The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's proposed amendment to the Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), specifically paragraph 16 of the proposed 2012 QAP allowing Respondent to allocate certain tax credits by means of Request for Proposals (RFPs), adopted by and incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(94), constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Allapattah Housing Partners, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company whose address is 1172 South Dixie Highway, Suite 500 Coral Gables, Florida 33146. Petitioner Tower Road Gardens, Ltd., is a limited partnership whose address is 5709 NW 158 Street, Miami Lakes, Florida 33014. Petitioner City River Apartments, Ltd., is a limited partnership whose address is 1666 Kennedy Causeway, Ste. 505, North Bay Village, Florida 33141. Respondent is a public corporation created by section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Respondent's statutory authority and mandates appear in Part V of chapter 420, Florida Statutes. See §§ 420.501 through 420.55, Fla. Stat. Respondent is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of nine individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Respondent's address is 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. In the July 1, 2011, Florida Administrative Weekly (FAW), Volume 37, No. 26, pages 1831 through 1872, Respondent gave notice of the proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-48 and to forms and instructions that make up the Universal Cycle Application Package, incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004(1)(a). The July 1, 2011, Notice of Proposed Rule indicated that a public hearing would be held at Respondent's office in Tallahassee, Florida, on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. The Amended Petition was filed within ten days of the final public hearing and, thus, is timely pursuant to section 120.56(2), Florida Statutes. Under federal law memorialized in Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC or the Code), each state is given an amount of federal Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Credits (Housing Credits) based upon its population. In 2011, each state is entitled to $2.15 per capita of Housing Credits. Florida is entitled to receive approximately $40,422,817.00 in 2011 Housing Credits. These Housing Credits are then allocated to specific qualifying housing projects and can be utilized by project investors each year for a ten-year period. Accordingly, the 2011 Florida Housing Credits entitlement will represent a total value of $404,228,170.00 ($40,422,817.00 each year for ten years) in Housing Credits. Developers typically sell the tax credits to investors to generate equity investments in such projects. For example, an equity "price" of 90 cents for each dollar of the 2011 allocation of Housing Credits would generate approximately $360 million in investor equity for the statewide allocation. More than seven million seven hundred thousand dollars ($7,700,000.00) of 2011 Housing Credits remain unallocated by Respondent. The amount of Housing Credits available for 2012 will not be known until the Internal Revenue Service publishes its state population estimates in early 2012. As in 2011, the amount will be the product of Florida's population multiplied by $2.15. Section 42 of the Code requires that each state designate a "housing credit agency" which is responsible for the proper allocation and distribution of Housing Credits in compliance with the criteria and guidelines of section 42. Respondent's rules incorporate section 42 of the Code at Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(71). Respondent is designated as Florida's housing credit agency by section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, and, as such, is responsible for the allocation and distribution of Housing Credits. Respondent administers various federal and state affordable housing programs, including the Housing Credit Program, pursuant to section 420.5099 and chapter 67-48. Respondent's rulemaking authority to implement this process is set forth in section 420.507(12), Florida Statutes. Under federal law, Respondent must distribute Low- Income Rental Housing Tax Credits to applicants pursuant to a specific QAP. IRC § 42(m)(l)(A)v. The QAP must contain certain criteria mandated by federal law, referred to as "Selection Criteria." IRC § 42(m)(l)(B). The Code further provides that a state's federal Housing Credit award will be deemed to be zero if its QAP fails to include a complete plan setting forth (a) selection criteria, (b) preferences for lowest income, longest terms and development in qualified census tracts, and (c) procedures for monitoring and reporting a project's non- compliance. IRC § 42(m)(l)(A). Respondent's QAP must be approved by its Board of Directors and by the Governor and must be adopted as a rule. IRC § 42(m)(A)(i); § 120.56. Typically, each year, Respondent embarks on a public rule-making process to adopt the applicable rule and QAP which control the complex and critical processes for evaluation, review, notice, opportunity to be heard, and, ultimately, ranking and approval of developments to receive allocations of Housing Credits for that year. Because the demand for allocation of Housing Credits exceeds that which is available under the Housing Credit Program, applicants of qualified affordable housing developments must compete for this funding. Applicants apply for funding, under various affordable housing programs, through Respondent's Universal Cycle application process, which is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.002 through -21.00351 and 67-48.001 through -48.005. Applicants for tax credits provide information as required by the forms and instructions of the Universal Cycle Application Package, which is adopted by and incorporated into rule 67-48.004(1)(a). To assess the relative merits of proposed developments, Respondent has established a competitive application process known as the Universal Cycle. Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 67-48. Respondent scores and competitively ranks the applications to determine which applications will be allocated Housing Credits. Respondent's scoring and evaluation process for Housing Credit applications is set forth in rule 67-48.004. Under these rules, the applications are evaluated and scored based upon factors contained in the Universal Cycle Application Package and Respondent's adopted rules. Respondent then issues preliminary scores to all applicants. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 48.004(3). Following release of the preliminary scores, competitors can alert Respondent of alleged scoring errors in other applications by filing a written Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE) within a specified time frame. Respondent reviews the NOPSE and notifies the affected applicant of its decision by issuing a NOPSE scoring summary. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.004(4). Applicants then have an opportunity to submit "additional documentation, revised pages and such other information as the Applicant deems appropriate ('cures') to address the issues" raised by preliminary or NOPSE scoring. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-21.003 and 67-48.004(6). In other words, within parameters established by the rules, applicants may cure certain errors and omissions in their applications pointed out during preliminary scoring or raised by a competitor during the NOPSE process. After affected applicants submit their "cure" documentation, competitors can file a Notice of Alleged Deficiency (NOAD) challenging the sufficiency of an applicant's cure. Respondent considers the challenged cure materials and reviews the NOADs, then issues final scores for all the applications. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.004(9). Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.005 establishes a procedure through which an applicant can challenge the final scoring of its application. The Notice of Rights that accompanies an applicant's final score advises an adversely affected applicant of its right to appeal Respondent's scoring decision in a proceeding conducted under chapter 120. Ultimately, Respondent ranks each application and allocates available Housing Credits based on such rankings. The last time the QAP in the State of Florida was promulgated and adopted as a rule was in 2009, which allocated 2009 Housing Credits. During 2010, there were no new amendments to Respondent's rules or the QAP. At the end of 2010, Respondent drafted a 2011 QAP, which was signed by the Governor, but never adopted as a rule. The draft 2011 QAP allocated Housing Credits in accordance with a Universal Application Cycle, but Respondent did not adopt the QAP as a rule pursuant to chapter 120.56. The 2011 Cycle did not take place. On June 26, 2011, Respondent's Board authorized publication of proposed rule amendments to chapter 67-48. The proposed rule amendments adopt and incorporate the 2012 QAP by reference at proposed rule 67-48.002(94). Proposed rule 67-48.002(94) provides: "QAP" or "Qualified Allocation Plan" means, with respect to the HC Program, the 2012 Qualified Allocation Plan which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference, effective upon 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 2011 Universal Application link labeled Related References and Links or by contacting the Housing Credit Program at 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329. The 2012 QAP proposed rule purports to govern the process and allocation for both 2011 and 2012 Housing Credits. The only mention in the 2012 QAP proposed rule of the allocation of 2011 Housing Credits is contained in Paragraph 16 of the 2012 QAP proposed rule, which states in its entirety: "Any available 2011 Housing Credit Allocation Authority may be awarded by the FHFC [Respondent's] Board by means of Request for Proposals based on criteria approved by the FHFC [Respondent's] Board." Petitioners challenge proposed rule 67-48.002(94) (which incorporates by reference the 2012 QAP proposed rule) and those portions of the 2012 QAP proposed rule which purport to govern the allocation of 2011 Housing Credits. It is undisputed that Petitioners have standing to initiate and participate in this rule challenge proceeding. § 120.56(1)(a).
