income housing projects. The program has been in existence in Florida since 1987. Since its inception, in excess of 43,000 affordable housing units have been produced in Florida through the program. Every year each state receives an annual allotment of tax credits. Generally, Florida's annual allotment of tax credits is apportioned among three county groupings based on population: large counties, medium counties, and small counties. Applicants compete for the tax credits allocated to a group based upon which county an applicant's proposed housing is to be located in. Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, establishes FHFC's responsibility for the allocation of Florida's share of tax credits: The corporation shall adopt allocation procedures that will ensure the maximum use of available tax credits in order to encourage development of low- income housing in the state, taking into consideration the timeliness of the application, the location of the proposed housing project, the relative need in the area for low-income housing and the availability of such housing, the economic feasibility of the project, and the ability of the applicant to proceed to completion of the project in the calendar year for which the credit is sought. Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, requires that each state ensure that the minimum amount of tax credits necessary for an applicant to implement a proposed project are awarded in order to ensure the maximum use of a state's available credits. How tax credits are allocated is required to be reviewed at three distinct phases in order to carry out this goal: the first phase is the initial application/allocation phase; the second phase is a credit underwriting carryover stage; and the last phase is a final cost certification stage. Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, requires that each state establish a qualified allocation plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Allocation Plan") establishing the procedures to be followed in awarding low income tax credits allocated to the state. Consistent with this requirement, FHFC has adopted an Allocation Plan for Florida through the adoption of Chapter 67-48, Florida Administrative Code. The Allocation Plan establishes a competitive application process intended to carry out the first stage required by the Internal Revenue Code. The actual application (hereinafter referred to as the "Application") used to carry out the first stage of the allocation process provided for in the Application Plan is revised by FHFC on an annual basis. The Application is adopted as part of an Application Package, which includes the Application, tabs, and instructions thereto adopted by FHFC. The Application Package is amended each year to refine and clarify the Application Package, and to implement any new directives from the Board. Once revised, the Application Package is adopted by rule. Once the annual Application Package is adopted and an annual application cycle opens, the adopted Application Package is made available to interested persons for completion and submission to FHFC. Completed Applications received by FHFC are evaluated and scored pursuant to the Application Package, projects are ranked within their respective county groupings, and the highest ranked projects are invited to participate in the second stage of the allocation process, credit underwriting. Once an applicant completes credit underwriting and receives a Preliminary Allocation Certification indicating the amount of tax credits preliminarily allocated to the project, the applicant may proceed to construct the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant enters the final phase of the process, the Final Cost Certification phase. The Internal Revenue Code requires that all credits allocated to a state for a particular year must be allocated by December 31 of that year. Any credits not allocated go into a national pool consisting of all credits not used by December 31. All states that use all their credits by December 31 are then eligible to share in the credits available in the national pool. FHFC makes every effort to ensure that it allocates all of Florida's allocated credits so that the State may participate in the national pool. The Application Process. Prior to each application cycle, FHFC revised its previous year's Application Package and adopts an Application Package for the upcoming year by rule. After adopting the Application Package by rule, FHFC opens the cycle and makes the Application Package available. All Applications are required to be fully completed and filed by a date certain specified in the rules. Information contained in the Application is required to be certified true and accurate by the applicant. All submitted Applications are evaluated and scored by a Review Committee pursuant to the procedures established in the rules. See Rule 67-48.004, Florida Administrative Code. In 1998, the Review Committee was a committee of eight persons designated by the rules to organize the scoring of all applications. The Review Committee was made up of seven members of the staff of FHFC appointed to by the Board and one member of the staff of the Department of Community Affairs. Rule 67- 48.002(80), Florida Administrative Code. Following the notification of preliminary scores, applicants are given a week to review the scores of all applicants. See Rule 67-48.005, Florida Administrative Code. Once notified of the preliminary scores, applicants have the right to file a written Notification of Possible Scoring Error (hereinafter referred to as a "NOPSE"). A NOPSE could be filed to point out a possible scoring error on the applicant's score or on any other applicants' score. All NOPSE's filed during the 1998 cycle were reviewed by FHFC to determine if any modification in an applicant's score should be made. Following the resolution of all NOPSE's, the preliminary scores of all applicants are reviewed by the Board. After the Board's review and approval of the preliminary scores and the ranking of applicants, notice of intended funding is provided to each applicant. Following approval of preliminary scores by the Board, applicants are given a second opportunity to challenge their preliminary score or the preliminary score of any other applicant by filing a Direct or Competitive Appeal. See Rule 67-48.005, Florida Administrative Code. No authority for re-scoring any Application, other than as the result of the filing of a NOPSE or a Direct or Competitive Appeal, was authorized for the 1998 cycle pursuant to Chapter 67- 48, Florida Administrative Code. Following the resolution of all Direct or Competitive Appeals, the Board approves the final scores awarded to each Application by final order of the FHFC. Final scores are ranked by county grouping and a "funding line" is determined. The funding line is the point on the ranking sheet for each county group which represents the cut- off between those applicants that will be funded and those that will not. Applicants ranked above the funding line are given the opportunity to advance to the next two phases of the process required for them to receive funds. See Rule 67-48.026, Florida Administrative Code. For example, for the large county group, the amount of tax credits requested by the highest ranked applicant is deducted from the total tax credits available for the large county group. The amount of tax credits sought by the next highest ranked applicant is then deducted from the remaining tax credits. This process is followed until all the tax credits available for the large county group are allocated. The Credit Underwriting Phase. Those applicants to whom tax credits are tentatively allocated during the application process are next invited to "credit underwriting." Rule 67-48.026, Florida Administrative Code. A "credit underwriter" is defined in Rule 67- 48.002(25), Florida Administrative Code, as follows: (25) "Credit Underwriter" means the legal representative under contract with [FHFC] having the responsibility for providing stated credit underwriting services. Such services shall include, but not be limited to, reviewing the financial feasibility and viability of Projects and proposing to the Corporation the amount of a SAIL or HOME loan and/or the amount of Tax Credit needed, if any. The credit underwriter provides a comprehensive analysis of the preliminarily approved Applications, the applicant, the real estate market, the development economics, and the project's ability to proceed. The credit underwriter verifies the accuracy of information contained in the Application, confirms that the Application complies with applicable statutory and rule requirements of the FHFC, and determines whether the project is financially feasible as presented. Although Applications are required by the rules to be reviewed on their face, during the credit underwriting phase the credit underwriter is allowed to look at pertinent information not contained within the submitted Application. The credit underwriter verifies the accuracy and reasonableness of the information provided in an Application. The credit underwriter looks at the availability of financing, the structure of the proposal, and the estimated total project cost. The credit underwriter may adjust the financial projections set forth in the Application. Historically, the credit underwriter typically increases project costs. Ultimately, the credit underwriter recommends a preliminary allocation of tax credits to each applicant above the funding line. The amount of tax credits recommended may differ from that requested by the applicant. The amount initially requested by the applicant, however, cannot be exceeded. The applicant is limited to the lower of the amount applied for, the lowest amount needed for financial viability, or the qualified basis calculation amount. FHFC may accept, modify, or reject the credit underwriter's recommendations. Rule 67-48.026(10), Florida Administrative Code. Applicants successfully completing the credit underwriting phase are issued a Preliminary Allocation Certification which indicates the amount of tax credits preliminarily allocated to the project. The Final Cost Certification Phase. Construction of the project typically takes two to three years from the submittal of the Application. If a project cannot be completed by the end of the calendar year, the applicant must enter into a Carryover Agreement. Pursuant to this agreement, FHFC promises to allocate a "not to exceed" amount of tax credits to the project if it is completed within two years in accordance with the Carryover Agreement. Once the project is completed, the applicant is required to submit a Final Cost Certification. The Final Cost Certification details the actual costs incurred in completing the project, verified by an independent certified public accountant. Prior to 1998, the Final Cost Certification had to be certified by a credit underwriter. One purpose for the Final Cost Certification is to ensure that actual costs are consistent with, and do not exceed, those allowed by federal and state requirements. The applicant is issued an IRS Form 8609 which establishes the amount of tax credits allocated to the applicant. The amount of tax credits allocated after the Final Cost Certification may be less than the originally approved tax credits for the project. The 1998 Application Package; Project Funding & Economic Viability (Project Cost Pro Forma), Form 4. Effective January 6, 1998, FHFC adopted by reference in its rules the 1998 Application Package, "Form CAP98." Rules 67- 48.002(10) and 67-48.004(1), Florida Administrative Code. The adoption of the 1998 Application Package and the allocation of tax credits through the application phase was consistent with the description of the application process, supra. Among the forms required to be submitted as part of the 1998 Application was Form 4, "Project Funding & Economic Viability (Project Cost Pro Forma)." The purpose of Form 4 is to ensure that an applicant had firm commitments for funding from financially capable sources sufficient to cover the costs of the project which would not be covered by tax credits. A total of 150 points were available for the information on Form 4. This was the highest possible single award of points in the 1998 Application. To the extent that firm commitments were not demonstrated on Form 4, an applicant was to be awarded less than 150 points. In two places on Form 4, applicants are informed that they could not request a developer fee in excess of the limits established by the FHFC rules and the 1998 Application Package. For Lakewood's Application, the maximum developer fee was 20 percent of project cost. The parties stipulated that Lakewood's Form 4 demonstrated that all necessary funding for its project was firmly secured. Therefore, the parties agreed that, but for the imposition of the penalty provision at issue in this proceeding, Lakewood was entitled to an award of 150 points for Form 4. The 15% Penalty. The following provision appears on Form 4 of the 1998 Application: FULL POINTS WILL BE AWARDED ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THIS FORM IS PROVIDED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORM'S REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE, ACCURATE INFORMATION IN THE FORMAL AND LOCATIONPRESCRIBED BY THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN A 15% REDUCTION OF POINTS FOR FORM 4. ONLY INFORMATION CONTAINED WITH THIS APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PURPOSES OF POINTS AWARDED OR APPEALED. (This provision will hereinafter be referred to as the "15% Penalty"). The 15% Penalty appears in materially identical form on Forms 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 22 of the 1998 Application. The Development of the 15% Penalty. Since the inception of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program in Florida, the application process has become increasingly competitive and litigious. For example, for the 1998 cycle FHFC received Applications for approximately 72.6 million dollars but only approximately 10.7 million dollars of tax credits available. Consequently, only eleven of the ninety Applications will likely be funded from the 1998 cycle. Because of the increased competitiveness and the litigious nature the application process, the Board appointed a Combined Cycle Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Cycle Committee") to work with the staff of FHFC to improve the Application and application process for the 1998 cycle. The Board also instructed staff to strictly construe the Application, make sure forms in the 1998 Application were as clear as possible, and to implement a penalty for failures to follow the instructions. The development of the 1998 Application Package began in the spring of 1997. On July 14, 1997, the first rule development workshop was held. The purpose of the workshop, which was attended by approximately forty individuals, was to provide a forum for comments and suggestions from developers and other interested persons concerning the Application Package and the process. Following the July 1997 workshop, FHFC prepared a draft of the 1998 Application Package. The draft consisted of the 1997 Application Package with changes proposed for the 1998 cycle noted with strike-through for deleted language and underlining for added language. See Respondent's Exhibit 2, the "Red Book." Among the proposed changes to the 1997 Application Package contained in the Red Book was the inclusion of the following language on Page 1 of the Instructions: FULL POINTS WILL BE AWARDED ONLY IN THE EVENT THAT ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED BY EACH FORM IS PROVIDED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. FAILURE TO PROVIDE COMPLETE, ACCURATE INFORMATION IN THE FORMAT AND LOCATION PRESCRIBED BY THE APPLICATION WILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF POINTS AS INDICATED ON EACH FORM. ONLY INFORMATION CONTAINED WITH THIS APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED FOR PURPOSES OF POINTS AWARDED OR APPEALED. This language was repeated throughout the Red Book, modified only to specify that the penalty was 15 percent and to refer to the specific section or form the language was included in. The 15% Penalty applied only to the points available for a form on which an error or omission occurred. The penalty applied regardless of the number of errors or omissions on a form and regardless of the significance of the error or omission. FHFC was aware at the time that it was considering the 15% Penalty that the point difference between the highest and lowest point totals above the funding line for the 1997 cycle for the large county category was 43.03 points. FHFC also knew that historically only a half point to two points separated funded applicants and unfunded applicants. The 15% Penalty modified the previous treatment of errors or omissions on Applications. Prior to 1998 if an error was made in an Application, the Application was either rejected if the error related to certain specified "threshold requirements" or staff simply corrected the error. For example, if an applicant requested a developer fee in excess of the developer fee cap, scorers would adjust the claimed fee downward. No penalty would be imposed on the applicant. Copies of the Red Book were made available to interested persons to review before and during a second rule development workshop held on September 22, 1997. The purpose of this workshop was to review the proposed changes in the Red Book and to give the approximately sixty-five individuals that attended the workshop an opportunity to make comments and suggestions as to how to improve the Application