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award funding pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-103, Housing Credit and State Apartment Incentive Loan ("SAIL") Financing to Develop Housing in Medium and Large Counties for Homeless Households and Persons with a Disabling Condition (the "RFA"), Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing" or "Respondent"), acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The question of whether the application of Northside Commons Residential, LLC ("Northside"), met the requirements of the RFA with respect to demonstrating the availability of water and sewer services as of the Application Deadline is the only question at issue in this case. No other parts of its Application are being challenged, and the parties all agree that its Application was otherwise properly scored. No parties have raised objections to any parts of Warley Park's application, and all parties agree that its Application was properly scored.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Warley Park, Ltd., is the applicant entity of a proposed affordable housing development to be located in Seminole County, Florida. Petitioners Warley Park Developer, LLC, and Step Up Developer, LLC, are Developer entities as defined by Florida Housing in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(28). Northside is a Florida limited liability company based in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. The Programs The low income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect of this is to reduce the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of up 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. SAIL provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers each year. This money often serves to bridge the gap between the development's primary financing and the total cost of the development. SAIL dollars are available to individuals, public entities, not-for-profit, or for-profit organizations that propose the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low-income individuals and families. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate housing tax credits, SAIL funding, and other funding by means of request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48) and adopted chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its housing tax credits, which were made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). The RFA 2017-103 Housing tax credits and SAIL funding are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a RFA. A RFA is equivalent to a "request for proposal" as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). The RFA at issue here is RFA 2017-103, which was issued on March 22, 2017. A modification was issued on April 11, 2017, and responses were due April 20, 2017. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $6,075,000 of housing tax credits, along with $11,500,000 of SAIL financing, to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments. A review committee, made up of Florida Housing staff, reviews and scores each application. Florida Housing scored applicants in six areas worth a total of 145 points: General Development Experience; Management Company Experience with Permanent Supportive Housing; Tenant Selection for Intended Residents; Community-Based General Services and Amenities Accessible to Tenants; Access to Community-Based Resources and Services that Address Tenants' Needs; and Approach Toward Income and Credit Status of Homeless Households Applying for Tenancy. Florida Housing scored Northside as the highest scoring applicant, awarding it 128 points. Warley Park was the fourth highest scored applicant with 112 points. These scores are presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation is presented to Florida Housing's Board of Directors ("the Board") for final agency action. On June 16, 2017, Petitioners and all other participants in RFA 2017-103 received notice that the Board had determined which applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding and selected certain applications for awards of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the "eligible" and "ineligible" applications and one identifying the applications that Florida Housing proposed to fund, on Florida Housing's website, www.floridahousing.org. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to three developments, including Northside. Warley Park's application was deemed eligible, but it was not selected for funding. The RFA at Section Four A.5.g. requires the applicant to demonstrate its "Ability to Proceed" by including the following as attachments to its application: Availability of Water. The Applicant must demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline water is available to the entire proposed Development site by providing as Attachment 9 to Exhibit A: The properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form (Form Rev. 08-16); or A letter from the water service provider that is Development-specific and dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline. The letter may not be signed by the Applicant, by any related parties of the Applicant, by any Principals or Financial Beneficiaries of the Applicant, or by any local elected officials. Availability of Sewer. The Applicant must demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline sewer capacity, package treatment or septic tank service is available to the entire proposed Development site by providing as Attachment 10 to Exhibit A: The properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form (Form Rev. 08-16); or A letter from the waste treatment service provider that is Development-specific and dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline. The letter may not be signed by the Applicant, by any related parties of the Applicant, by any Principals or Financial Beneficiaries of the Applicant, or by any local elected officials. (emphasis added). Section 5.g. of Exhibit A to RFA 2017-103, the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, requires that the applicant include the following information: Ability to Proceed: As outlined in Section Four A.5.g. of the RFA, the Applicant must provide the following information to demonstrate Ability to Proceed: Availability of Water. The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 9 to Exhibit A, an acceptable letter from the service provider or the properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form (Form Rev. 08-16). Availability of Sewer. The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 10 to Exhibit A, an acceptable letter from the service provider or the properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form (Form Rev. 08-16). The Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form requires the service provider to certify that on or before the submission deadline for the RFA, "Sewer Capacity or Package Treatment is available to the proposed Development." Similarly, the Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form requires the service provider to certify that on or before the submission deadline for the RFA, "Potable water is available to the proposed Development." Each form also includes the following caveat: To access such [waste treatment] [water] service, the Applicant may be required to pay hook-up, installation and other customary fees, comply with other routine administrative procedures, and/or install or construct line extensions and other equipment, including but not limited to pumping stations, in connection with the construction of the Development. The RFA does not define the term "Development- specific," and the term is not used in Section 5.g. of Exhibit A to RFA 2017-103 where the requirement for the water and sewer letters is included. Further, the term "Development-specific" is not defined in any Florida Housing rule. Miami-Dade County has had a longstanding practice of refusing to complete Florida Housing's water and sewer verification forms. Florida Housing added the water and sewer letter as an additional method to demonstrate availability in light of the county's refusal. Thus, an applicant, such as Northside, has no alternative when proposing a Miami-Dade project other than providing a water and sewer letter as opposed to Florida Housing's Verification form. Northside's Water and Sewer Letter Accordingly, in response to this RFA requirement, Northside submitted a letter from Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department as Attachment 9 to its application. The letter was sought by Oscar Sol, one of the principals of the developer working with the applicant in the project at issue in this case. The WASA letter at issue in this case was dated December 12, 2016. It was addressed to "Northside Commons LTD," and referenced water and sewer availability for "Northside Commons," construction and connection of 108 apartments, located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The identical WASA letter was submitted as Attachments 10 and 11 to application 2017-155C in response to a prior RFA, RFA 2016-114. That prior application was submitted by Northside Commons, Ltd., for a 108-unit elderly development called Northside Commons, located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami- Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The application deadline for RFA 2016-114 was December 15, 2016. In the present case, Northside's application for RFA 2017-103, application 2017-254CSN, was submitted by Northside Commons Residential, LLC. It was for an 80-unit development for homeless persons and persons with disabling conditions, also to be called "Northside Commons," located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The application deadline for RFA 2017-103 was April 20, 2017. The WASA letter contains several paragraphs of details about hookups to water and sewer service, and also includes the following boilerplate language: "This letter is for informational purposes only and conditions remain in effect for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. Nothing contained in this letter provides the developer with any vested rights to receive water and/or sewer service." Warley Park raised three issues regarding the WASA letter. First, was the letter valid for more than 30 days after it was signed? Second, did the letter meet the requirement of the RFA that it be "development specific?" Third, did the letter demonstrate the availability of sewer services? Was the WASA letter valid for more than 30 days after it was signed? Florida Housing and Northside contend that there is no provision in the WASA letter stating that it becomes "invalid" after 30 days, or that water and sewer services will not be available after 30 days. Douglas Pile, the representative for Miami-Dade County, testified that the second and third paragraphs of the letter included the conditions necessary to service the availability of water and sewer, and that it was these conditions that remained in effect for 30 days. He described the purpose of the 30-day language as follows: We're not saying that availability disappears or terminates after 30 days. We're just saying this letter is good for informational purposes for 30 days. We don't want people to come back a year later and say I bought this property based upon this letter of availability saying I have water and sewer under certain conditions, and then a year later the conditions are different and maybe they have to put in a water main extension or maybe their local pump station is in moratorium. When asked specifically whether the entire letter was valid for only 30 days, he responded, "Right. Well, the conditions are – the nearby water and sewer facilities that the project would connect to." Mr. Pile explained that the letter is "a snapshot of what our facilities are at the time they make the request." He further stated that: the letter . . . has to have an expiration date either explicit or implicit. If a utility is going to give a letter saying they have water and sewer availability, that cannot be forever, you know. You assume a natural termination point . . . we just explicitly say this letter is good for 30 days. In its Pre-Hearing Position Statement, Florida Housing argued that it did not interpret this language to mean that the letter became invalid after 30 days. However, according to Mr. Reecy,1/ there was no "interpretation" done by Florida Housing. Specifically, when asked how Florida Housing interpreted the phrase, he stated: We have basically ignored that phrase. We actually do not know what--given the context of this situation, how, within 30 days, the--that information is only good for 30 days. So we have not considered that to be a relevant factor in our consideration of the information provided in the letter. A plain and common reading of the quoted language indicates Miami-Dade limited the validity of the information in the letters to 30 days. Florida Housing provided no explanation for its decision to ignore the language and made no attempt to inquire of Miami-Dade County as to what it intended by including the language. This 30-day limitation is generally known by the applicants and nearly every previously funded application included a letter from Miami-Dade County dated within 30 days of the application deadline. Only one Miami-Dade WASA letter submitted by applicants within the last two RFAs was dated outside of the 30-day window. That letter was deemed ineligible for other reasons. Had Petitioner wanted to demonstrate availability as of the application deadline, it only needed to request a letter from Miami-Dade County within the 30 days prior to the application deadline, giving Miami-Dade sufficient time to respond. In fact, the letter was initially submitted as part of a response to RFA 2016-114, with a due date of December 15, 2016. Because the letter was issued on December 12, 2016, it remained valid through the application deadline for RFA 2016-114. There is no limit to the number of times a developer can obtain a letter of availability from Miami-Dade County. The requirements of the RFA are clear that water and sewer availability must be shown "as of the Application Deadline." Because the WASA letter submitted with Petitioner's Application only provided a snapshot of availability for a 30-day window after the issuance of the letter (or until January 11, 2017), the letter failed to address the availability of water or sewer services as of April 20, 2017. As a practical matter, the WASA letter provides that water hook-up is readily available to existing infrastructure and sewer availability is dependent upon a developer building a pumping station. It could be inferred that these conditions would remain available at this location for 12 months. However, the testimony of Mr. Pile makes clear that Miami-Dade County is not willing to make that assumption for a period beyond 30 days due to the possibility of intervening events.2/ Presumably, this is why the vast majority of applicants for this type of RFA secures and provides a Miami-Dade WASA letter dated within 30 days of the RFA application deadline. Because the WASA letter was not valid beyond January 11, 2017, Petitioner cannot demonstrate availability of water and sewer as of the Application Deadline. The fact that the WASA letter was no longer valid is fatal to Petitioner's application in that it failed to satisfy a mandatory requirement of RFA 2017-103, i.e., the availability of water and sewer services. Was the WASA letter "development specific?" The RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate water and sewer service availability for "the entire proposed Development site," and it also requires that the letter from the service provider be "Development-specific." The application in this matter was filed by Northside Commons Residential, LLC, for an 80-unit development for the homeless and persons with disabling conditions. However, the WASA letter was issued to, and discussed the availability of water and sewer service for, a different entity, Northside Commons, Ltd., the applicant for a 108-unit elderly development. According to Mr. Reecy, the reuse of a letter that was previously submitted in a different application does not follow the "letter" of the criteria in the RFA. Florida Housing and Northside even agree that the letter does not reference the specific proposed development that is at issue and instead focuses on the location of the proposed development. Mr. Sol, Northside's representative, suggested that it is "irrelevant" to which entity the letter is issued because what is relevant is whether water and sewer availability exists. However, as stated by Mr. Reecy, what Florida Housing considers when determining whether a letter of availability is "Development-specific" is the location, the number of units, and the applicant. Because the WASA letter was issued to a entirely different applicant, based upon Mr. Reecy's testimony, it is not "Development-specific." However, Mr. Reecy noted that such a letter could be considered a Minor Irregularity if there is some commonality between the applicant entities. Northside argues that the failure of the letter to be "Development-specific" should be waived as a Minor Irregularity. This issue was not considered during scoring, nor was it a determination made by the Board of Florida Housing prior to awarding funding to Northside. Mr. Reecy acknowledged that it is a judgment call when determining whether a letter addressed to a different entity with different principals is a Minor Irregularity. That call depends upon the number of common principals. While the number of principals that must be the same is discretionary, there must be at least some commonality of principals for it to be considered a Minor Irregularity. The principals of Northside Commons, Ltd., the entity to which the letter was actually issued and the applicant that originally submitted the WASA letter, are completely different from the principals of Northside Commons Residential, LLC. Despite a full understanding of all the similarities between the two applications and the differences in the requirements of the RFA and being given a number of opportunities to change his position, Mr. Reecy repeatedly declined to do so. Mr. Sol suggested that it is common practice for Florida Housing to accept letters issued to entities other than the applicant and with different principals. After hearing Mr. Sol's opinion and discussing the issue further with Northside, Mr. Reecy remained steadfast in his position that the error in the Letter could not be waived as a Minor Irregularity. At the request of Northside, Mr. Reecy agreed to review past practices of the agency during a break in the hearing. As stated by counsel for Florida Housing, if it is established that Florida Housing has a long-standing practice of accepting similar letters, then the question is whether Northside Commons may rely upon that practice. The review during the break was limited to the issue of whether Florida Housing had previously accepted Miami-Dade letters addressed to an entity who was not the applicant and who shared no principals in common with the applicant. No such long- standing practice was demonstrated. Mr. Reecy directed staff to pull all of the Miami-Dade letters of availability from the last two RFAs, to determine, first, whether or not there were sewer letters addressed to someone other than the applicant entity. Second, for those so identified, staff was to compare the principals of the applicant entity and the entity that was the addressee for commonality. Mr. Reecy was provided a list of approximately a dozen letters from the past several RFAs that compared the applicant entity and the addressee entity. This list did not identify whether or not the letters were submitted by successful credit applicants. Based upon this list, Mr. Reecy then reviewed each letter to determine whether or not it was issued to the applicant. He then reviewed the principals list for the applicant as identified in the application and compared that to data from the state of Florida's Sunbiz.org website for the addressee of the letter. Mr. Reecy compared this information to determine if the two had any principals in common. After reviewing this information, Mr. Reecy recanted his earlier testimony and stated that he felt that Florida Housing historically accepted letters with addressees that were not the applicant entity and did not have common principals. Mr. Reecy further testified that based upon this understanding of Florida Housing's past practice, the Northside's letter should be accepted. The information Mr. Reecy reviewed, specifically that obtained from the state of Florida's Sunbiz.org website, did not demonstrate, as Mr. Reecy believes, that Florida Housing previously accepted Miami-Dade WASA letters from applicants in a similar position to that of Northside. Notably, Florida Housing does not accept documentation from the Sunbiz.org website to demonstrate the principals of the Application as required by this and other RFAs. The Sunbiz.org website does not identify the level of detail of principals which Florida Housing requests in its "Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form". Further, even if Sunbiz.org did identify all of the principals Florida Housing requires to be disclosed, in this case, the Sunbiz.org information reviewed was dated 2017.3/ As this information was filed after the application deadlines for the respective RFAs, it fails to identify any of the principals related to the entities in the "comparable" letters for the 2015 and 2016 RFAs. No information was provided as to any of the principals in either 2015 or 2016. Accordingly, Mr. Reecy and Mr. Sol's belief that Florida Housing had previously accepted letters in a similar position to that of Northside Commons' letter has not been demonstrated. Because Mr. Reecy's new position, that Northside Commons' letter should be accepted, is based upon this incorrect understanding, and the alleged prior agency action was not demonstrated, Mr. Reecy's initial testimony is found to be more credible. Therefore, the record demonstrates that the WASA letter was not "Development-specific" and, therefore, contrary to the solicitation specifications. Did the letter demonstrate availability of sewer services? The RFA requires each applicant to provide a form or letter demonstrating that "as of the Application Deadline sewer capacity, package treatment or septic tank service is available to the entire proposed Development site." Petitioner presented the testimony of Jon Dinges, P.E., an environmental engineer with expertise in designing wastewater systems who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering, specifically in the area of sewer infrastructure and design. Mr. Dinges' testimony was simply that the problem with the WASA letter in this case is that it does not actually say that capacity is available. In a prior RFA, Florida Housing rejected an application that included a Miami-Dade WASA letter because it specifically stated that no gravity sewer capacity analysis had been conducted. According to Mr. Dinges, without conducting a gravity sewer capacity analysis, it is not possible to determine whether capacity, if any, exists. However, the RFA makes no mention of requiring a gravity sewer capacity analysis to demonstrate availability. Mr. Reecy testified that Florida Housing has been accepting WASA letters without mention of gravity analysis from Miami-Dade County for many years. He stated that the detailed description of how a proposed project could connect to an existing sewer service met the requirement of the RFA that the Applicant demonstrate the availability of sewer service. He also testified that if Florida Housing were to change its position and determine that the form of the letter was not adequate to demonstrate capacity, it would do so in a public process. The testimony was clear that Florida Housing does not do any independent analysis of whether water and sewer service is actually available to a proposed development, but instead relies on the expertise of the local government to do this analysis. Applicants are not required to include or demonstrate the specific requirements or technical specifications of how a connection to water or sewer services will be made. This interpretation is consistent with the specifications of the RFA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order amending its preliminary decision awarding funding to Warley Park by: finding Northside ineligible for funding; and awarding funding to Warley Park as the next highest scoring eligible applicant. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2017.