Package and the application process. The 15% Penalty was specifically explained during the September 22, 1997, workshop. Lakewood was represented at the meeting. The following explanation of the 15% Penalty was given: Before we go on into rules and QAP things, I want to add one more global comment to be sure everybody in this room understands the new big change in the application whereby you [sic] if you don't fill it out exactly the way the instructions tell you, you're going to get penalized then and there, okay? There's a 15% penalty on many of these forms. On Form 3 we set out a chart for you to show that if you don't give all the information exactly where you say it is in the application, all your T's are crossed and your I's dotted, you're going to get reduced points. Now, the whole purpose of this is not to make your life miserable or to make our lives miserable. It is to make you pay attention to the application and to reduce appeals, okay? FHFC Exhibit 11. In addition to the two workshops, two public meetings were held by the Cycle Committee to discuss the proposed Application Package. Questions and comments concerning the proposed Application Package were invited. FHFC staff were also available to answer questions concerning the 1998 Application Package and the process at any time up until the deadline for submittal of the 1998 Application. Throughout the period of time during which the 1998 Application Package was being developed, FHFC staff emphasized the need for accuracy on the Application and explained to prospective applicants that the 15% Penalty existed. FHFC formally adopted the 1998 Application Package containing the 15% Penalty. No challenges to the rule which incorporated the 1998 Application Package were filed before the rule became effective. Full-day workshops were subsequently conducted by FHFC throughout the State to explain how to complete the 1998 Application and to answer questions thereon. The 15% Penalty was explained during these workshops. Purpose for the 15% Penalty. It is important for Applications to be complete and accurate during the application phase. The application phase is FHFC's first opportunity to analyze proposed projects in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code and FHFC's rules. The Internal Revenue Code requires that the minimum number of tax credits necessary to complete a project be determined during the application phase. Therefore, even though modifications may be made during the credit underwriting and final phases, FHFC is still required to make sure that Applications approved in the application phase are as accurate as possible. FHFC's purpose for adopting the 15% Penalty was described by Gwen Lightfoot, Deputy Development Officer for FHFC: Well, it's - we have to go into a little bit of history in order to really understand from whence this approach came. When I first came to the Agency, that was in 1992, we had enough credits that everybody that applied that was really ready to go would be able to get the credits. And there were times at the end of the year when staff would be frantically calling up developers and saying, Do you have a site, are you ready to go? You know, you told me that you were going to turn this application in and we didn't get it and we need one more to secure the national pool. And so, you know, that was the atmosphere under which the credit program was operating six years ago. It was critical for us to get the national pool in those days because that would add, oh, $6 million to the amount of credits that we would have, which is thousands of unit. So, each year we got more and more competitive, more and more developers learned about the program, more and more developers realized that they could make a good living with, you know, affordable housing. The mechanism that the code creates encourages public/private partnerships, so this is a good way for the private community to provide affordable housing and make a living. So, the competition became more and more intense. In 1997, by then, it was extremely contentious, litigious, extremely competitive. I can remember - I think it was in 1996, it might have been the year before, we had over 300 issues on appeal, and that's just insanity. So in this scope of things we tried to come up with a way to make sure that this application was accurate and complete and - well, I guess those are the best words - because we have a mandate in the Federal code and in the State code that we can allocate no more credits than is absolutely necessary for the project viability. That means it is critical for us to have an accurate and complete application. The overall purpose of the app is to be an objective mechanism by which we can maximize the use of the credits. We have got to have a way to be sure that we are getting the best bang for our buck, I guess is a good way to say it. So, when we laid the penalty over the entire application, we were searching for a rational, fair, objective approach which was designed to reduce appeals, to be fair to everybody, come up with a mechanism by which we could award partial points for people who had done, you know, the main thrust of the particular question but had for some reason not done it perfectly, rather than make them lose all of the points for an issue, we only make them lose a%age of the points. The other big thing that played into the decision to go with this penalty approach is that in the six years that I have been reviewing these applications there is a very strong and direct correlation between an applicant's ability to put together a complete, thorough, accurate, well thought out and organized application. And the product that they produce and the way that they handle the compliance period. These properties are not just coming in the door, getting their credits and going out the door and never seeing the agency again. We have to monitor them for 50 years. So, the attention to detail is so critical that, in addition to being a mechanism to select between really good applicants, it is also - it lets them know, it helps teach the applicant what they are in for with regard to detail and long-term commitments. It is just the whole thing to help us get an accurate and complete application so we can accurately allocate credits. (Transcript 71) By its terms, the 15% Penalty applied regardless of the magnitude of the error committed on an Application. For example, if an amount was overstated by $1.00, a 15 percent penalty applied. The application of the 15% Penalty was based upon an objective determination of whether an error occurred. The staff had no discretion to make a subjective determination as to the significance of an error or omission. Although it was not the intent of FHFC for the imposition of the 15% Penalty to be the determining factor in whether an applicant was awarded tax credits, the effect of the 15% Penalty can have that impact. Imposition of the 15% Penalty on Lakewood. On or about March 10, 1998, Lakewood submitted a completed 1998 Application to FHFC for 1998 tax credit funding. Lakewood sought approximately 1.14 million dollars in tax credits for a 150-unit apartment complex to be located in Orange County, Florida. Lakewood's Application was completed by Don Paxton, an employee of the developer, contractor, and management company for Lakewood. Mr. Paxton attended the September 22, 1997, rule development workshop. Mr. Paxton was aware and understood that the 15% Penalty had been included in the 1998 Application and that it was intended to punish for inaccuracies contained in submitted Applications. He also was aware that the 15% Penalty applied to inaccuracies on Form 4. Finally, Mr. Paxton was aware that the developer fee available for Lakewood's proposed project was limited to 20 percent of project cots. On Form 4 of Lakewood's Application, Lakewood claimed a developer fee in excess of the 20 percent of project cost limitation Lakewood was subject to. The developer fee requested by Lakewood was $1,959,714.00, or $240,000.00 in excess of the maximum developer fee Lakewood could request. The excess amount included in the developer fee cost claimed by Mr. Paxton represented an advisory fee which Lakewood had agreed to pay to Affordable Housing, an advisory group specializing in the development and marketing of tax credit- financed housing for senior citizens. Nothing in Lakewood's submitted 1998 Application informed FHFC that the excess amount included as a development fee by Lakewood was attributable to Affordable Housing. Based upon what was provided to FHFC by Lakewood in its Application, it was reasonable for FHFC to conclude that Lakewood was requesting a developer's fee in excess of 20 percent of project cost. Mr. Paxton included the advisory fee because of an instruction of page 10 of Form 4 that "Consulting fees, if any, must be paid out of the developer fee." Mr. Paxton knew, however, that Affordable Housing was not a consultant as the term "consultant" is used in the 1998 Application Package. Mr. Paxton's interpretation of the instruction concerning the payment of consultant fees on page 10 of Form 4 was not reasonable. Mr. Paxton also included the advisory fee as part of the developer fee because that was the only way for Lakewood to treat the $240,000.00 fee as a cost eligible for tax credit reimbursement. While it was a part of the total project cost, it was not part of the project cost eligible for reimbursement with tax credits. The inclusion of the advisory fee as part of the developer fee did not diminish the fact that Lakewood's Form 4 demonstrated secure financing and, consequently, the economic feasibility of its project and its ability to proceed. Due to the excessive developer fee included by Lakewood on Form 4, the scorers of Lakewood's Application imposed the 15% Penalty. A total of 22.5 points was deducted from the 150 points Lakewood would otherwise have been entitled to for Form 4. With the reduction of Lakewood's total score by 22.5 points, Lakewood fell below the funding line for the 1998 cycle. Without the 22.5 point penalty, Lakewood would have been above the funding line. Other Applications of the 15% Penalty. FHFC applied the 15% Penalty to other applicants during the 1998 cycle for errors on Form 4, including the inclusion of developer fees in excess of applicable limits. For example, the penalty was imposed on Applications 8, 9, 30, 58, and 59. FHFC initially imposed the 15% Penalty on the Application of Kay Larkin because the requested developer fee combined with the requested consulting fee, which was separately listed, exceeded the applicable developer fee. FHFC took this position even though the separately listed consulting fee was included as an ineligible cost. Kay Larkin challenged the 15% Penalty. FHFC subsequently agreed to remove the penalty because it was decided that FHFC should not have combined the eligible developer costs and the ineligible consulting fee. The developer fee standing alone did not exceed the developer fee cap. The Kay Larkin matter is distinguishable from this matter because Lakewood listed the entire amount as an eligible developer fee. In the case of the 1998 Application filed by Harvard House, FHFC did fail to impose the 15% Penalty for the inclusion of a developer fee in excess of the developer fee cap. It failed to impose the penalty through oversight. Although Lakewood pointed this error out in a NOPSE it filed concerning its score, no NOPSE or direct or competitive appeal was filed by any applicant concerning the Harvard House Application. FHFC, therefore, had no authority pursuant to the 1998 Application to modify the score it had awarded Harvard House. FHFC committed the same error in scoring the Application submitted by Orchid Trace, which had included a developer fee in excess of the limit of $1.00. Again, although Lakewood raised this error in a NOPSE concerning its score, no NOPSE or direct or competitive appeal concerning Orchid Trace's score was filed. FHFC's imposition of the 15% Penalty to Applications which included developer fees in excess of the developer fee caps was consistent except to the extent that FHFC inadvertently failed to impose the penalty on Harvard House and Orchid Trace. Some applicants failed to include a general contractor fee on the Project Cost Pro Forma of Form 4. General contractor fees were limited to 14 percent of project cost. FHFC did not, however, impose the 15% Penalty on those applicants for their omission. Two applicants above the funding line, Magnolia Pointe and Nantucket Bay, failed to include any general contractor fee on the appropriate line. Most applicants, including Lakewood, left some line blank on the 1998 Application and were not penalized. The following instruction was included on page 1 of the 1998 Application: BE SURE TO ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS, FOLLOW ALL INSTRUCTIONS AND FILL IN ALL LINES. DO NOT LEAVE ANY BLANKS. IF AN ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT, INDICATE BY USING "N/A". INCOMPLETE OR BLANK ITMES WILL RESULT IN LOSS OF POINTS. Applicants were not specifically required to report a general contractor fee on their Form 4. In some cases, applicants did not incur general contractor fees. Consequently, on those forms where the applicant did not include a general contractor fee, the FHFC had to assume that the applicant did not intend to pay a general contractor fee. Where a particular item was not specifically required or FHFC could not know whether an item had been left off in error, FHFC interpreted the 15% Penalty to not require the imposition of a penalty for merely failing to mark the item "N/A." Intervenors' Standing. Intervenors are engaged in the business of providing affordable residential rental units for low income and/or very low income persons. Intervenors, through subsidiaries or affiliates, submitted Applications to FHFC seeking allocation of tax credits from the 1998 combined cycle pursuant to Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes (1998). Intervenors, through subsidiaries or affiliates, also submitted Applications seeking tax credits from one or both of the preceding two cycles (1996 and 1997), and anticipate filing Applications in the 1999 cycle. For the 1998 cycle, Intervenors, through subsidiaries or affiliates, submitted the following Applications for projects located in FHFC's large county group and were awarded the following points: Company Project Scores LCA 050C - Magnolia Pointe 652.75 Gatehouse 075CS - Nantucket Bay Apartments 644.47 077C - The Rosemary 656.00 Vestor 040C - Courtney Manor Apartments 640.75 Wilson 047C - Windermere Apartments 640.75 The scores for Intervenors' projects were based upon FHFC staff's comparative review and scoring of the Applications submitted in the 1998 cycle, resolution of all direct and competitive appeals, informal hearings conducted by FHFC designated Hearing Officers, and Board action at its August 21 and September 11, 1998, meetings. At the commencement of the final hearing in these cases, the Board had not entered final orders on the scoring of the 1998 Application. The projects of LCA and Gatehouse, however, were above the funding line and were issued "at risk" invitations to credit underwriting. The projects of Vestcor and Wilson were tied with a third applicant for the remaining tax credits for the large county group, which was not sufficient to fund all three projects. On October 16, 1998, the Board voted to issue final orders confirming the scores of all applicants except Lakewood. The Board issued final orders for the funding of all of Intervenors' projects. If Lakewood prevailed in this proceeding and the 15% Penalty was not imposed, its score would rank it ahead of Vestcor's and Wilson's projects. Based upon the Board's action at the October 16, 1998, meeting, however, the projects of Vestcor and Wilson will still be funded.