The Issue Whether Rule 67-48.005, Florida Administrative Code, and Section VII on Page 16 of Form 1 of the 1999 Housing Credit Application Package adopted by Rule 67-48.002(10) Florida Administrative Code, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. If so, whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact Part V of Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, consisting of Sections 420.501 - 420.517, Florida Statutes, is the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Act. Respondent, Florida Housing Corporation (FHFC), is a public corporation created by the provisions of Section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, FHFC is the designated housing agency for the State of Florida. FHFC administers the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program and other housing programs in Florida pursuant to other provisions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Act. Pursuant to Section 420.504(2), Florida Statutes, FHFC is an agency of the State of Florida for the purposes of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. FHFC is governed by an independent member Board of Directors appointed by the Governor. The Board members come from specifically designated industries and backgrounds as set forth in Section 420.504(3), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 420.507, Florida Statutes, FHFC has all the powers necessary or convenient to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation Act, including the power to enact rules. 2/ Petitioner submitted an application to the FHFC for 1999 Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The parties stipulated that Petitioner has standing to challenge the validity of the rules at issue in this proceeding. The parties further stipulated that Shepland does not have standing to challenge the validity of the rules at issue in this proceeding. Intervenors, Miami River Park, Ltd., and Wynwood Tower Apartments, Ltd., submitted applications to FHFC for 1999 Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The parties stipulated that these two entities have standing to intervene in this proceeding. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program is a federal program whose purpose is to encourage the development of housing for low-income families in the various states. 3/ Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Code) creates federal income tax credits that are allocated to each state and are awarded through state-administered programs to developers of low-income housing projects. The tax credits equate to a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the holder's tax liability which can be taken each year that the project satisfies the Internal Revenue Code requirements, for up to ten years. The developer typically sells or syndicates the tax credit to generate funding for the proposed project. Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code requires that each state adopt a Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) establishing procedures to be followed in awarding low-income credits allocated to the states. Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The Florida Housing Finance Corporation is designated the housing credit agency for the state within the meaning of s. 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and shall have the responsibility and authority to establish procedures necessary for proper allocation and distribution of low-income housing tax credits and shall exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of such 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. The corporation may request such information from applicants as will enable it to make the allocations according to the guidelines set forth in subsection (2), including, but not limited to, the information required to be provided the corporation by chapter 9I-21, Florida Administrative Code. The executive director of the corporation shall administer the allocation procedures and determine allocations on behalf of the corporation. Any applicant disputing the amount of an allocation or the denial of a request for an allocation may request an appeal to the board of directors of the corporation. For purposes of implementing this program in Florida and in assessing the property for ad valorem taxation under s. 193.011, neither the tax credits, nor financing generated by tax credits, shall be considered as income to the property, and the rental income from rent restricted units in a low-income tax credit development shall be recognized by the property appraiser. The corporation is authorized to expend fees received in conjunction with the allocation of low-income housing tax credits only for the purpose of administration of the program, including private legal services which relate to interpretation of s. 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, FHFC has established rules for processing applications for housing tax credits. These rules, found in Chapter 67-48, Florida Administrative Code, constitute Florida's QAP. A prime consideration in developing the application process is that the process be completed in a timely manner, since the failure of a state to use all of its allocated credits in a timely manner will result in a loss of housing tax credits. Such a loss is contrary to the statutory mandate that FHFC ensure the maximum use of available tax credits. Petitioner has challenged FHFC's Rule 67-48.005, Florida Administrative Code, which is entitled Applicant Administrative Appeal Procedures, and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Following the Review Committee's determination of preliminary scores and ranking, notice of intended funding or denial of funding will be provided to each Applicant with a statement that: Applicants who wish to contest the decision relative to their own Application must petition for review of the decision in writing within 10 calendar days of the date of the notice. The request must specify in detail the forms and the scores sought to be appealed. Unless the appeal involves disputed issues of material fact, the appeal will be conducted on an informal basis. The Review Committee will review the appeal and will provide to the Applicant a written position paper which recommends either no change in score or an increase or decrease in a score which it deems to be in error. If the Applicant disagrees with the Review Committee's recommendation, the Applicant will be given an opportunity to participate in the informal administrative appeal hearings scheduled by the Review Committee. If the appeal raises issues of material fact, a formal administrative hearing will be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Failure to timely file a petition shall constitute a waiver of the right of the Applicant to such an appeal. Applicants who wish to notify the Corporation of possible scoring errors relative to another Applicant's Application must file with the Corporation, within 10 calendar days of the date of the notice, a written request for a review of the other Applicant's score. Each request must specify in detail the assigned Application number, the forms and the scores in question. Each request is limited to the review of only one Application's score. Requests which seek the review of more than one Application's score will be considered improperly filed and ineligible for review. There is no limit to the number of requests which may be submitted. The Review Committee will review each written request timely received and will prepare a written position paper, which will be provided to each Applicant who timely filed a notification and to the Applicant whose score has been questioned, which recommends either no change in score or an increase or decrease in a score which it deems to be in error. Failure to timely and properly file a request shall constitute a waiver of the right of the Applicant to such a review. Notice will be provided to all Applicants whose score is reduced or whose Application is deemed ineligible pursuant to 67-48.005(1)(b) that they may contest the decision relative to their own Application by petitioning for review of the decision in writing within 10 calendar days of the date of the notice. The request must specify in detail the forms and the scores sought to be appealed. Unless the appeal involves disputed issues of material fact, the appeal will be conducted on an informal basis. The Review Committee will review the appeal and will provide to the Applicant a written position paper which recommends either no change in score or an increase or decrease in a score which it deems to be in error. If the Applicant disagrees with the Review Committee's recommendation, the Applicant will be given an opportunity to participate in the informal administrative appeal hearings scheduled by the Review Committee. No Applicant or other person or entity will be allowed to intervene in the appeal of another Applicant. If the appeal raises issues of material fact, a formal administrative hearing will be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Failure to timely file a petition shall constitute a waiver of the right of the Applicant to such an appeal. Petitioner has also challenged the following portion of the application form which has been adopted by reference by FHFC's Rule 67-48.002(10), Florida Administrative Code: . . . In consideration for the Corporation processing and scoring this Application, the Applicant and all Financial Beneficiaries hereby understand and agree that the Corporation will hear appeals only on the Applicant's own score. . . . In 1996, FHFC combined the application processes for the subject low-income tax credit program, the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program (Section 420.587, Florida Statutes) and the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program (Section 420.5089, Florida Statutes) to make the application process easier and more efficient. Each year FHFC initiates rulemaking to refine the application process from the previous year and to implement any changes in the application process. The administrative rules, with any amendments, are adopted annually. All prospective applicants under any of the three combined programs are invited to attend rulemaking workshops. After the allocation of tax credits for Florida is known, a Notice of Funding Availability setting forth that allocation, is published in the Florida Law Weekly. For the 1999 allocation period, the notice was published on October 23, 1998. Due to the limited number of housing credits available in each annual application cycle and the number of applications for those credits, there are not enough credits available for distribution in Florida for all applicants to receive housing credits in the year in which they apply. Consequently, applicants are competing for a fixed pool of resources. For the 1999 period, the application cycle was opened and the application form was available to interested persons on October 30, 1998. From November 9 through 11, 1998, application workshops were held in Tallahassee, Miami, and Orlando, to address any questions regarding the application process. Applicants are given what is referred to as the Application Package, which contains all pertinent forms and sets forth the instructions and criteria by which the applications will be evaluated by FHFC staff. Applicants were required to complete the applications and submit them to FHFC by January 7, 1999. Ninety applications for the three combined programs were filed. Each application was evaluated by FHFC staff pursuant to the instructions and criteria contained in the Application Package. Partly because FHFC staff is required to verify information reflected in each application, the evaluation process takes six to eight weeks to complete. The evaluation process results in a score for each application. The scores are reviewed and approved by a Review Committee, consisting of FHFC staff. On March 12, 1999, after scores were approved by the Review Committee, a pre-review score was mailed to each applicant. After the applicants were notified of their pre-review score, they had the week beginning March 15, 1999, to review the scoring of all applications. FHFC rules provide an opportunity for an applicant to question its pre-review score and to challenge the pre-review scores received by other applicants. The challenge to an applicant's own score is referred to as a Direct Appeal. The challenge by an applicant to another applicant's score is referred to as a Competitive Appeal. All Direct and Competitive Appeals were due on or before March 22, 1999. Upon receipt of the Direct Appeals and Competitive Appeals, FHFC staff first review the Competitive Appeals and draft a Competitive Appeal Position Paper for each unique issue raised. The Competitive Appeal Position Papers are approved by the Review Committee before being released, which, for 1999, was on April 5, 1999. The same process is followed for the Direct Appeals. The Direct Appeal Position Papers were approved by the Review Committee and released on April 7, 1999. An applicant whose application was adversely affected by a Competitive Appeal Position Paper (as the result of a Competitive Appeal filed by a competing applicant) has the opportunity to file what is referred to as a Direct Appeal of a Competitive Appeal (DACA). Thereafter, FHFC staff evaluates all issues raised by the Direct Appeals and by the DACAs, and prepares a position paper for each issue. On April 27, 1999, the Review Committee approved the Direct Appeal and DACA position papers. On May 4, 1999, these position papers were mailed to the interested parties. An applicant who was not satisfied with the Direct Appeal or DACA position paper for its application was given a limited period to request a proceeding pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. If there were no disputed issues of material fact, the matter proceeded as an informal hearing. If there were disputed issues of material fact, the matter proceeded as a formal hearing. On June 11 and July 30, 1999, the Board of Directors of FHFC considered the Recommended Order that resulted from each administrative hearing and entered a Final Order, which determined the final scores for each application. Thereafter, the final ranking of the competing applications were completed and approved. Preliminary approval of a tax credit allocation to an applicant is based on the final ranking. An applicant selected for a tax credit allocation is thereafter "invited" by FHFC to a "credit underwriting" whereby the credit-worthiness of the applicant and the proposed project is further scrutinized by a credit underwriter and a draft credit underwriting report is prepared. The credit underwriting process takes fifty to sixty days to complete. For the 1999 cycle, the draft credit underwriting reports were due September 28, 1999. Once the credit underwriting reports are finished, the successful applicant is given a preliminary tax credit allocation. For the 1999 cycle, the applicant then must complete its project or certify that it has expended at least ten percent of its reasonably expected tax credit basis. If the project cannot be completed by the end of the calendar year, the applicant must enter into a Carryover Agreement. The applicant must have expended ten percent of its reasonably expected tax credit basis before it can enter into a Carryover Agreement. The applicant typically has to be prepared to spend large sums of money in a relatively short period of time to meet these requirements. An applicant does not have the opportunity for an administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, on the scoring of a competing application after the Competitive Appeal Position Paper has been issued by FHFC staff. 4/ Pursuant to the challenged rules, an applicant who was not satisfied with the Direct Appeal or DACA position paper for another applicant's application is not permitted a Chapter 120 proceeding and is not permitted to intervene if the other applicant has requested a Chapter 120 proceeding. Such appeals, referred to as Cross Appeals, were once permitted by the rules of FHFC. FHFC determined that Cross Appeals disrupted the application process and placed too great a burden on the FHFC staff. Cross Appeals resulted in a process that was difficult to bring to closure and resulted in litigation expenses that were assessed against the total project cost for the development. Using rule development workshops that were appropriately advertised, FHFC adopted rules permitting Competitive Appeals, but prohibiting Cross Appeals. FHFC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in adopting these rules.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a portion of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a limited partnership and developer of affordable housing in Florida. The Petitioner is seeking to construct a 116-unit affordable housing family apartment complex ("Elmwood Terrace") in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner has standing to initiate and participate in this proceeding. The Respondent is a public corporation organized under Chapter 420, Florida Statutes (2010), to administer state programs that provide financial support to developers seeking to construct affordable housing. Such support is provided through a variety of mechanisms, including the use of federal tax credits. The federal tax credit program was created in 1986 to promote the construction and operation of privately-developed affordable housing. The tax credits relevant to this proceeding provide a dollar-for-dollar credit against federal tax liabilities for a period of ten years. The Respondent is the designated Florida agency responsible for distribution of the federal tax credits. The tax credits are awarded pursuant to a "Qualified Allocation Plan" (QAP) that must be annually approved by the Governor and adopted as an administrative rule by the Respondent. As a matter of course, developers receiving the federal tax credits sell them through syndicators for discounted cash. The sale of the tax credits generates debt-free cash equity for developers. Developers seeking financial support to build affordable housing units submit applications to the Respondent during an annual competitive process known as the "Universal Cycle." Every three years, the Respondent commissions a study (the "Shimberg Report"), which measures, within each Florida county, the number of "cost-burden" renters earning 60 percent or less of an area's median income (AMI) who pay more than 40 percent of their income in rent. The AMI is determined by the federal government. The cost-burden households are further classified into four groups: families, the elderly, farm workers, and commercial fishermen. The Shimberg Report also assesses needs related to homeless people in the state. Developers seeking to obtain affordable housing financing are required to set aside a portion of the proposed units for income-limited residents. Access to affordable housing units is generally targeted towards persons receiving no more than 60 percent of the AMI. The Universal Cycle process allows the Respondent to target specific housing deficiencies in terms of geographic availability and population demographics and to preserve the stock of existing affordable housing. During the Universal Cycle process, the Respondent identifies areas where additional affordable housing is unnecessary, to discourage additional development in weak markets and to encourage development in those locations where there is a lack of access to affordable housing. The Respondent classifies areas where there is little need for additional affordable housing as "Location A" areas. Each application filed during the Universal Cycle is evaluated, scored, and competitively ranked against other applications filed during the same Universal Cycle. After the Respondent completes the competitive ranking of the applications submitted in the Universal Cycle, the applicants are provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the evaluation and scoring of the proposals. Applicants may also cure defects in their own proposals. After the close of the review and comment period, the Respondent publishes a revised competitive ranking of the proposals. Developers may challenge the second ranking through an administrative hearing. After the second ranking process is final, developers achieving an acceptable score receive preliminary funding commitments and proceed into a "credit underwriting" evaluation process. The credit underwriting process is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. The Respondent selects an independent credit underwriter who reviews each proposal according to requirements set forth by administrative rule (the "Credit Underwriting Rule"). The cost of the credit underwriting review is paid by the developer. The credit underwriter considers all aspects of the proposed development, including financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning verification, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. The responsibility for the market study is assigned by the credit underwriter to an independent market analyst. The credit underwriter prepares a report for each applicant invited into the process. The reports are submitted to the Respondent's nine-member, statutorily-created Board of Directors (Board). The Board approves or denies each application for financial support. The Petitioner applied for funds for the Elmwood Terrace project during the 2007 Universal Cycle. The Petitioner's application received a perfect score, maximum points, and was allocated tax credits in the amount of $1,498,680. The Petitioner thereafter entered the credit underwriting process. The credit underwriting analysis was performed by Seltzer Management Group (SMG). SMG contracted with a market analyst, Vogt, Williams & Bowen Research, Inc. (VWB), to prepare the required market study. The affordable units at Elmwood Terrace were initially intended for persons receiving incomes no more than 60 percent of the AMI. The VWB research indicated that the Elmwood Terrace project would adversely affect the existing affordable housing developments, if the Elmwood Terrace units were available to the 60 percent AMI population. The existing affordable housing developments, also serving the 60 percent AMI population, included two developments that had participated in the Respondent's "Guarantee Fund" program, addressed elsewhere herein. VWB determined that the impact of the Elmwood Terrace project on the existing developments could be ameliorated were some of the Elmwood Terrace units targeted during "lease-up" to persons at income levels of not more than 50 percent of the AMI. The lease-up period is the time required for a new development to reach anticipated occupancy levels. The issue was the subject of discussions between the Petitioner, VWB, and SMG. To resolve the anticipated negative impact on the existing affordable housing developments, the Petitioner agreed to target the 50 percent AMI population. In September 2008, the credit underwriter issued his report and recommended that the Petitioner receive the previously-allocated tax credits. On September 22, 2008, the Respondent's Board accepted the credit underwriting report and followed the recommendation. In the fall of 2008, after the Petitioner received the tax credits, the nation's economic environment deteriorated considerably. As a result, the syndicator with whom the Petitioner had been working to sell the tax credits advised that the sale would not occur. The Petitioner was unable to locate an alternate purchaser for the tax credits. The Petitioner considered altering the target population of the project in an attempt to attract a buyer for the tax credits, and there were discussions with the Respondent about the option, but there was no credible evidence presented that such an alteration would have resulted in the sale of the Petitioner's tax credits. Lacking a buyer for the tax credits, the Petitioner was unable to convert the credits to cash, and they were of little value in providing funds for the project. The Petitioner was not alone in its predicament, and many other developers who received tax credits in the 2007 and 2008 Universal Cycles found themselves unable to generate cash through the sale of their tax credits. In early 2009, Congress adopted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111-5), referred to herein as ARRA, which incorporated a broad range of economic stimulus activities. Included within the ARRA was the "Tax Credit Exchange Program" that provided for the return by the appropriate state agency of a portion of the unused tax credits in exchange for a cash distribution of 85 percent of the tax credit value. The State of Florida received $578,701,964 through the Tax Credit Exchange Program. The ARRA also provided additional funds to state housing finance agencies through a "Tax Credit Assistance Program" intended to "resume funding of affordable housing projects across the nation while stimulating job creation in the hard-hat construction industry." On July 31, 2009, the Respondent issued a Request for Proposals (RFP 2009-04) to facilitate the distribution of the ARRA funds. The Respondent issued the RFP because the 2009 QAP specifically required the Respondent to allocate the relevant federal funds by means of a "competitive request for proposal or competitive application process as approved by the board." The 2009 QAP was adopted as part of the 2009 Universal Cycle rules. Projects selected for funding through the RFP would be evaluated through the routine credit underwriting process. Participation in the RFP process was limited to developers who held an "active award" of tax credits as of February 17, 2009, and who were unable to close on the sale of the credits. The RFP included restrictions against proposals for development within areas designated as "Location A." Although the location of the Elmwood Terrace project had not been within an area designated as "Location A" during the 2007 