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Housing and Finance Corporation's intended decision to award low income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in Miami-Dade County to Rio at Flagler, LP (Rio), was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504. One of its responsibilities is to award low-income housing tax credits, which developers use to finance the construction of affordable housing. Tax credits are made available to states annually by the United States Treasury Department and are then awarded pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with Florida Housing's issuance of a RFA. In this case, the RFA was issued on November 21, 2014, modified slightly on January 30, 2015, and required the filing of applications by February 10, 2015. According to the RFA, Florida Housing is expected to award up to an estimated $4,367,107 of housing credits for the following demographic set- aside: housing projects targeted for either the family or elderly population in Miami-Dade County. The credits will be awarded to the applicants with the highest total scores. Pinnacle submitted Application No. 2015-211C seeking $2,560,000.00 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 104-unit residential rental development to be known as Pinnacle Heights. Rio submitted Application No. 2015-217C seeking $1,940,000.00 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 76-unit residential development to be known as Rio at Flagler. The agency's Executive Director appointed a review committee comprised of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring. Fifty-three applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA, administrative rules, and applicable federal regulations. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed "eligible," based on whether the application complies with various content requirements. Of the 53 applications filed in response to the RFA, 43 were found to be eligible, and ten were found ineligible. Both Pinnacle and Rio were found eligible for the family/elderly demographic. The RFA specifies a sorting order for funding eligible applicants. All eligible applicants in the family/elderly demographic, including Pinnacle and Rio, achieved the maximum score of 23 based on criteria in the RFA. Recognizing that there would be more applications than available credits, Florida Housing established an order for funding for applicants with tied scores using a sequence of six tiebreakers, with the last being a lottery number assigned by the luck of the draw. Applications with lower lottery numbers (closer to zero) are selected before those with higher lottery numbers. Both Pinnacle and Rio received the maximum 23 points and met all tiebreaker criteria. In other words, both had so- called "perfect" applications. The ultimate deciding factor for perfect applications is a randomly generated lottery number that is assigned at the time each application is filed. Rio's number is four, while Pinnacle's number is six. Because Rio had a lower lottery number than Pinnacle, Florida Housing issued its notice of intent to award tax credits to Rio and another applicant (with a lower lottery number) not relevant here. Pinnacle timely filed a formal written protest. As amended, Pinnacle's protest is narrowed to a single issue -- whether the bus stop identified in Rio's application is a Public Bus Transfer Stop, as defined in the RFA. A failure to comply with this provision would lower Rio's total proximity score and make it ineligible to receive tax credit funding. The RFA specifies two Point Items in the family/elderly demographic category. The first Point Item is "Local Government Contributions," for which a maximum of five points could be awarded. The second is "Proximity to Transit and Community Services," for which points are awarded based on the distance between the proposed development and the selected transit and community service. A maximum of six proximity points are allowed for Transit Services, while a maximum of 12 proximity points are allowed for Community Services for a total maximum of 18 proximity points. Under the terms of the RFA, if an applicant achieves a minimum of 12.25 proximity points for Community Services and Transit Services, a "point boost" up to the maximum total score of 18 proximity points is added to the applicant's score. Rio's transit score of six points is the focus of this dispute. The RFA lists five types of Transit Services that an applicant can self-select to obtain proximity points, including Public Bus Stop (maximum two points) and Public Bus Transfer Stop (maximum six points). Applicants may select only one type of transit services on which to base their transit score. Depending on the type of transit service selected, an applicant may receive up to a maximum of six points for Transit Services. To verify the information in the application, an applicant must submit a Surveyor Certification Form, which is completed and signed by a licensed surveyor. In making its preliminary decision to award tax credits, Florida Housing relies on the information provided in the form and does not second-guess the surveyor. Issues regarding the accuracy of the information in the form are presented through challenges by other applicants. Because Rio had only ten points for proximity to Community Services, it needed at least 2.25 transit points in order to obtain the minimum 12.25 proximity points necessary to achieve a point boost up to 18 points and be in the running for funding. Accordingly, Rio's application sought six points for the project site's proximity to a Public Bus Transfer Stop. A Public Bus Transfer Stop is defined on page 19 of the RFA as follows: This service may be selected by Family and Elderly Demographic Applicants. For purposes of proximity points, a Public Bus Transfer Stop means a 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 a.m. to 9 a.m. and also during the times of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year-round basis. This would include both bus stations (i.e. hubs) and bus stops 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 sum, a Public Bus Transfer Stop is a fixed location at which passengers may access "at least three routes of public transportation via buses," with each route having a scheduled stop at that location at least hourly during morning and afternoon rush hours, Monday through Friday, on a year-round basis. To comply with this requirement, and based upon oral information provided by customer service at Miami-Dade Transit Authority (Authority), Rio selected a bus stop located at West Flagler Street and Northwest 8th Avenue. Rio represented that this location was served by three qualifying routes: Route 6 (Coconut Grove), Route 11 (Florida International University- University Park Campus), and Route 208 (Little Havana Circulator). The RFA requires that a bus route be established or approved by the "local government department" that manages public transportation, in this case the Authority. Florida Housing defers to the local government in determining whether a selected bus route is a qualifying bus route within the meaning of the RFA. The head of the local government department that manages public transportation is Gerald Bryan, the chief of service planning and scheduling. By deposition, Mr. Bryan testified that the location selected by Rio has only two qualifying routes: 11 and 208. Route 6, the third route relied upon by Rio, does not run hourly during the requisite rush hour times as required by the RFA and therefore is not a qualifying route. With only two qualifying routes, the transit service selected by Rio is a Public Bus Stop for which only two points, rather than six, can be awarded. Had this information been available to Florida Housing when it reviewed Rio's application, Rio's proximity score would have been less than 12.25, making it ineligible to receive a point boost and achieve the maximum total score of 18 proximity points. Because Rio is ineligible for funding, the next applicant in line is Pinnacle, as it has the next lowest lottery number among the eligible applications that received 23 points. Rio does not dispute that Route 6 fails to make the requisite stops during rush hours to be considered a qualifying route. However, it contends that Route 11 functionally serves as two distinct routes because it has two separate destinations: the Mall of the Americas and Florida International University Park Campus. But whether Route 11 is a single route or two routes is a determination that must be made by the local government, and not the applicant. Mr. Bryan testified that the Authority established Route 11 as a single route with two separate termination points. He further explained that it is a standard practice for a single route, such as Route 11, to have more than one terminus in order to provide a higher level of customer service. Because Florida Housing does not second guess the determination of the local government, the undersigned has rejected Rio's assertion that the bus stop is a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Without the inclusion of the six proximity points for this type of transit service, Rio's application is not eligible for funding in this cycle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order finding that Rio's application is ineligible for funding and that Pinnacle's application should be selected for funding under RFA 2014-116. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2015, 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 31st day of August, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Kate Fleming, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1367 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1367 (eServed) Betty C. Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1367 (eServed) J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1591 (eServed) Gary J. Cohen, Esquire Shutts and Bowen, LLP 1500 Miami Center 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-4329 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“FHFC”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact FHFC and Affordable Housing Tax Credits FHFC is a public corporation that finances affordable housing in Florida by allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. See § 420.504(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that FHFC is “an entrepreneurial public corporation organized to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing and related facilities in this state.”); § 420.5099(2), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he corporation shall adopt allocation procedures that will ensure the maximum use of available tax credits in order to encourage development of low-income housing in the state, taking into consideration the timeliness of the application, the location of the proposed housing project, the relative need in the area for low-income housing and the availability of such housing, the economic feasibility of the project, and the ability of the applicant to proceed to completion of the project in the calendar year for which the credit is sought.”). The tax credits allocated by FHFC encourage investment in affordable housing and are awarded through competitive solicitations to developers of qualifying rental housing. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150. In contrast, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Not surprisingly, the demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. A successful applicant/developer normally sells the tax credits in order to raise capital for a housing development. That results in the developer being less reliant on debt financing. In exchange for the tax credits, a successful applicant/developer must offer affordable rents and covenant to keep those rents at affordable levels for 30 to 50 years. The Selection Process FHFC awards tax credits through competitive solicitations, and that process is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications (“RFA”). Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(2) provides that unsuccessful applicants for tax credits “may only protest the results of the competitive solicitation process pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 120.57(3), F.S., and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.” For purposes of section 120.57(3), an RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67.60.009(4), F.A.C. FHFC issued RFA 2015-111 on October 23, 2015, and responses from applicants were due on December 4, 2015. Through RFA 2015-111, FHFC seeks to award up to $5,901,631 of tax credits to qualified applicants that commit to preserve existing affordable multifamily housing developments for the demographic categories of “Families,” “the Elderly,” and “Persons with a Disability.” FHFC only considered an application eligible for funding from RFA 2015-111, if that particular application complied with certain content requirements. FHFC ranked all eligible applications pursuant to an “Application Sorting Order” set forth in RFA 2015-111. The first consideration was the applicants’ scores. Each application could potentially receive up to 23 points based on the developer’s experience and the proximity to services needed by the development’s tenants. Applicants demonstrating that their developments received funding from a U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Rural Development program known as RD 515 were entitled to a 3.0 point proximity score “boost.” That proximity score boost was important because RFA 2015-111 characterized counties as small, medium, or large. Applications associated with small counties had to achieve at least four proximity points to be considered eligible for funding. Applications associated with medium-sized counties and those associated with large counties had to achieve at least seven and 10.25 proximity points respectively in order to be considered eligible for funding. Because it is very common for several tax credit applicants in a particular RFA to receive identical scores, FHFC incorporated a series of “tie-breakers” into RFA 2015-111. The tie-breakers for RFA 2015-111, in order of applicability, were: First, by Age of Development, with developments built in 1985 or earlier receiving a preference over relatively newer developments. Second, if necessary, by a Rental Assistance (“RA”) preference. Applicants were to be assigned an RA level based on the percentage of units receiving rental assistance through either a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or USDA Rural Development program. Applicants with an RA level of 1, 2, or 3 (meaning at least 75 percent of the units received rental assistance) were to receive a preference. Third, by a Concrete Construction Funding Preference, with developments incorporating certain specified concrete or masonry structural elements receiving the preference. Fourth, by a Per Unit Construction Funding Preference, with applicants proposing at least $32,500 in Actual Construction Costs per unit receiving the preference. Fifth, by a Leveraging Classification favoring applicants requiring a lower amount in housing credits per unit than other applicants. Generally, the least expensive 80 percent of eligible applicants were to receive a preference over the most expensive 20 percent. Sixth, by an Applicant’s specific RA level, with Level 1 applicants receiving the most preference and Level 6 the least. Seventh, by a Florida Job Creation Preference, which estimated the number of jobs created per $1 million of housing credit equity investment the developments were to receive based on formulas contained in the RFA. Applicants achieving a Job Creation score of at least 4.0 were to receive the preference. Eighth, by lottery number, with the lowest (smallest) lottery number receiving the preference. Rental assistance from the USDA or HUD is provided to existing developments in order to make up for shortfalls in monthly rent paid by tenants. For example, if an apartment’s base rent is $500 per month and the tenant’s income limits him or her to paying only $250 towards rent, then the USDA or HUD rental assistance pays the other $250 so that the total rent received by the development is $500. As evident from the tie-breakers incorporated into RFA 2015-111, the amount of rental assistance, or “RA Level,” played a prominent role in distinguishing between RFA 2015-111 applicants having identical scores. RFA 2015-111 required that applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter containing the following information: (a) the development’s name; (b) the development’s address; (c) the year the development was built; (d) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC;/3 (e) the total number of units that would receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development were to be funded; (f) all HUD or RD financing program(s) originally and/or currently associated with the existing development; and (g) confirmation that the development had not received financing from HUD or RD after 1995 when the rehabilitation was at least $10,000 per unit in any year. In order to determine an applicant’s RA Level Classification, RFA 2015-111 further stated that Part of the criteria for a proposed Development that qualifies as a Limited Development Area (LDA) Development to be eligible for funding is based on meeting a minimum RA Level, as outlined in Section Four A.7.c of the RFA. The total number of units that will receive rental assistance (i.e., PBRA and/or ACC), as stated in the Development Category qualification letter provided as Attachment 7, will be considered to be the proposed Development’s RA units and will be the basis of the Applicant’s RA Level Classification. The Corporation will divide the RA units by the total units stated by the Applicant at question 5.e. of Exhibit A, resulting in a Percentage of Total Units that are RA units. Using the Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart below, the Corporation will determine the RA Level associated with both the Percentage of Total Units and the RA units. The best rating of these two (2) levels will be assigned as the Application’s RA Level Classification. RFA 2015-111 then outlined a Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart to delineate between the RA Levels. That chart described six possible RA Levels, with one being developments that have the most units receiving rental assistance and six pertaining to developments with the fewest units receiving rental assistance. A development with at least 100 rental assistance units and greater than 50 percent of the total units receiving rental assistance was to receive an RA Level of 1. FHFC also utilized a “Funding Test” to assist in the selection of applications for funding. The Funding Test required that the amount of unawarded housing credits be enough to satisfy any remaining applicant’s funding request. In other words, FHFC prohibited partial funding. In addition, RFA 2015-111 applied a “County Award Tally” designed to prevent a disproportionate concentration of funded developments in any one county. As a result, all other applicants from other counties had to receive an award before a second application from a particular county could be funded. After ranking of the eligible applicants, RFA 2015-111 set forth an order of funding selection based on county size, demographic category, and the receipt of RD 515 financing. The Order was: One RD 515 Development (in any demographic category) in a medium or small county; One Non-RD 515 Development in the Family Demographic Category (in