Universal Cycle process, the Respondent had subsequently designated the area as "Location A" by the time of the 2009 Universal Cycle. The RFP also established occupancy standards for projects funded under the RFP that exceeded the standards established in the Universal Cycle instructions and an evaluation process separate from the Universal Cycle requirements. Although the restrictions in the RFP would have automatically precluded the Petitioner from being awarded funds, the Petitioner submitted a response to the RFP and then filed a successful challenge to the RFP specifications (DOAH Case No. 09-4682BID). In a Recommended Order issued on November 12, 2009, the Administrative law Judge presiding over the RFP challenge determined that certain provisions of the RFP, including the automatic rejection of Location A projects, the increased occupancy standards, and the RFP evaluation criteria, were invalid. The Respondent adopted the Recommended Order by a Final Order issued on December 4, 2009, and invited the Petitioner into the credit underwriting process by a letter dated December 9, 2009. The credit underwriter assigned to analyze the Petitioner's project was SMG, the same credit underwriter that performed the original analysis of the Petitioner's project during the 2007 Universal Cycle. SMG retained Meridian Appraisal Group, Inc. (Meridian), to prepare the required market study. The Respondent was not consulted regarding the SMG decision to retain Meridian for the market analysis. The decision to retain Meridian for the market analysis was entirely that of SMG. The Respondent did not direct SMG or Meridian in any manner regarding the assessment or evaluation of any negative impact of the proposed project on existing affordable housing developments. Meridian completed the market study and forwarded it to SMG on January 26, 2010. The Meridian market analysis included a review of the relevant data as well as consideration of the actual economic conditions experienced in Lee County, Florida, including the extremely poor performance of the existing housing stock, as well as significant job losses and considerable unemployment. The Meridian market analysis determined that the Elmwood Terrace development would have a negative impact on two existing affordable housing apartment developments that were underwritten by the Respondent through a Guarantee Fund created at Section 420.5092, Florida Statutes, by the Florida Legislature in 1992. The existing Guarantee Fund properties referenced in the SMG recommendation are "Bernwood Trace" and "Westwood," both family-oriented apartment developments within five miles of the Elmwood Terrace location. The Guarantee Fund essentially obligates the Respondent to satisfy mortgage debt with the proceeds of Florida's documentary stamp taxes, if an affordable housing development is unable to generate sufficient revenue to service the debt. Because the Guarantee Fund program essentially serves to underwrite the repayment of mortgage debt for a "guaranteed" affordable housing development, the program increases the availability, and lowers the cost, of credit for developers. The Guarantee Fund program has participated in the financing of more than 100 projects, most of which closed between 1999 and 2002. Since 2005, the Respondent has not approved any additional Guarantee Fund participation in any affordable housing developments. The Respondent's total risk exposure through the Guarantee Fund is approximately 750 million dollars. Prior to October 2008, no claims were made against the Guarantee Fund. Since November 2008, there have been eight claims filed against the Guarantee Fund. Affordable housing financing includes restrictions that mandate the inclusion of a specific number of affordable housing units. Such restrictions are eliminated through foreclosure proceedings, and, accordingly, access to affordable housing units can be reduced if a development fails. Presuming that the eight claims pending against the Guarantee Fund eventually proceeded through foreclosure, as many as 2,300 residential units could be deducted from the stock of affordable housing. When there is a claim on the Guarantee Fund, the Respondent has to assume payment of the mortgage debt. The claims are paid from the Guarantee Fund capital, which is detrimental to the Respondent's risk-to-capital ratio. The risk-to-capital ratio is presently four to one. The maximum risk-to-capital ratio acceptable to rating agencies is five to one. The eight claims against the Guarantee Fund have ranged between ten and 18 million dollars each. The Respondent's bond rating has declined because of the eight claims. A continued decline in the Respondent's bond rating could result in documentary stamp tax receipts being used for payment of Guarantee Fund claims and directed away from the Respondent's programs that are intended to support the creation of affordable housing. In an effort to prevent additional claims against the Guarantee Fund, the Respondent has created the "Subordinate Mortgage Initiative" to provide assistance in the form of two- year loans to troubled Guarantee Fund properties. When preparing the 2010 market study, Meridian did not review the VWB market analysis performed as part of the 2007 application. Although the Petitioner has asserted that Meridian should have reviewed the 2007 VWB analysis, there is no evidence that Meridian's decision to conduct an independent market study without reference to the prior market review was inappropriate. On February 8, 2010, SMG issued a recommendation that the Petitioner's funding request be denied "because of the proposed development's potential financial impacts on developments in the area previously funded by Florida Housing and an anticipated negative impact to the two Guarantee Fund properties located within five miles of the proposed development." There is no evidence that the Meridian analysis was inadequate or improperly completed. There is no evidence that the SMG's reliance on the Meridian analysis was inappropriate. For purposes of this Order, the Meridian analysis and the SMG credit underwriting report have been accepted. Elmwood Terrace, a newer development with newer amenities, would compete for residents with the Bernwood Trace and Westwood developments. The financing for Bernwood Trace and Westwood was premised on projections that the affordable housing units would be leased to the 60 percent AMI population; however, the developments have been unable to maintain full occupancy levels, even though a number of units in the two properties are leased at reduced rates based on 50 percent AMI income levels. A rent reduction implemented by an existing development, whether based on economic conditions or resulting from competition, constitutes a negative impact on the development. There is no credible evidence that the occupancy rates are attributable to any difficulty in management of the two developments. It is reasonable to conclude that the leasing issues are related to economic conditions present in Lee County, Florida. In January 2010, VWB conducted an alternative market analysis. The VWB analysis was not provided to SMG or to the Respondent at any time during the credit underwriting process. Based on the 2010 VWB analysis, the Petitioner asserted that economic conditions in Lee County, Florida, have improved since the first credit underwriting report was completed in 2008 and that the improvement is expected to continue. There is no noteworthy evidence that economic conditions have improved or will significantly improve in the Lee County, Florida, market in the predictable future, and the VWB analysis is rejected. The Petitioner offered to mitigate any negative impact on the Guarantee Fund properties by committing affordable units to 50 percent AMI income levels. Given the existing economic and rental market conditions in Lee County, Florida, the evidence fails to establish that the offer would actually alleviate the negative impact on the affected Guarantee Fund developments. The 2010 VWB analysis states that there is substantial unmet demand for housing at 50 percent AMI and that there will be no impact on the Guarantee Fund units if the Elmwood Terrace units were set aside for such individuals. There is no credible evidence that there is a substantial and relevant unmet affordable housing demand in Lee County, Florida. The VWB analysis is rejected. Following the completion of each annual Universal Cycle process, the Respondent actively solicits feedback from developers and the public and then amends the Universal Cycle requirements to address the issues raised, as well as to reflect existing affordable housing needs and general concerns of the Board. The amendments are applicable for the following Universal Cycle. In 2009, the Respondent amended subsection (10) of the Credit Underwriting Rule as part of the annual revisions to the Universal Cycle process. The relevant amendment (referred to by the parties as the "Impact Rule") added this directive to the credit underwriter: The Credit Underwriter must review and determine whether there will be a negative impact to Guarantee Fund Developments within the primary market area or five miles of the proposed development, whichever is greater. The amendment was prompted by the Respondent's experience in the fall of 2008 when considering two separate applications for affordable housing financing. The potential negative impact of a proposed development on an existing Guarantee Fund property was central to the Board's consideration of one application, and the Board ultimately denied the application. In the second case, the Board granted the application, despite the potential negative impact on a competing development that was not underwritten by the Guarantee Fund. The intent of the language was to advise developers that the existence of Guarantee Fund properties within the competitive market area would be part of the credit underwriting evaluation and the Board's consideration. Notwithstanding the language added to the rule, the credit underwriter is charged with reviewing the need for additional affordable housing. Even in absence of the added language, consideration of any negative impact to competing developments based on inadequate need for additional affordable housing would be appropriate. In rendering the 2010 credit underwriting report on Elmwood Terrace, the credit underwriter complied with the directive. Prior to determining that the Petitioner's funding application should be denied, the Respondent's Board was clearly aware of the Petitioner's application, the credit underwriting report and market analysis, and the economic conditions in Lee County, Florida. There is no credible evidence of any need for additional affordable housing in Lee County, Florida. There is no credible evidence that the Lee County, Florida, market can sustain the addition of the units proposed by the Petitioner without adversely affecting the financial feasibility of the existing Guarantee Fund developments. The Board was aware that the Elmwood Terrace development could attract residents from the nearby Guarantee Fund properties and that local economic conditions threatened the financial viability of the properties. Given current economic conditions, approval of the application at issue in this proceeding would reasonably be expected to result in a negative impact to existing affordable housing developments. The protection of Guarantee Fund developments is necessary to safeguard the resources used to support the creation and availability of affordable housing in the state.