any size county); The highest ranked Non-RD 515 application or applications with the demographic of Elderly or Persons with a Disability; and If funding remains after all eligible Non- RD 515 applicants are funded, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Elderly demographic (or, if none, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Family demographic). Draft versions of every RFA are posted on-line in order for stakeholders to provide FHFC with their comments. In addition, every RFA goes through at least one workshop prior to being finalized. FHFC often makes changes to RFAs based on stakeholder comments. No challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. A review committee consisting of FHFC staff members reviewed and scored all 24 applications associated with RFA 2015-111. During this process, FHFC staff determined that none of the RD-515 applicants satisfied all of the threshold eligibility requirements. On June 24, 2016, FHFC’s Board of Directors announced its intention to award funding to five applicants, subject to those applicants successfully completing the credit underwriting process. Pineda Village in Brevard County was the only successful applicant in the Non-RD 515 Family Demographic. The four remaining successful applicants were in the Non-RD 515 Elderly or Persons with Disability Demographic: Three Round Tower in Miami-Dade County; Cathedral Towers in Duval County; Isles of Pahokee in Palm Beach County; and Lummus Park in Miami- Dade County. The randomly-assigned lottery number tie-breaker played a role for the successful Non-RD 515 applicants with Three Round Tower having lottery number one, Cathedral Towers having lottery number nine, and Isles of Pahokee having lottery number 18. While Lummus Park had a lottery number of 12, the County Award Tally prevented it from being selected earlier because Three Round Tower had already been selected for funding in Miami-Dade County. However, after the first four applicants were funded, only $526,880 of credits remained, and Lummus Park was the only eligible applicant with a request small enough to be fully funded. All Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The Challenge by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns Woodcliff is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 34-unit development for elderly residents in Lake County.4/ Colonial is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 30-unit development for low-income families in Lake County.5/ St. Johns is seeking an award of tax credits to acquire and preserve a 48-unit development for elderly residents in Putnam County.6/ FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns to be ineligible because of a failure to demonstrate the existence or availability of a particular source of financing relied upon in their applications. Specifically, FHFC determined that the availability of USDA RD 515 financial assistance was not properly documented. For applicants claiming the existence of RD 515 financing, RFA 2015-111 stated: If the proposed Development will be assisted with funding under the United States Department of Agriculture RD 515 Program and/or RD 538 Program, the following information must be provided: Indicate the applicable RD Program(s) at question 11.b.(2) of Exhibit A. For a proposed Development that is assisted with funding from RD 515 and to qualify for the RD 515 Proximity Point Boost (outlined in Section Four A.6.b.(1)(b) of the RFA), the Applicant must: Include the funding amount at the USDA RD Financing line item on the Development Funding Pro Forma (Construction/Rehab Analysis and/or Permanent Analysis); and Provide a letter from RD, dated within six (6) months of the Application Deadline, as Attachment 17 to Exhibit A, which includes the following information for the proposed Preservation Development: Name of existing development; Name of proposed Development; Current RD 515 Loan balance; Acknowledgment that the property is applying for Housing Credits; and Acknowledgment that the property will remain in the USDA RD 515 loan portfolio. (emphasis added). FHFC was counting on the letter mentioned directly above to function as proof that: (a) there was RD 515 financing in place when the letter was issued; and that (b) the RD 515 financing would still be in place as of the application deadline for RFA 2015-111. FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns ineligible because their RD letters were not dated within six months of the December 4, 2015, deadline for RFA 2015-111 applications. The Woodcliff letter was dated May 15, 2015, the Colonial letter was dated May 15, 2015, and the St. Johns letter was dated May 5, 2015. FHCA had previously issued RFA 2015-104, which also proposed to award Housing Credit Financing for the Preservation of Existing Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments. The deadline for RFA 2015-104 was June 23, 2015, and Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns applied using the same USDA letter that they used in their RFA 2015-111 applications. Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns argued during the final hearing that FHFC should have accepted their letters because: (a) they gained no competitive advantage by using letters that were more than six months old; (b) waiving the six- month “shelf life” requirement would enable FHFC to satisfy one of its stated goals for RFA 2015-111, i.e., funding of an RD 515 development; and (c) other forms of financing (such as equity investment) have no “freshness” or “shelf life” requirement. However, it is undisputed that no party (including Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns) challenged any of the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. In addition, Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Programs) testified that there must be a point at which FHFC must ensure the viability of the information submitted by applicants. If the information is “too old,” then it may no longer be relevant to the current application process. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for FHFC to utilize a six-month shelf life for USDA letters.7/ Furthermore, Mr. Reecy testified that excusing Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns’ noncompliance could lead to FHFC excusing all deviations from all other date requirements in future RFAs. In other words, applicants could essentially rewrite those portions of the RFA, and that would be an unreasonable result. Excusing the noncompliance of Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns could lead to a “slippery slope” in which any shelf- life requirement has no meaning. The letters utilized by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns were slightly more than six months old. But, exactly when would a letter become too old to satisfy the “shelf life” requirement? If three weeks can be excused today, will four weeks be excused next year? St. Elizabeth’s and Marian Towers’ Challenge St. Elizabeth is seeking low-income housing tax credit financing in order to acquire and preserve a 151-unit development for elderly residents in Broward County, Florida. Marian Towers is an applicant for RFA 2015-111 funding seeking low-income housing tax credits to acquire and preserve a 220-unit development for elderly residents in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The same developer is associated with the St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers projects. In its scoring and ranking process, FHFC assigned St. Elizabeth an RA Level of two. RFA 2015-111 requires that Applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter from HUD or the USDA with specific information. That information is then used to establish an RA Level for the proposed development. As noted above, the RFA requires the letter to contain several pieces of information, including: (a) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC; and (b) the total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development is funded. RFA 2015-111 provided that a development with at least 100 rental units would receive an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth included with its application a letter from HUD’s Miami field office stating in pertinent part that: Total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC: 99 units. Total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed Development is funded: 100 units*. The asterisk in the preceding paragraph directed readers of St. Elizabeth’s HUD letter to a paragraph stating that: HUD is currently processing a request from the owner to increase the number of units subsidized under a HAP Contract to 100 by transferring budget authority for the one additional unit from another Catholic Housing Services Section 8 project under Section 8(bb) in accordance with Notice H-2015-03. Because of the foregoing statement from HUD, FHFC concluded that St. Elizabeth did not have 100 units receiving rental assistance as of the application deadline. Accordingly, FHFC used 99 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance when calculating St. Elizabeth’s RA Level, and that led to FHFC assigning an RA Level of two to St. Elizabeth’s application.8/ If St. Elizabeth had been deemed eligible and if FHFC had used 100 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance, then St. Elizabeth would have received an RA Level of one. Given the application sorting order and the selection process outlined in RFA 2015-111, St. Elizabeth (with a lottery number of six) would have been recommended for funding by FHFC, and that outcome would have resulted in Intervenors Isles of Pahokee and Lummus Park losing their funding. St. Elizabeth asserted during the final hearing that the 100th unit had obtained rental assistance financing since the application deadline on December 4, 2015. However, FHFC could only review, score, and calculate St. Elizabeth’s RA Level based on the information available as of the application deadline. While St. Elizabeth argues that the asterisk paragraph sets forth a “condition,” Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Housing) agreed during the final hearing that the asterisk paragraph was more akin to information that was not explicitly required by RFA 2015-111. FHFC did not use that additional information to declare St. Elizabeth’s application ineligible for funding. Despite being assigned an RA Level of two, St. Elizabeth’s application still could have been selected for funding because RFA 2015-111 merely established RA Level as a basis for breaking ties among competing applications. However, too many applicants for RFA 2015-111 had identical scores, and RFA 2015-111’s use of RA Level as a tiebreaker forced St. Elizabeth’s application out of the running. Under the circumstances, FHFC’s treatment of St. Elizabeth’s application was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As noted above, tie- breakers are very important, because there is often very little to distinguish one application for tax credits from another. Given that there was a degree of uncertainty about whether St. Elizabeth’s would have 100 qualifying units, FHFC acted reasonably by assigning St. Elizabeth’s application an RA Level of two for this tie-breaker rather than an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers argue that other applications contained language that indicated a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, those other applications received an RA Level of one. For example, FHFC assigned an RA Level of one to Three Round and Haley Sofge even though their HUD letters stated that both developments would be “subject to a Subsidy Layering Review to be conducted by HUD.” Marian Towers argued that if FHFC does not accept HUD or RD letters containing conditional language about the number of units that will be subsidized, then FHFC should have assigned an RA Level of six to Three Round and Haley Sofge. If Three Round and Haley Sofge had been assigned an RA Level of six, then Marian Towers (with a lottery number of five) would have been recommended for funding. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers cited another instance in which an application received an RA Level of one, even though its application contained a letter from the RD program stating that “USDA Rural Development will consent to the transfer if all regulatory requirements are met.” (emphasis added). However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate that the language cited above applied only to those particular applications rather than to all applications for tax credits. For example, if all applications are subject to a subsidy layering review and compliance with all regulatory requirements, then inclusion of such language in a HUD letter (in and of itself) should not prevent an applicant from being assigned an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers also cited a HUD Letter used in another recent RFA by an applicant that received an RA Level of one. The HUD letter in question contained an asterisk followed by the following statement: “It is HUD’s understanding that two separate applications are being submitted – one for each tower comprising St. Andrew Towers. If funded, HUD will consider a request from the owner to bifurcate the St. Andrew Towers HAP contract in order to facilitate the separate financing of each tower.” However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate why the language quoted directly above should have resulted in the applicant in question being awarded an RA Level less than one. There is no indication that the total number of units receiving rental assistance would change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order awarding funding to Three Round Tower A, LLC; Cathedral Towers, Ltd; Isles of Pahokee Phase II, LLC; SP Manor, LLC; and Pineda Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G.W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing") properly rescinded the preliminary funding awarded to RST Fruitland Housing, L.P. ("RST"), pursuant to applicable rules, prior agency practice, and the existing case law.
Findings Of Fact RST is a limited partnership authorized to do business in Florida and is controlled by Roundstone Development, LLC ("Roundstone"). Roundstone is in the business of providing affordable rental housing. In addition to Florida, Roundstone operates in Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Michael Hartman, the consultant for Roundstone, has been involved in the development of over 70 affordable housing developments, including many in Florida. Florida Housing is a public corporation created by Section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Florida Housing's statutory authority and mandates appear in Part V of Chapter 420, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of nine individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. On July 31, 2009, Florida Housing issued RFP 2009-04 (the "RFP") setting forth criteria and qualifications for developers to seek funding for affordable housing projects from funds that Florida received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5 ("ARRA"). ARRA was enacted in 2009 by Congress as part of federal economic stimulus efforts. RST received notice of the RFP through e-mail notification on July 31, 2009. The RFP required applicants to submit proposals to Florida Housing no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 14, 2009. RST submitted an application and intended to seek financing for its affordable housing project by applying for funding from the sources that are proposed to be allocated through the RFP. Florida Housing's Programs Florida Housing administers numerous programs aimed at assisting developers to build affordable housing. These programs include: the Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program ("MMRB") established under Section 420.509, Florida Statutes; the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program ("SAIL") created pursuant to Section 420.5087, Florida Statutes; and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (the "Tax Credit program") established under the authority of Section 420.5093, Florida Statutes. These funding sources are allocated by Florida Housing to finance the construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing. A portion of the units constructed based upon funding from these programs must be set aside for residents earning a certain percentage of area median income ("AMI"). For purposes of these proceedings, the primary program of interest is the Tax Credit program. Tax Credits The Tax Credit program was created in 1986 by the federal government. Tax Credits come in two varieties: competitively awarded nine percent tax credits, and non- competitively awarded four percent tax credits. For the nine percent credits, the federal government annually allocates to each state a specific amount of tax credits using a population- based formula. Tax Credits are a dollar for dollar offset to federal income tax liability over a 10-year period. A developer awarded Tax Credits will often sell the future stream of Tax Credits to a syndicator who in turn sells them to investors seeking to shelter income from federal income taxes. The developer receives cash equity with no debt associated with it. Thus, Tax Credits provide an attractive subsidy and, consequently, are a highly sought after funding source. Florida Housing is the designated agency in Florida to allocate Tax Credits to developers of affordable housing. Every year since 1986, Florida Housing has received an allocation of Tax Credits to be used to fund the construction of affordable housing. Universal Application Florida Housing has historically