The Issue 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 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 Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) intended decision on January 29, 2016, to award low-income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in Hillsborough County pursuant to Request for Applications 2015-107 (RFA-107) was contrary to Florida Housing’s rules, policies, or solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. 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 then are awarded pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with Florida Housing’s issuance of an RFA. This proceeding concerns RFA-107. Madison is an applicant entity for a proposed affordable housing development in Hillsborough County. ARD is a developer entity of affordable housing. SP Gardens and City Edge are entities in the business of providing affordable housing and filed applications pursuant to RFA-107. Background On September 21, 2015, Florida Housing published on its website proposed solicitation RFA-107, inviting applications for the award of tax credits for the development of affordable housing located in six counties, including Hillsborough County. The RFA provided that only one applicant would be awarded tax credits for Hillsborough County. In response to the RFA, six applications were submitted for Hillsborough County. A scoring committee appointed by Florida Housing evaluated the applications and submitted a recommendation to the Board of Directors (Board). On January 29, 2016, all participants received notice that the Board had determined which applicants were eligible or ineligible for consideration of funding. Only the application filed by a non- party, Mango Blossoms, was found ineligible. The Board determined that SP Gardens and City Edge satisfied all mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding and received “perfect” scores of 28 points out of a total of 28 points. They were ranked one and four, respectively, based on random lottery numbers assigned by the luck of the draw. Because Bethune and The Boulevard are no longer parties, and their applications have been deemed to be ineligible by Florida Housing, SP Gardens and City Edge are now ranked one and two. The Board also determined that Petitioners satisfied all mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding; however, they received a score of 23 out of 28 total points, and were ranked below SP Gardens and City Edge. In this bid dispute, Petitioners contend that Florida Housing erred in the scoring, eligibility, and award decision of the applications of SP Gardens and City Edge. But for the incorrect scoring of those two applications, Petitioners argue they would have been entitled to an allocation of housing credits or would have been moved up in the ranking. SP Gardens Consistent with its policy, even though an appeal was taken by Petitioners, in 2016, Florida Housing awarded tax credits to the highest ranked applicant, SP Gardens. On April 21, 2016, Florida Housing issued an invitation to credit underwriting, which was accepted by the applicant on April 25, 2016. SP Gardens closed on the purchase and sale agreement, as amended, on June 15, 2016, and Florida Housing issued a carry- over allocation agreement on August 5, 2016. The applicant has since completed a credit underwriting with a positive recommendation, closed on the financing with the tax credit investor, and commenced construction of its development. Petitioners contend the application of SP Gardens is deficient in three respects, which renders the applicant ineligible for funding. First, they contend SP Gardens failed to demonstrate control over the site of the project, as required by the RFA. Second, they contend the purchase and sale agreement is invalid because the applicant cannot enforce the specific performance of the contract. Finally, they contend the development location point (DLP) is not located on the parcel where most of the units will be constructed. Section 4.A.8.a. of the RFA requires in part that the applicant demonstrate site control in the following manner: The Applicant must demonstrate site control by providing, as Attachment 15 to Exhibit A, the documentation required in Items a., b., and/or c., as indicated below. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites. SP Gardens submitted documentation to satisfy item a., which requires that an “eligible contract” be provided with the application in order to demonstrate control over the project site. An applicant typically submits an address, property description, metes and bounds, folio number, intersections of streets, or other information that describes the subject property. Florida Housing’s practice is to accept the representations of an applicant. SP Gardens’ purchase and sale agreement (contract) identifies the subject property using an engineer’s drawing with sketched hash marks, a description of the property as “approximately two acres,” and an address of “1108 E. Bloomingdale Avenue” in Valrico. County records do not reflect that such an address exists. However, the records do indicate an address of 1108 East Bloomindale Avenue that is on the proposed site and is owned by GF Financial, LLC, the seller of the property. Except for this scrivener’s error, the purchase and sale agreement is otherwise an acceptable agreement. An eligible contract must include a specific performance remedy. Petitioners contend the purchase and sale agreement cannot be enforced because of various alleged deficiencies in the agreement, including a failure to provide a legal description of the property and language in the agreement which does not reflect a meeting of the minds of the buyer and seller. However, a legal description of the property is not required. Then, too, Florida Housing does not attempt to determine if there was a meeting of the minds of the parties or if the agreement is legally enforceable. Only a circuit court may do so. See § 26.012, Fla. Stat. Petitioners also contend the DLP is not located on a parcel where most of the units will be constructed. The DLP is located on the property that is identified in the purchase and sale agreement. Whether or not the property ends up consisting of scattered sites will be addressed during the credit underwriting process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.0072 provides in part that “credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding.” Pursuant to this rule, during the credit underwriting process, a scattered site applicant must demonstrate compliance with the RFA. Also, in the final site plan approval process, the configuration of the proposed development will be fleshed out. With the advantage of hindsight in this case, this is exactly what SP Gardens did after it was issued an invitation to credit underwriting. By providing all required forms, a DLP, and appropriate assurances that it would comply with all RFA terms, SP Gardens has satisfied all RFA requirements. See, e.g., Brownsville Manor, LP v. Redding Dev. Partners, LLC, 224 So. 3d 891, 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the application of SP Gardens is eligible for funding. City Edge Petitioners allege that City Edge failed to disclose all of the principals of the applicant and developer. They also contend that City Edge is unable to pursue specific performance of its sale and agreement contract against the developer or the seller of the property. The RFA requires an applicant to “provide a list identifying the principals for the applicant and for each developer.” The application identifies City Edge as the applicant entity. It also identifies the general partner of the applicant entity, City Edge Senior GP, LLC, and its limited partner, The Richman Group of Florida, Inc. (TRGF). TRGF is both the limited partner of the applicant entity and the developer entity for City Edge. City Edge identified the principals for TRGF as of the application deadline. Florida Housing determined that this form was adequate to meet the requirements of the RFA. The application names James P. Hussey as the developer entity’s Treasurer. At hearing, Mr. Hussey’s position with TRGF was verified by TRGF’s vice president and a corporate document. Petitioners point out that, according to a printout of the annual report filed by TRGF with the Secretary of State, as shown on the SunBiz website, at the time the application was filed, the Treasurer of TRGF was Doreen Cole, and not Mr. Hussey. However, the evidence shows that Ms. Cole was removed from the position of Treasurer on or about September 1, 2015, and she subsequently separated from the company in late 2015. Through sworn testimony and a corporate record, City Edge established that Mr. Hussey was Treasurer at the time of the application deadline, November 5, 2015. Notably, Florida Housing does not rely on SunBiz for establishing who the principals of an entity are as of the application deadline. This is because SunBiz does not definitively identify the corporate officers as of the application deadline, and it sometimes contains errors. See, e.g., Warley Park, LTD v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp., Case No. 17- 3996BID (Fla. DOAH Oct. 19, 2017; FHFC Dec. 8, 2017). For this reason, Florida Housing does not require applicants to provide SunBiz printouts to verify the names of the principals. Petitioners also contend that because of various deficiencies, the purchase and sale agreement cannot be enforced in circuit court. For the reasons expressed above, this determination does not lie within the jurisdiction of Florida Housing. In any event, the RFA requires that if the owner of the property is not a party to the eligible contract, the applicant must submit documents evidencing intermediate agreements between or among the owner, or other parties, and the applicant. Here, City Edge included in its application: (a) a purchase and sale agreement between 301 and Bloomingdale, LLC (the seller), and TRGF (the purchaser), and (b) a purchase and sale agreement between TRGF (the seller) and City Edge (the buyer). The latter document is the intermediate contract and meets all RFA-specified requirements for an intermediate contract. The documents reflect that TRGF possesses a specific performance remedy to compel 301 and Bloomingdale, LLC, to sell the property, and City Edge possesses the right to compel TRGF to perform under the intermediate contract. For purposes of ascertaining compliance with the RFA, the documents submitted by City Edge suffice. In a similar vein, Petitioners contend City Edge did not demonstrate site control because it did not include an eligible contract. Currently, 301 and Bloomingdale, LLC, is the owner of the property on which the housing will be built. City Edge attached to its application a purchase and sale agreement and an intermediate contract. The two contracts satisfy the elements of an eligible contract necessary to demonstrate control over the project site, they provide a specific performance remedy, and they conform to the RFA. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that City Edge’s application is eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the Protest of Petitioners. It is further recommended that Florida Housing reaffirm its decision to award tax credits to SP Gardens. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Sarah Pape, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. Suite 600 315 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1607 (eServed) J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. Suite 600 315 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1607 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7740 (eServed) Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland and Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 (eServed) Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602-2637 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602-2637 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the Fair Housing Act, Section 760.20, et seq., Florida Statutes (2008), by denying Petitioner housing based on her gender (female) and familial status (pregnant).