allocated funds from the MMRB, SAIL, and Tax Credit programs through a single annual application process. Since 2002, Florida Housing has administered the three programs through a combined competitive process known as the "Universal Cycle." The Universal Cycle operates much the same as an annual competitive bidding process in which applicants compete against other applicants to be selected for limited funding. Florida Housing has adopted rules which incorporate by reference the application forms and instructions for the Universal Cycle as well as general policies governing the allocation of funds from the various programs it administers. Typically, Florida Housing amends its Universal Cycle rules, forms, and instructions every year. The typical process used by Florida Housing to review and approve the Universal Cycle applications operates as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004, and is summarized as follows: Interested developers submit applications by a specified date. Florida Housing reviews all applications to determine if certain threshold requirements are met. A score is assigned to each application. Applications receive points towards a numerical score, based upon such features as programs for tenants, amenities of the development as a whole and of tenants' units, local government contributions to the specific development, and local government ordinances and planning efforts that support affordable housing in general. Florida Housing has built into its scoring and ranking process a series of "tiebreakers" to bring certainty to the selection process. The tiebreakers are written into the application instructions which, as indicated above, are incorporated by reference into Florida Housing's rules. After the initial review and scoring, a list of all applications, along with their scores, is published by Florida Housing on its website. The applicants are then given a specific period of time to alert Florida Housing of any errors they believe Florida Housing made in its initial review of the applications. An appeal procedure for challenging the scores assigned by Florida Housing is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.005. Following the completion of the appeal proceedings, Florida Housing publishes final rankings which delineate the applications that are within the "funding range" for the various programs. In other words, the final rankings determine which applications are preliminarily selected for funding. The applicants ranked in the funding range are then invited into a "credit underwriting" process. Credit underwriting review of a development selected for funding is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. In the credit underwriting process, third party financial consultants (selected by Respondent, but paid for by the individual applicants) determine whether the project proposed in the application is financially sound. The independent third party examines every aspect of the proposed development, including the financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning verification, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. Subsection (10) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.0072 expressly requires that an appraisal (as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice), and a market study be ordered by the Credit Underwriter, at the applicant's expense. The Credit Underwriter is required to consider the market study, as well as the development's financial impact on other developments in the area previously funded by Florida Housing, and make a recommendation to approve or disapprove a funding allocation. RST's Application in the 2008 Universal Cycle RST timely submitted an application in the 2008 Universal Cycle seeking an award of Tax Credits and a supplemental loan to construct a 100-unit garden style apartment complex ("Plata Lago") in Fruitland Park, Lake County, Florida. RST complied with all of the requirements of the 2008 Universal Cycle Application and Instructions, and achieved a perfect score for its application. RST also achieved maximum tie-breaker points. As a result, RST was allocated by Florida Housing $1,334,333 in Tax Credits from the Universal Cycle allocation. Based on the final ranking of its application, RST was invited into the credit underwriting process on October 6, 2008. RST timely accepted the invitation and paid the necessary underwriting fees. Credit Underwriting Under the credit underwriting process, a professional credit underwriter is appointed by Florida Housing to review the proposed project that qualified for funding as a result of the Universal Cycle. The credit underwriter reviews and assesses numerous financial, demographic, and market factors concerning the proposed project. The credit underwriter selected by Florida Housing to review the RST application was Seltzer Management Group, Inc. ("Seltzer"). As required by the applicable 2008 Universal Cycle Application requirements and rule, the credit underwriting process required the preparation of a Market Study by an independent appraiser. Seltzer engaged Meridian Appraisal Group ("Meridian") to perform an independent appraisal and market study as required by the RFP. This initial Market Study was issued with the identified purpose defined as follows: Provide a site analysis for the subject property. Provide regional and neighborhood analyses for the subject property. Provide an Apartment Market Overview for the subject market area. Provide an evaluation of market demand within the competitive area for affordable rental apartment products. Identify and evaluate the relevant competitive supply of affordable apartments. Perform an income band analysis for the subject property based on achievable restricted rents. Perform a Capture Rate analysis for the subject property as a restricted property, and estimate an absorption rate. Establish rental estimates for the subject, both as a market rate project and as restricted by the Housing Credit program. Illustrate the difference between our estimate of the market rental rates and restricted rental rates. Estimate the impact of the subject project on the existing rental inventory. Economic Downturn By the fall of 2008, significant changes were taking place in the economic environment and the affordable housing market in particular. Many of the projects that had been awarded funding through Florida Housing allocation process were encountering difficulties and in many instances were unable to close. By the latter part of 2008, it became evident that the market for Tax Credits had precipitously dropped as a result of the changed economic environment. Shortly before RST was to complete the credit underwriting process, the syndicator who had originally expressed its intent to purchase the Tax Credits awarded to RST announced that it would not go forward with the syndication. This withdrawal was a direct result of the nationwide downturn in economic conditions. Many other projects that were awarded Tax Credits during the 2007 and 2008 (and later the 2009) Universal Cycles similarly experienced difficulty in finding syndicators to purchase the awarded Tax Credits and were also unable to proceed to closing. In early 2009, in recognition of the collapse of the housing market and the difficulty in marketing Tax Credits, the federal government, as part of its economic stimulus efforts, established mechanisms to assist in the development of affordable housing and offset some of the economic devastation to developers. ARRA The ARRA enacted by Congress and signed by the President on February 17, 2009, included specific provisions intended to address the collapse of the Tax Credit market. ARRA gives states the ability to return to the federal government previously awarded Tax Credits that had not been utilized. These Tax Credits are exchanged for a cash distribution of 85 cents for each tax credit dollar returned. The money that is awarded to the states for the return Tax Credits (the "Exchange Funds") is to be used by Florida Housing to fund developers who were unable to syndicate their Tax Credits due to the economic downturn. In other words, the Tax Credits that had not been utilized as a result of the declining economic conditions were allowed to be converted into cash from the federal government to be allocated to developers who were ready to proceed with their affordable housing projects but for the inability to syndicate their Tax Credits. ARRA also included a direct allocation of funds to state housing finance agencies under the Tax Credit Assistance Program ("TCAP"). These funds were allocated to the states to "resume funding of affordable rental housing projects across the nation while stimulating job creation in the hard-hat construction industry." TCAP is a separate program included as part of ARRA to provide gap financing for affordable housing projects that have been affected by the economic downturn. The RFP In response to ARRA, on July 31, 2009, Florida Housing issued RFP 2009-04 (the "RFP"), setting forth criteria and qualifications for developers to seek funding for affordable housing projects from money that had been allotted by the federal government as part of economic stimulus efforts. RST received notice of the RFP through e-mail notification on July 31, 2009. The RFP required applicants to submit proposals to Florida Housing by no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 14, 2009. The RFP solicits proposals from applicants with an "Active Award" of Tax Credits who were unable to close and are seeking alternate funding to construct affordable housing utilizing Exchange Funds from the Tax Credit Exchange Program authorized under Section 1602 of ARRA. The RFP provides a general description of the type of projects that will be considered eligible for this alternate funding. The RFP also sets forth eligibility criteria that are a precondition to award of an allocation of Exchange Funds, and also specifies that projects allocated Exchange Funds and also specifies that projects allocated Exchange Funds will be required to meet new credit underwriting standards. Occupancy Standards Section 5B.1b. of the RFP states that a tentative funding award under the RFP will be rescinded "if the submarket of the Proposed Development does not have an average occupancy rate of 92% or greater for the same Demographic population, as determined by a market study ordered by the Credit Underwriter, and analyzed by the Credit Underwriter and Florida Housing staff, as well as approved by the Board." The RFP does not define "submarket." Likewise, there was no definition of "submarket" in the rules which governed the 2008 or 2009 Universal Cycle. The word "submarket" is included in the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule, but it is not defined. RST timely submitted a response to the RFP on August 14, 2009, which sought additional funding for the Plata Lago project. On August 20, 2009, Florida Housing issued a Notice of Awards for RFP #2009-04. Based on the Notice, RST was one of the responders awarded funds subject to successfully completing the underwriting criteria listed in the RFP. Accordingly, RST was once again invited into credit underwriting. By accepting the invitation, RST was required by the credit underwriter to update its Market Study ("2009 Study"). This Second Market Study, which was completed approximately eight months after the 2008 study, was also prepared by Meridian on July 14, 2009. Likewise, Seltzer was the assigned underwriter. On September 9, 2009, Seltzer issued a letter to Florida Housing concerning the Plata Lago project. In essence, Seltzer in the letter considered the 2009 Market Study and concluded that "the submarket average occupancy rate for the subject does not meet the minimum requirement of 92%." On October 23, 2009, Florida Housing's Board of Directors considered Seltzer's letter and a staff recommendation and voted to rescind funding to RST because of the alleged failure to satisfy the 92 percent occupancy requirement. This action effectively stopped the underwriting process. While RST timely filed its petition with the Division, it also intervened in a challenge to the provisions of the RFP. The challenge specifically involved a review of the 92 percent occupancy standard. In that matter, Elmwood Terrace Ltd. P'ship v. Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp., Case No. 09-4682BID, 2009 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. Lexis 816 (Final Order entered December 7, 2009), the administrative law judge entered a Recommended Order on November 12, 2009, holding that the provision of the RFP which required a 92 percent occupancy rate is contrary to Florida Housing's governing statutes and rules. The administrative law judge concluded that Florida Housing is limited to using the 90 percent occupancy test established at Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072(10). Florida Housing issued its Final Order in the Elmwood case on December 7, 2009, adopting the administrative law judge's Recommended Order. Based upon the Final Order in Elmwood, Florida Housing has reevaluated the RST Market Study under the provisions of the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule which established a 90 percent occupancy test. Florida Housing has now concluded that RST's Market Study indicates an 87 percent occupancy rate. Accordingly, Florida Housing has not changed its previous position and refuses to allow Petitioner to move forward in the underwriting process. Unstipulated Findings of Fact Two market studies were commissioned by Florida Housing and Seltzer regarding the proposed Plata Lago development, the first in November 2008 and the second in July 2009. Both the First and Second Market Studies were performed by Meridian Appraisal Group and Robert Von, a state- certified general appraiser. While purported to be a new stand-alone study, the Second Market Study is identical in many respects to the First Market Study. However, the First Market Study predated the requirement of the occupancy test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072(10), while the Second Market Study included the 90 percent occupancy test analysis. In each of the two studies, a circle is drawn extending out 10 miles from the proposed location of the Plata Lago development. That circle represents the primary market area ("PMA") which includes Fruitland Park, Lady Lake, and Leesburg. The PMA is where generally two-thirds to three-quarters of the demand for a facility originates. In the Second Market Study, when the occupancy rate of the three existing senior apartment developments within the PMA is considered, the threshold requirement of 90 percent is met. If the PMA alone were considered, Florida Housing would not have rescinded the Tax Credits, and Petitioner would be entitled to move forward with its project. The Second Market Study, performed in 2009, added an additional factor to the analysis. The concept of a Competitive Market Area ("CMA") was introduced. A CMA was not designated in the 2008 Market Study. CMA is neither defined in the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule or RFP 2009-04. The delineation of a CMA was not a requirement of the RFP, nor was it otherwise requested by Florida Housing. CMA is not a term defined in either the development or market analysis industries. The term appears to have been created or borrowed by Florida Housing's designated market analyst based upon his experience as a certified appraiser. Unlike the PMA, the CMA was not mapped or otherwise designated in the Second Market Study. However, both the First and Second Market Studies included information regarding a development known as Lake Point Senior Village ("Lake Point"). Both Plata Lago and Lake Point are affordable housing developments targeted at the elderly demographic category. Lake Point is not in the PMA of the proposed Plata Lago development as PMA is defined in the Second Market Study. The PMA as defined in the Second Market Study is a predetermined geographic area used for purposes of demographic analysis, but not for competitive analysis. A set unmovable circle on a map could lead to skewed or absurd results if the nature and character of the developments within and without the circle are not considered by the appraiser. Lake Point is an elderly affordable housing development located 13 miles from the proposed location of Plata Lago. It is located in Tavares which is outside the 10-mile radius from the proposed development and is past two lakes that separate Tavares from those developments contained within the PMA. The analysis by Florida Housing's expert was that an individual moving into the Lake County area would look for elderly housing developments in close proximity to his or her work, shopping, health care, and other amenities they deemed important. The tenant does not necessarily look to see if other elderly housing developments are nearby. This is especially true when only four elderly developments are located in the county. Plata Lago and Lake Point are similar to each other, both serve the elderly demographic category, and each would compete with the other for residents if the Plata Lago development were built. It was appropriate for the Second Market Study to include Lake Point in its analysis of occupancy data for the purpose of determining whether Plata Lago passed the test set forth in the rule requiring a 90 percent occupancy rate in its applicable submarket. To address the requirement of the rule regarding occupancy rates for the submarket of the Plata Lago development, it was necessary for Florida Housing's consultant to determine what developments would compete with the proposed project. To do a competitive analysis, it is necessary for the consultant to move beyond the fixed PMA to a study of the market as real people in the real world look at it. In the Second Market Study, the term CMA is used to describe the "submarket" as it applies to the occupancy test of the rule, as well as to distinguish this area from the PMA and from other incidental uses of the term "submarket." Florida Housing's consultant investigated all the comparable properties and interviewed the manager of Lake Point about where the competition lay. The manager mentioned a property around the corner from the proposed Plata Lago (Silver Pointe) as a competitor which led the consultant to expand the CMA to include Lake Point. The manager at Silver Pointe named Lake Point as part of its competition. Florida Housing's appraiser considers the submarket to be where a project's competitive property is located. In this case, the submarket or competitive market is larger than the PMA. Lake Point suffered a drop in its occupancy between the First and Second Market Studies. This was most likely attributable to the nature of elderly developments. Elderly residents tend to expire or suffer health issues that cause them to move to facilities providing health care or assisted living services. On October 23, 2009, Florida Housing's Board of Directors met and considered the market study letter prepared by Seltzer along with its finding that the Plata Lago development did not pass the required occupancy test of 90 percent set forth in the rule. Based upon the occupancy rate being only 87 percent, as well as the results of the market study and credit underwriter recommendations, the Board voted to rescind Florida Housing's commitment to fund the Plata Lago development.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order rescinding funding to the Plata Lago development for failing to pass the occupancy standard set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-48. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 9th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Wellington H. Meffert, II, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Della Harrell, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329
The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing, Corporation, or Respondent) rejection of the funding for the application submitted by Capital Grove Limited Partnership (Capital Grove) was contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications of Request for Applications 2014-114 (the RFA). If so, whether Florida Housing’s decision to fund the application submitted by HTG Wellington Family, LLC (HTG Wellington), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to applicants in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Applicants then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the owner would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax-credit property can offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of ten years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. Tax credits are made available by the U.S. Treasury to the states annually. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48), and adopted Florida Administrative Code chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Rule 67-60.002(1) defines “Applicant” as “any person or legally-formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter for one or more of the Corporation’s programs.” Applicants request in their applications a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants typically sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the Applicant entity) to an investor to generate the majority of the capital necessary to construct the Development. The amount of housing credits an Applicant may request is based on several factors, including but not limited to a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. Florida Housing’s competitive application process for the allocation of tax credits is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications. In this case, that document is Request for Applications 2014-114 (the RFA). The RFA was issued November 20, 2014, and responses were due January 22, 2015. Capital Grove submitted Application No. 2015-045C in RFA 2014-114 seeking $1,509,500 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 94-unit residential rental development in Pasco County (a Medium County), to be known as Highland Grove Senior Apartments. HTG Wellington submitted Application No. 2015-101C seeking $1,510,000 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 110-unit multifamily residential development in Pasco County, Florida, to be known as Park at Wellington Apartments. Florida Housing has announced its intention to award funding to nine Medium County Developments, including Park at Wellington in Pasco County (Application No. 2015-101C), but not Highland Grove Senior Apartments. Florida Housing received 82 applications seeking funding in RFA 2014-114, including 76 for Medium County Developments. The process employed by Florida Housing for this RFA makes it virtually impossible for more than one application to be selected for funding in any given medium county. Because of the amount of funding available for medium counties, the typical amount of an applicant’s housing credit request (generally $1.0 to $1.5 million), and the number of medium counties for which developments are proposed, many medium counties will not receive an award of housing credit funding in this RFA. Florida Housing intends to award funding to nine developments in nine different medium counties. The applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of RFA 2014-114; Florida Administrative Code chapters 67- 48 and 67-60; and applicable federal regulations. Florida Housing’s executive director appointed a Review Committee of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed “eligible,” based on whether the application complies with Florida Housing’s various content requirements. Of the 82 applications submitted to Florida Housing in RFA 2014-114, 69 were found “eligible,” and 13 were found ineligible, including Capital Grove. Florida Housing determined that Capital Grove was ineligible on the ground that its Letter of Credit was deficient under the terms of the RFA. A five-page spreadsheet created by Florida Housing, entitled “RFA 2014-114 – All Applications,” identifying all eligible and ineligible applications was provided to all Applicants. In addition to scoring, Applicants received a lottery number to be applied in tie situations, with the lower number given preference. Capital Grove received lottery number 12. HTG Wellington received lottery number 9. On March 11, 2015, the Review Committee met and considered the applications submitted in response to the RFA, and made recommendations regarding the scoring and ranking of the applications to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the Board). Capital Grove’s Letter of Credit The RFA provides for a Withdrawal Disincentive in which an applicant could either provide a $25,000 check or a $25,000 Letter of Credit that would be forfeited if the application was withdrawn by the applicant before a certain period of time. Applicants so withdrawing would also suffer a deduction from the full developer-experience point total in certain future Requests for Applications issued by Florida Housing. According to specifications in the RFA, any Letter of Credit submitted must be in compliance with all the requirements of subsection 4.a. of Section Three, Procedures and Provisions of the RFA, which provides in pertinent part: 4. $25,000 Letter of Credit. Each Applicant not submitting a $25,000 Application Withdrawal Cash Deposit (as outlined in 3 above) must submit to the Corporation a letter of Credit that meets the following requirements with its Application: a. The Letter of Credit must: Be issued by a bank, the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC, and which has a banking office located in the state of Florida available for presentation of the Letter of Credit. Be on the issuing bank’s letterhead, and identify the bank’s Florida office as the office for presentation of the Letter of Credit. Be, in form, content and amount, the same as the Sample Letter of Credit set out in Item 14 of Exhibit C of the RFA, and completed with the following: Issue Date of the Letter of Credit (LOC) which must be no later than January 22, 2015. LOC number. Expiration Date of the LOC which must be no earlier than January 22, 2016. Issuing Bank’s legal name. Issuing Bank’s Florida Presentation Office for Presentation of the LOC. Florida Housing’s RFA number RFA 2014- 114. Applicant’s name as it appears on the Application for which the LOC is issued. Development name as it appears on the Application for which the LOC is issued. Signature of the Issuing Bank’s authorized signatory. Printed Name and Title of the Authorized Signatory. The Sample Letter of Credit included in Exhibit C, Item 14 of the RFA reads: (Issuing Bank’s Letterhead) Irrevocable Unconditional Letter of Credit To/Beneficiary: Florida Housing Finance Corporation Issue Date: [a date that is no later than January 22, 2015] Attention: Director of Multifamily Programs 227 N. Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Letter of Credit No.: Expiration Date: [a date that is no earlier than January 22, 2016] Issuing Bank: Florida Presentation Office: FHFC RFA # 2014-114 Applicant: Development: Gentlemen: For the account of the Applicant, we, the Issuing Bank, hereby authorize Florida Housing Finance Corporation to draw on us at sight up to an aggregate amount of Twenty- Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($25,000.00). This letter of credit is irrevocable, unconditional, and nontransferable. Drafts drawn under this letter of credit must specify the letter of credit number and be presented at our Florida Presentation Office identified above not later than the Expiration Date. Any sight draft may be presented to us by electronic, reprographic, computerized or automated system, or by carbon copy, but in any event must visibly bear the word “original.” If the document is signed, the signature may consist of (or may appear to us as) an original handwritten signature, a facsimile signature or any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication. Payment against this letter of credit may be made by wire transfer of immediately available funds to the account specified by you, or by deposit of same day funds in a designated account you maintain with us. Unless we notify you in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the Expiration Date, the Expiration Date of this letter of credit must be extended automatically for successive one-month periods. This letter of credit sets forth in full the terms of our obligations to you, and such undertaking shall not in any way be modified or amplified by any agreement in which this letter is referred to or to which this letter of credit relates, and any such reference shall not be deemed to incorporate herein by reference any agreement. We engage with you that sight drafts drawn under, and in compliance with, the terms of this letter of credit will be duly honored at the Presentation Office. We are an FDIC insured bank, and our Florida Presentation Office is located in Florida as identified above. Yours very truly, [Issuing Bank] By Print Name Print Title Despite these requirements, Capital Grove submitted an “Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit” issued by PNC Bank National Association (PNC). Capital Grove’s Letter of Credit provides, in pertinent part: Beneficiary: Applicant: Florida Housing Finance Westbrook Housing Corp. Corp. Development, LLC 4110 Southpoint Blvd., 227 North Bronough Street Ste 206 Suite 5000 Jacksonville, Fl 32216 Tallahassee, Fl 32301 ATTENTION: DIR. OF MULTI- FBO CAPITAL GROVE FAMILY PROGRAMS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT OUR REFERENCE: 18123166-00-00 AMOUNT: USD $25,000.00 ISSUE DATE: JANUARY 20, 2015 EXPIRY DATE: JANUARY 22, 2016 EPIRY PLACE: OUR COUNTER RE: FHFC RFA #2014-114 DEVELOPMENT: HIGHLAND GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS GENTLEMEN: WE HEREBY ESTABLISH OUR IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 18123166-00-000 IN FAVOR OF FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE ACCOUNT OF WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LLC AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT AT OUR COUNTERS IN AN AMOUNT OF USD $25,000.00 (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 UNITED STATES DOLLARS) AGAINST BENEFICIARY'S PURPORTEDLY SIGNED STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS: "I (INSERT NAME AND TITLE) CERTIFY THAT I AM AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND HEREBY DEMAND PAYMENT OF USD (INSERT AMOUNT) UNDER PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 18123166-00-000. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC HAS FAILED TO COMPLY UNDER THE PROJECT NAME: HIGHLAND GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS BETWEEN FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC." Ken Reecy, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, personally reviewed all Letters of Credit submitted by RFA applicants, and reported his findings to the Review Committee. The Review Committee recommended finding Capital Grove’s application nonresponsive and ineligible for funding because Capital Grove failed to include a responsive Letter of Credit. The Review Committee also found four other applications ineligible for failing to meet the Letter of Credit requirements, all of which used PNC Bank and involved entities related to Capital Grove, including Westbrook Housing Development, LLC, appearing as Co-Developer. All such PNC Letters of Credit failed for the same reasons. Mr. Reecy and the Review Committee found that the Letters of Credit from PNC Bank (including that submitted by Capital Grove) did not meet the facial requirements of the RFA, in that the Letters of Credit were not in the name of the applicant. The General Partner of the applicant, Capital Grove Limited Partnership, is Capital Grove GP, LLC. The Co-Developer entities are JPM Development, LLC, and Westbrook Housing Development, LLC. Co-Developer Westbrook Housing Development, LLC, a Michigan Company authorized to conduct business within the State of Florida, is a different legal entity from Co-Developer JPM Development, LLC. Mr. Reecy and the Review Committee also found the PNC Letters of Credit (including that submitted by Capital Grove) nonresponsive to the specification of the RFA because the Letters included a condition requiring Florida Housing, in order to draw on the Letter of Credit, to certify that the Co- Developer (and not the applicant) had “failed to comply under the project name: Highland Grove Senior Apartments.” However, under the RFA specifications, the action that is the basis for the presentment of the Letter of Credit is a withdrawal of the application by the applicant, not the developer. Only an applicant may withdraw an application. If the Letter of Credit cannot be drawn upon, the RFA provides that the applicant, “shall be responsible for the payment of the $25,000 to the Corporation; payment shall be due from the applicant to the Corporation within 10 calendar days following written notice from the Corporation.” Applicant Capital Grove is a single-purpose entity that has no assets. In order to collect on the Letter of Credit submitted by Capital Grove, Florida Housing would have to submit a different certification than that called for under the RFA sample letter of credit. According to Kathleen Spiers, Vice President of PNC Bank, to draw down the Letter of Credit, Florida Housing would have to copy the statement outlined in paragraph 2 of the Capital Grove Letter of Credit, sign it, and submit it to PNC to draw upon the letter of credit. At the final hearing, Mr. Reecy testified, “I am not prepared to certify to something that isn’t true. I am not going to certify that the developer didn’t comply by the Applicant withdrawing.” All other Letters of Credit submitted by applicants under this RFA were accepted as responsive. HTG Wellington’s Unit Count HTG Wellington indicated in its application to Florida Housing that its proposed Park at Wellington Development would be 110 multifamily units. In its application for Local Government Support, HTG Wellington described the Development as a 120-unit, multifamily development in five three-story buildings. The RFA requires a minimum $50,000 Local Government Contribution in Pasco County for an applicant to receive the maximum of five points. In order to obtain a Local Government Contribution, tax credit developers must submit an application to Pasco County at least six weeks before the matter is presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Pasco County, in turn, has their underwriter, Neighborhood Lending Partners ("NLP"), organize the applications and create an underwriting package. NLP does not make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for funding. Rather, NLP alerts Pasco County if there is a red flag concerning the Development and scores the applications based upon financial stability of the organization, financing of the project, and the development pro forma. HTG Wellington submitted an application for Local Government Contribution to Pasco County in November 2014. The application contemplated a 120-unit development. Impact fees schedules are adopted by the Pasco County Board of Commissioners. Pasco County has established an impact fee rate for affordable and non-affordable development and the difference between the two is multiplied by the number of units to determine the impact fee amount. The impact fee waiver amount approved for Park at Wellington Apartments was $219,600. This amount was calculated based upon 120 units contemplated in November 2014, multiplied by $1830.00, which is the difference between the normal impact fee rate, minus the rate for affordable housing development. The $219,600 figure was used in HTG Wellington’s application. At 110 units (as opposed to 120 units), the total Local Government Contribution available to HTG Wellington is $201,300. Either amount ($219,600 or $201,300) meets the minimum for HTG Wellington to receive five points for its Local Government Contribution. The change in the contribution amount would have no effect on the scoring of the HTG Wellington application. Pasco County’s Manager of Community Development and Officer of Community Development, George Romagnoli, testified that for approximately 15 years, Pasco County has employed a strategy to approve all applications for Local Government Contribution and then let Florida Housing choose which Development will receive tax credits. Pasco County is not concerned about the ultimate accuracy of the number of units submitted for a Contribution –- as stated by Mr. Romagnoli: "We funded 84, 120, whatever. It's really not material to the approval one way or the other." Although Florida Housing approved HTG Wellington’s application before discovering the discrepancy, had Florida Housing discovered the discrepancy in the number of units during the scoring process, the discrepancy would have been deemed a minor irregularity unless the discrepancy resulted in a change in scoring or otherwise rendered the application nonresponsive as to some material requirement and the discrepancy would generally be handled with a simple adjustment to the amount presented on the application Pro Forma, if necessary. Additionally, changes to the number of units in a development may be increased (but not decreased) under certain circumstances during the credit underwriting process which follows the competitive solicitation process. The discrepancy in the number of units does not provide any competitive advantage to HTG Wellington. The discrepancy in the number of units does not provide a benefit to HTG Wellington not enjoyed by others. Florida Housing’s waiver of the discrepancy in the number of units does not adversely impact the interests of the public. HTG Wellington’s Bus Stop The RFA allows an applicant to obtain 18 proximity points, including six points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Florida Housing awarded HTG Wellington 4.5 proximity points for its purported Public Bus Transfer Stop. The RFA defines a Public Bus Transfer Stop as: This service may be selected by all Applicants, regardless of the Demographic Commitment selected at question 2 of Exhibit For purposes of proximity points, a Public Bus Transfer Stop means fixed location at which passengers may access at least three routes of public transportation via buses. Each qualifying route must have a scheduled stop at the Public Bus Transfer Stop at least hourly during the times of 7 am to 9 am and also during the times of 4 pm to 6 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays on a year-round basis. This would include both bus stations (i.e. hub) and bus stop with multiple routes. Bus routes must be established or approved by a Local Government department that manages public transportation. Buses that travel between states will not be considered. In response to this requirement HTG Wellington submitted a Surveyor Certification Form which lists coordinates submitted to qualify for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. The site identified by HTG Wellington as a Public Bus Transfer Stop, however, is not a fixed location where passengers may access at least three routes of public transportation. While another bus stop which serves an additional two routes is within 700 feet, stops cannot be combined for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, the site designated as a Public Bus Transfer Stop by HTG Wellington is not a “fixed location” for purposes of the RFA and HTG Wellington is not entitled to obtain proximity points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Not including the 4.5 proximity points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop, HTG was awarded 11.5 total proximity points for selected Community Services. The required minimum total of proximity points for developments located in a medium county that must be achieved in order to be eligible to receive the maximum amount of 18 points as set forth in the RFA is 9. HTG had more than the required minimum total of proximity points to receive the maximum award of 18 proximity points based on its Community Services score alone. The disqualification of HTG’s submitted Public Bus Transfer Stop would have no effect on the scoring or ranking of the HTG Wellington application, nor affect its ranking relative to any other application, nor affect the ultimate funding selection. The RFA requires each applicant to read and sign at Attachment A, an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form (the Form). The signing of the Form is mandatory. Page 5, Paragraph 8 of the Form provides: In eliciting information from third parties required by and/or included in this Application, the Applicant has provided such parties information that accurately describes the Development as proposed in this Application. The Applicant has reviewed the third party information included in this Application and/or provided during the credit underwriting process and the information provided by any such party is based upon, and accurate with respect to, the Development as proposed in this Application. Even though there was a discrepancy in the unit numbers submitted to Pasco County for a Local Government Contribution and its application submitted in response to the RFA, HTG signed the Form. No evidence was submitted indicating that HTG signed the Form with knowledge of the discrepancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: Rejecting Capital Grove’s application as nonresponsive and denying the relief requested in its Petition; Concluding that Capital Grove lacks standing to bring allegations against HTG Wellington; and, Upholding Florida Housing’s scoring and ranking of the HTG Wellington application. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner Janice Brice was the subject of housing discrimination by Respondent based on Petitioner's race, color, and familial status, in violation of Florida's Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African American female and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons subject to protection under Florida's Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2006).1/ Petitioner is a dark-skinned African American, which she claims was a second factor underlying the alleged unlawful housing practice by Respondent. Petitioner is a single mother, which she stated in her complaint filed with the Commission, was a third factor that caused her to be discriminated against by Respondent. Respondent Concord Management, Ltd. (Concord), is a management company that operates over 100 apartment complexes around the country. It is the managing agent for Regatta Bay Apartments (Regatta Bay) located in Kissimmee, Florida. Respondent Sharon Harper Ivey is the director of compliance for Concord. She was not hired by Concord until after the events which form the basis of Petitioner's claim of housing discrimination. She communicated with the Commission during its investigation of Petitioner's complaint against Concord and was subsequently listed by the Commission as a Respondent when the case was referred to DOAH. That listing was an error. Petitioner has never claimed that Ms. Ivey had any role in the alleged unlawful housing practice. On August 4, 2005, Petitioner applied for a lease at Regatta Bay. Petitioner filled out some application forms and waited for a response. Concord conducts a financial credit and criminal background check of persons applying to become tenants at Regatta Bay. The credit check is made to determine whether the applicant has good or bad credit history and has the ability to pay the rent. Concord also conducts a separate compliance check to verify that the applicant is a qualifying tenant for purposes of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program which makes it possible for Concord to rent apartments at below-market rates. The information that Petitioner provided to the staff at Regatta Bay was sent to Concord's offices in Maitland, Florida, for review and handling. The Security Deposit and Surety Bond Concord completed its credit and criminal background check of Petitioner on August 22, 2005. Because Concord determined that Petitioner had poor credit history, based in part on being employed less than a year at her current place of employment, Petitioner was required to have someone co-sign her lease or pay a security deposit and purchase a security (surety) bond. Petitioner paid a security deposit of $873 and purchased a security bond in the amount of $175. Petitioner claims that it was an act of discrimination for Concord to have required both a security deposit and a security bond. The only basis for this claim, however, is Petitioner's interpretation of a form provided to tenants,2/ entitled "Frequently Asked Questions," which explains the security deposit and bond. Petitioner believes that the form explains that only the bond is needed, not a bond and a security deposit. However the form states that the bond "replaces (or supplements) a traditional security deposit." Sharon Ivey, Concord's director of compliance, testified that the requirement for a security deposit and security bond is applied uniformly to all tenants by Concord and produced exhibits showing that tenants at Regatta Bay who were not African Americans were required to pay a security deposit and purchase a security bond if they had poor credit histories. Petitioner produced no evidence to show that African Americans at Regatta Bay, dark-skinned African Americans, or single mothers, are treated differently by Concord with respect to security deposits and bonds. Qualification for Low Income Housing In order for Concord to qualify for the federal tax credits under the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, all of the tenants of Regatta Bay must have personal incomes that fall below 60 percent of the median annual income for persons living in the Orlando Metropolitan Statistical Area, taking into account the number of persons in the household.3/ Petitioner has two children and, therefore, in order to qualify to rent an apartment at Regatta Bay, she had to have an annual income less than the median annual income for three-person households in the Orlando area. Based on statistics used by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, Petitioner's income had to be less than $29,760. To verify that Petitioner would qualify for tenancy at Regatta Bay, an employment verification form had to be filled out and submitted by her employer, Quest Diagnostics, Inc. The human resources representative at Quest Diagnostics filled out "Part B" of the employment verification form on August 17, 2005, indicating that Petitioner worked 20 hours per week and made $12 per hour. Jessica Reyes, a rental agent at Regatta, called Petitioner and discussed the fact that the employment verification form indicated she was only a part-time employee. Petitioner informed Ms. Reyes that she had just become a full-time employee. Ms. Reyes requested that Petitioner have the human resources representative at Quest Diagnostics send Regatta Bay another employment verification form and complete "Part A" of the form which asks for the employee's anticipated annual income and year-to-date income. A second employment verification form was sent to Regatta Bay on August 18, 2005, indicating that Petitioner's anticipated annual salary was $25,708.80. The human resources representative did not fill in the space provided for year-to- date income. Ms. Reyes was unable to get the year-to-date earnings information from Quest Diagnostics. Ms. Reyes filled-in the figure $17,144 in the space provided for Petitioner's year-to- date earnings on the employment verification form. In a written statement obtained later from her, Ms. Reyes stated that she thought the absence of this information on the form might cause the form to be "kicked back" by the compliance auditors at Concord. She stated that she calculated the year-to-date earnings of $17,144 from Petitioner's annual income. It appears that Ms. Reyes did not realize that Petitioner had only worked at Quest Diagnostics for five months, and that a year-to-date income of $17,144 would translate to an annual income that was above the limit to qualify for low income housing. Even though only a credit check had been completed on Petitioner, and not a compliance check to verify that she had qualifying income for the federal tax credit program, Petitioner was allowed to sign a lease and move into Unit 101 at Regatta Bay on or about September 20, 2005. On September 15, 2005, Robert Green, a compliance auditor with Concord, reviewed the paperwork he received from Regatta Bay concerning Petitioner, including the employment verification form. He determined that, based on the year-to- date earnings figure, Petitioner's income was too high to qualify for housing at Regatta Bay. In Ms. Reyes' written statement of December 9, 2005, she said she was asked to get pay stubs from Petitioner. Ms. Reyes stated that Petitioner brought in her last pay stub, which included her year-to-date earnings. Ms. Reyes claims to have recalculated Petitioner's year-to-date earnings using her pay stub and, although not $17,144, the recalculated number was still too high. The community director at Regatta Bay, Christine Lombardi, testified that Petitioner came in on September 20 or 21, 2005, and spoke to Ms. Reyes about her income. Ms. Lombardi said she saw Ms. Reyes with pay stubs in her hand and with a calculator tape that Ms. Reyes had used to calculate Petitioner's year-to-date income. Ms. Lombardi testified that she asked Ms. Reyes to make a copy of the pay stubs, but Petitioner would not allow them be copied. Petitioner was unaware that Ms. Reyes had altered the employment verification form to add a year-to-date income figure, but it is undisputed that Petitioner was told that her annual income had been calculated to be a figure over $31,000. Petitioner's pay stub for work through September 3, 2005, shows year-to-date earnings, including overtime, of $12,489.60.4/ Because Petitioner had worked for Quest Diagnostics for five months, the year-to-date figure from her pay stub would result in an estimated annual income of about $29,976. This amount is just over the maximum income allowed, but it includes some overtime work. It was not shown how Ms. Reyes came up with an estimate of $31,000, and her own statement on that point is unclear. However, if Ms. Reyes assumed that Petitioner had been working at Quest Diagnostics since January 1, 2005, the income shown on Petitioner's last pay stub would support an estimated annual income of about $32,000. Petitioner denies that she brought in her pay stubs to show Ms. Reyes, but she testified that Ms. Reyes "had her calculator in front of her, and she calculated it up." Petitioner asked Ms. Reyes to add her adult daughter to her household, so that she could qualify under the higher income allowed for a four-person household. On September 21, 2005, Ms. Lombardi sent Petitioner a letter informing Petitioner that she would have to move out of Regatta Bay because her income was too high. At the final hearing, Petitioner repeatedly referred to a comment in the letter that "we would like to point you in the right direction," which Petitioner took great offense to and perceived almost as a racial slur. However, the comment appeared in the following context: Whereas we are sincerely sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you, there are other communities in the area that do not have the same income guidelines. These communities might be able to accommodate you and we would like to point you in the right direction. In context, there is nothing about the comment that shows animus towards Petitioner's race, color, or familial status. On September 26, 2005, Ms. Lombardi sent Petitioner a letter stating "Per our conversation today . . . you and your daughter need to come into the office to fill out the proper paperwork." This letter indicates that Ms. Lombardi was willing to pursue Petitioner's suggestion to have Petitioner's daughter added to her household so that Petitioner would qualify to stay at Regatta Bay. However, Petitioner apparently abandoned this idea after she consulted with a lawyer. Petitioner refused to vacate the apartment. On October 13, 2005, Regatta Bay served Petitioner with a Seven Day Notice to Cure Noncompliance to satisfy the requirements of Section 83.56, Florida Statutes. On October 26, 2005, Regatta Bay served Petitioner with a Seven Day Notice of Noncompliance Without Opportunity to Cure. On November 5, 2005, Regatta Bay filed a Complaint for Tenant Eviction in the circuit court for Osceola County. Concord showed that it has filed eviction actions against non-African Americans that resided in Regatta Bay when Concord discovered that they were not qualified for low income housing at the time they began their tenancies. Before Petitioner received the first "seven day notice," she contacted a legal aide attorney to assist her regarding her dispute with Regatta Bay. She also contacted Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) for help. On November 30, 2005, Janet Peterson of FHFC made a request of Robin Robuck, senior vice president of Concord, for a written explanation of how Concord "arrived at the conclusion that [Petitioner] was ineligible." In her response, Ms. Robuck referred to the year-to- date income figure of $17,144 on the employment verification form prepared by Quest Diagnostics. Ms. Robuck made no mention of the recalculation of a $31,000 figure. The communication between Concord and FHFC soon revealed the discrepancy between the employment verification form prepared by Quest Diagnostics and the form that was altered by Ms. Reyes. Ms. Reyes was asked for an explanation of the discrepancy on December 9, 2005, which she then put in writing. On that same day, Ms. Reyes was fired by Concord for altering the employment verification form. Regatta Bay then voluntarily dismissed its eviction action against Petitioner in the circuit court. Petitioner claims that Jessica Reyes and Christine Lombardi were motivated by racial discrimination to prevent Petitioner from renting an apartment at Regatta Bay. Petitioner claims that racial discrimination was the motive for Ms. Reyes putting the figure of $17,144 on the employment verification form and the motivation for Ms. Lombardi to continue to demand that Petitioner move out despite having sufficient information to know that Petitioner qualified for housing at Regatta Bay. Petitioner raised several questions about the timing of and reason for certain events that occurred, which were never fully answered by the evidence presented by the parties. For example, why was Petitioner allowed to move in before the compliance review? Why wasn't the issue of Petitioner's income simply resolved by getting more information from the human resources representative at Quest Diagnostics? Did Ms. Reyes or Ms. Lombardi ever explain to Petitioner exactly how they determined that she made too much income? Why didn't Ms. Reyes or Ms. Lombardi tell Ms. Robuck about the recalculation of a $31,000 figure when Ms. Robuck was making her internal investigation? Unanswered questions, however, are not a sufficient basis to prove housing discrimination. Petitioner failed to establish that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race. No evidence was presented by Petitioner on her claims that Respondent discriminated against her because of her dark skin color or her familial status as a single mother. Mistreatment, even if proven, may have other motivations than discrimination. In this case, all that was proven by Petitioner was a fact never contested by Concord, that Ms. Reyes improperly altered the employment verification form. Petitioner did not prove that Ms. Reyes was motivated by discrimination. The evidence suggests that Ms. Reyes and Ms. Lombardi were inept at explaining to Petitioner how it was determined that her income was too high, but Petitioner's demeanor and testimony at the final hearing indicate that she was probably partly responsible for the poor communication between them on that subject. Petitioner remained a tenant at Regatta Bay until she voluntarily moved out in July 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Sharon Harper Ivey be dismissed from the case; and The Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2007.
The Issue The issues are (1) whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-48.002(95) and 67-60.010(3) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; and (2) whether certain statements in Request for Application 2016-113 (RFA-113) issued by Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Housing or agency), are unlawful unadopted rules in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504. One of its responsibilities is to award low-income housing tax credits, which developers use to finance the construction of affordable housing. Tax credits are made available to states annually by the United States Treasury Department and are then awarded pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with Florida Housing's issuance of an RFA. This proceeding concerns RFA-113. Petitioners ARD and Madison are developers of affordable housing units and submit applications for tax credits. Law and Wolf are principals of a developer of affordable housing units. Berkshire, Hawthorne, and Southwick are limited partnerships that have submitted applications for tax credits. All Petitioners intend to submit applications in response to RFA-113 and will be subject to rule chapters 67-48 and 67-60. Intervenors Heritage and HTG are developers of affordable housing who intend to file applications pursuant to RFA-113. Background On October 28, 2016, Florida Housing published on its website proposed solicitation RFA-113, a 121-page document inviting applications for the award of up to $14,669,052.00 in housing tax credits for the development of affordable, multifamily housing located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. After Petitioners gave notice of their intent to challenge RFA-113, Florida Housing attempted to resolve the dispute by modifying the solicitation on November 13, 2016. The modification did not resolve the dispute. On November 14, 2016, Petitioners timely filed with DOAH two Petitions, each challenging rules 67-48.002(95) and 67-60.010(3) and various statements in RFA-113. On the same date, they filed with Florida Housing two petitions challenging certain specifications in the solicitation. Although the Petitions include allegations that two existing rules are invalid, Petitioners' main concern appears to be directed at various provisions in RFA-113 that they assert limit their ability to be awarded tax credits. These contentions are addressed separately below. C. Rule 67-48.002(95) The federal Low-Income Housing Credit Program is governed by 26 U.S.C.S. § 42 (section 42). The program allocates annually federal income tax credits to states on a per capita basis to help facilitate private development of affordable low-income housing. As the housing credit agency for the State of Florida, Florida Housing has the authority to administer various federal and state affordable housing programs, including the Low-Income Housing Credit Program. See § 420.5099(1), Fla. Stat. Section 42(m)(l)(A)(i) requires each state that administers low-income housing credits to adopt a QAP, which identifies the selection criteria used for distributing the housing credits. To comply with this requirement, rule 67-48.002(95) adopts and incorporates by reference the 2016 QAP. The rule reads as follows: (95) "QAP" or "Qualified Allocation Plan" means, with respect to the HC [Housing Credit] program, the 2016 Qualified Allocation Plan which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference, effective upon the approval by the Governor of the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 42(m)(1)(B) of the IRC and sets forth the selection criteria and the preferences of the Corporation for Developments which will receive Housing Credits. The QAP is available on the Corporation's Website under the Multifamily Programs link or by contacting the Housing Credit Program at 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329, or from http://flrules.org/Gateway/reference/asp?No= Ref-07355. The 2016 QAP is a five-page document that replaces the 2015 QAP and generally describes the process for allocating 2017 housing credits. In summary, it identifies Florida Housing as the housing credit agency for the State, lists the federally- mandated preferences and selection criteria to be used when allocating housing credits, describes in brief terms the competitive solicitation process, describes the process for awarding competitive and noncompetitive housing credits, and describes the procedures for monitoring and reporting a project's noncompliance with IRC requirements. Section 42(m)(1)(C) lists ten selection criteria that must be incorporated into the QAP. To comply with this requirement, section I.B. of the 2016 QAP provides that the following selection criteria will be considered when determining the allocation of housing credits: project location; housing needs characteristics; project characteristics including housing as part of a community revitalization plan; sponsor characteristics; tenant populations with special housing needs; public housing waiting lists; tenant populations of individuals with children; projects intended for eventual tenant ownership; energy efficiency of the projects; and historic nature of project. These criteria are identical to those listed in section 42(m)(1)(C) and are intended to provide general guidance for the entire housing credit program, and not just RFA-113. Other than the ten criteria, the IRC requires no further detail regarding the selection criteria. However, more specific guidance is found in the individual RFAs, tailored to each type of solicitation. Since late 2013, when the RFA solicitation process began, around 15 to 20 RFAs have been issued annually. Petitioners assert the QAP violates the IRC by not listing the RFA criteria. However, neither the Department of Housing and Urban Development nor the Internal Revenue Service has ever told Florida Housing that the QAP does not comply with the IRC or other applicable federal regulations. The rule cites section 420.507 as Florida Housing's rulemaking authority. That statute has 49 subsections that identify the various powers necessary for Florida Housing to carry out and effectuate the provisions of the law. Pertinent to this dispute is subsection (12), a general grant of authority for Florida Housing "[t]o make rules necessary to carry out the purposes of [part V, chapter 420]," which governs the various low-income housing programs administered by the agency. The rule cites section 420.5099(1) as the law being implemented. That provision designates Florida Housing as the housing credit agency for the state, along with its "responsibility and authority to establish procedures necessary for proper allocation and distribution of low-income housing tax credits and [to] exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of such credits." While consistency with section 42 is required in order to satisfy federal requirements, the IRC is not the law being implemented. Petitioners allege the rule exceeds the agency's grant of rulemaking authority and enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented. See § 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Fla. Stat. In short, they contend that other than the generic selection criteria required by section 42(m)(1)(C), the QAP fails to include the other selection criteria in RFA-113 that are used during the competitive process. D. Rule 67-60.010(3) Petitioners also challenge rule 67-60.010(3). The entire rule, entitled "Funding Preferences," reads as follows: In connection with any competitive solicitation, where all other competitive elements are equal, the Corporation may establish a preference for developers and general contractors who demonstrate the highest rate of Florida job creation in the development and construction of affordable housing. In any competitive solicitation, the Corporation may prescribe a priority to fund affordable housing projects in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern and the City of Key West Area of Critical State Concern where, due to challenging environmental, land use, transportation, workforce, and economic factors, it is extremely difficult to successfully finance, develop, and construct affordable housing. The Corporation may establish other funding priorities as deemed appropriate for a competitive program or solicitation. The rule cites section 420.507(12) as the source of rulemaking authority. That statute is a general grant of authority allowing Florida Housing to adopt rules necessary to carry out the purposes of part V, chapter 420, which includes the issuance of tax credits under the Low-Income Housing Credit Program. The rule cites sections 420.507(47), (48), and (49), 420.5087, 420.5089(2), and 420.5099 as the laws being implemented. In their totality, those provisions authorize Florida Housing to adopt rules and procedures for allocating housing credits and loans for programs that it administers pursuant to chapter 420. One authorized procedure is the authority to use RFAs when awarding low-income housing tax credits. See § 420.507(48), Fla. Stat. On the faulty premise that RFA-113 derives its authority from subsection (3) of the rule, rather than statutory law, Petitioners argue that Florida Housing is allocating low- income housing tax credits in a manner that violates section 42 and chapter 420. They contend authority is delegated by the RFA to local governments to choose which developer will receive local funding, thus giving that developer more preferential treatment in the selection process. By doing so, Petitioners assert subsection (3) violates section 120.52(8)(d) by failing to establish adequate standards for agency decisions and vesting unbridled discretion in the agency. As the record shows, the authority to allocate tax credits is not derived from a rule. The source of authority is a statute. Subsection (3) simply informs readers that, besides the statutorily-mandated procedures spelled out in subsections (1) and (2), other types of funding priorities or preferences may be enacted at some future time by the legislature. As these changes occur, the reader is told that specific rules will be adopted to implement those changes. Agency Statements The allegations concerning unadopted rules, all in the RFA, are somewhat confusing. In their PFO, Petitioners request that a final order be entered determining "the policies that make up virtually all of RFA 2016-113 are invalid non-rule policies." Pet'r PFO, p. 23. In paragraph 38 of the PFO, they make reference to RFA pages 2, 13, 20, 22, 40-45, 53-54, 62-63, 67-68, 72, and 110, but elsewhere provide the actual text of only six statements and a brief description of a few others. In the parties' Joint Stipulation, Petitioners assert only that "RFA 2016-113 contains numerous provisions that are invalid exercises of non-rule policy and are without a basis in or are contrary to the law implemented." Jt. Stip., p. 2, § B.1. No statements are identified or described. As detailed in endnote 1, however, their initial Petitions identify the text of some statements and provide a brief description of others, along with the page number on which they are found.1/ Only these statements will be addressed. Petitioners contend that Florida Housing must immediately discontinue all reliance upon them, stop the solicitation process, and issue a new RFA. It is unnecessary to recite each statement in full in order to resolve this dispute. An RFA is issued for each solicitation involving low- income housing credits. Before posting an RFA, Florida Housing typically conducts workshops and posts on-line information to inform prospective applicants of all requirements and any new provisions. By reading the RFA, each prospective applicant is placed on equal footing with the others. RFA-113 consists of six sections: Introduction; Definitions; Procedures and Provisions; Information to be Provided in Application; Evaluation Process; and Award Process. The definitions and funding selection criteria being challenged are found in sections Two and Four, respectively. A lengthy Exhibit A is attached to RFA-113, which includes various forms, instructions, and the like. The evidence shows that RFAs in the low-income rental housing program are not always the same, as they vary depending on such things as the type of project, size of the county, applicable selection criteria, proximity of other developments, program being implemented, demographics being served, and economic conditions in the area. Also, changes in the substantive law or federal regulations require a modification of an RFA's terms and conditions from time to time. For example, RFA-113 contains new criteria used by Florida Housing for the very first time. In short, RFA-113 is tailored to a very narrow class of persons in the six-county area who seek tax credits to build affordable low-income rental property in that area. The selection criteria in RFA-113 are not cast in stone and some are subject to discretionary application. And applicants can achieve points in different ways. During the review process, evaluators have the discretion to either waive or enforce irregularities, depending on how they characterize the irregularity. It is fair to assume from the record that different members of the evaluation committee might assign a different score to the same section of an application. Is Rulemaking Impracticable? Petitioners contend that Florida Housing must adopt by rule the detailed selection criteria, preferences, and definitions contained in every RFA. These terms and conditions change from cycle to cycle and would require Florida Housing to engage in repetitive rulemaking each year, which more than likely would unduly delay the solicitation process. Assuming arguendo the statements are a rule, which they are not, under the circumstances presented here, it is not reasonable to adopt by rule precise or detailed principles, criteria, or standards for every solicitation. See § 120.54(1)(a)2.a., Fla. Stat. Attorney's Fees and Costs As a condition precedent to seeking an award of attorney's fees and costs against an agency for having an illegal unadopted rule, the person bringing the challenge must give the agency 30 days' notice before filing a petition under section 120.56(4), which notice must inform the agency that the disputed statement might constitute an unadopted rule. See § 120.595(4)(b), Fla. Stat. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners failed to provide this notice.