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Victoire Merceron, is a single mother with three children. At all times relevant hereto, she was living at an apartment complex known as The Pines pursuant to a Lease with NDC Management. There was an Employee Lease Addendum dated February 2, 2008, attached to Petitioner's Lease. The Addendum was signed by Petitioner to reflect her status as an employee of NDC Management and, therefore, eligible for a reduction in her monthly rent. Respondent, The Partnership, Inc., is a real estate management company specializing in managing affordable housing properties which are experiencing problems or business difficulties. Respondent began managing The Pines on August 1, 2008. Prior to that time, The Pines had been managed by NDC Management. Petitioner had worked as a leasing consultant with NDC Management at The Pines from October 2007 until July 2008. During that time, she enjoyed the benefit of a 20 percent reduction in her rent (which was provided to all employees of NDC Management who lived in a managed property). The Pines is owned by Punta Gorda Pines, Ltd. It is a 336-unit apartment complex which provides low income housing (affordable housing) for qualified persons. One hundred percent of the units at The Pines are set aside for low income residents. Of the 336 units, 202 units (60 percent) have a rental amount which does not exceed 60 percent of the area median income. One hundred and one units (33 percent) have an even lower rental amount. The rental amounts and number of units is established annually by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Respondent was contacted by the owner of The Pines at some point in 2008 concerning the assumption of management of The Pines due to problems existing at the property. Respondent visited the property in July and met with some of the existing staff and management. Respondent then assumed management of The Pines on August 1, 2008. At that time, approximately 40 percent of the units at The Pines were not under lease to a tenant, i.e., the property was only 60 percent occupied. Sixty percent occupancy is evidence of a "problem affordable property" from Respondent's perspective. When Respondent took over management of The Pines, it terminated some of NDC Management's employees and retained some other employees. Petitioner was not retained by Respondent as an employee. The Employee Lease Addendum to Petitioner's Lease at The Pines included a clause that required Petitioner to vacate her apartment within 15 days of termination of her employment with NDC Management. Petitioner was terminated as of July 31, 2008. Upon termination of her employment, Petitioner requested from Respondent that she be allowed to remain in her current apartment beyond the 15-day extension period. That request was granted by Respondent, and Petitioner was ultimately allowed to stay in the apartment through the end of August 2008. As of July 31, 2008, Petitioner had two children and was pregnant with a third. Inasmuch as she would need a home for her family, Petitioner asked Respondent to consider her as a new, non-employee tenant. Respondent agreed to consider Petitioner's request and asked Petitioner to provide proof of income so that a predetermination review could be conducted. It was Respondent's policy to do a predetermination review prior to the formal application process. The stated reason for this practice was that Respondent did not want an applicant to have to pay the non-refundable application fee, if the applicant was unlikely to be qualified to obtain an apartment. Respondent made its predetermination of eligibility using an Income and Rental Rates Chart which Respondent had developed. The chart indicates the income necessary for rental of different size apartments within the complex. In response to Respondent's request for income verification, Petitioner provided Respondent with a form (or letter) indicating that she had applied for payment of unemployment compensation for a two-week period. The form indicated that Petitioner would receive $225.00 per week for that two-week period. Petitioner represented to Respondent's agents that she had been approved for up to six months of unemployment compensation at $225.00 per week.1 There was, however, no competent evidence of that fact presented to Respondent (or introduced into evidence at the final hearing). Respondent calculated the amount of Petitioner's anticipated income based on the stated unemployment compensation payments to be made. Two-hundred and twenty-five dollars per week for an entire year (52 weeks) would be a total of $11,700.00. However, inasmuch as Petitioner only represented that she might receive up to six months of unemployment compensation, her anticipated annual income would be one-half that amount, or $5,850.00. That amount of income was not sufficient to warrant approval for even the lowest priced units available at The Pines, i.e., $10,660.00 per year.2 Based upon its predetermination review, Respondent denied Petitioner's initial inquiry concerning eligibility for an apartment at The Pines. That being the case, Respondent did not provide Petitioner a formal application to fill out. It would have been a fruitless exercise based on Petitioner's stated level of income. Respondent does not appear to discriminate on the basis of gender or familial relationship when renting to other residents. In its Rent Roll from March 31, 2009, Respondent can point to over 70 single women with children living at The Pines. A large number of those women were at The Pines when Respondent took over management. Others became residents during Respondent's tenure as manager. Respondent based its decision to deny Petitioner's inquiry solely on the information provided by Petitioner. Petitioner did not suggest to Respondent that she was receiving child support, alimony, or any other kind of support from a third party. However, Petitioner maintains that the fathers of her children would provide support on an as-needed basis (but since Respondent didn't ask her about such support, she did not volunteer the information). In January 2008, when Petitioner filled out a Residency Application to obtain an apartment at The Pines, she said she was not receiving any alimony or child support, nor had any such support been court ordererd.3 Petitioner did not present any evidence at final hearing as to the amount or frequency of child support she received from her children's fathers. It is, therefore, impossible to impute any certain amount for the purpose of determining Petitioner's eligibility for an apartment at The Pines. When Petitioner was working at The Pines and a person seeking an apartment did not qualify financially, Petitioner would ask the person whether he or she could get someone to co-sign for him/her, guarantee his/her rent, etc., or whether he or she could receive child support. It is not clear at what point in the application process (i.e., during predetermination or upon filing of a formal application form) Petitioner would make this inquiry. It appears Respondent did not seek further financial information from Petitioner after the predetermination review indicated she would not qualify. However, there is no evidence that Respondent had a policy to make such inquiries. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner re-applied to Respondent with an updated or amended statement of income after she was denied. Upon being denied a new apartment, Petitioner remained in her then-current apartment for some time after her lease was terminated. Petitioner owed slightly over $1,000.00 in rent and fees for the apartment when she finally vacated it, but Respondent did not pursue payment of that arrearage.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations upholding its Determination: No Cause and dismissing Petitioner, Victoire Merceron's, complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 21st day of May, 2009.
The Issue Whether the intended decision of Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Respondent/Florida Housing) to fund the application of West River Phase 2, LP (West River/Intervenor), based on the scoring of its application, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Intervenor is a Florida limited partnership based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Respondent is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. This has the effect of reducing the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150, while a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. Florida Housing allocates housing tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation as authorized by section 420.507(48). Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA at issue here is 2016-113, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. The RFA was issued on October 28, 2016, a modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 30, 2016. A challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA by parties not associated with the instant case, but that challenge was ultimately unsuccessful. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,669,052 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments. A review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviews and scores each application. These scores are presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation is presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (Board) for final agency action. On May 5, 2017, Petitioner and all other participants in RFA 2016-113 received notice that the Board had determined which applications were eligible for consideration for funding and that certain applications were selected for awards of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” and “ineligible” applications and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven developments, including Intervenor. Petitioner’s application was deemed eligible and scored the maximum number of points, but it was not selected for funding due to having a higher lottery number than Intervenor. If Intervenor’s application had been deemed ineligible, Petitioner’s would have been selected for funding. In this proceeding, Petitioner alleges that Intervenor’s application is ineligible for two reasons. First, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to include all “principals” for its designated developer entity as required by the RFA. Next, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish that its designated developer entity, and specifically the identified “principal” of the developer entity, had the requisite developer experience required by the RFA. Disclosure of the Principals of the Developer The RFA at section Four (A)(3)(d) requires the disclosure of information as follows: Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer. The Application must include a properly completed Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 08- 16) (“Principals Disclosure Form”) that was uploaded as outlined in Section Three above. The Principals Disclosure form must identify the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline and must include, for each applicable organizational structure, ONLY the types of Principals required by subsection 67-48.002(93), F.A.C. A Principals Disclosure Form that includes, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals, will not be accepted by the Corporation to meet the Mandatory requirement to provide the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form. The term “principal” is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93)(b) with respect to a developer, and provides as follows when the developer entity is a limited liability company: A limited liability company, at the first principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company, and, with respect to any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company that is: A corporation, at the second principal disclosure level, any officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, A limited partnership, at the second principal disclosure level, any general partner or limited partner of the limited partnership, or A limited liability company, at the second principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the limited liability company. Florida Housing offers a pre-approval of the principals disclosure form to all potential applicants. The pre-approval process verifies that the disclosure form has been completed properly as to form. However, its purpose is not to determine the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant. Intervenor utilized the pre-approval process and its principal disclosure forms were pre-approved. In response to this RFA and rule requirement, Intervenor identified WRDG Boulevard, LLC, as its developer. On the principal disclosure form included within its application, Intervenor further identified Banc of America Community Development Corporation (BOACDC) as the “managing member” and the Housing Authority of the City of Tampa as “member” of WRDG Boulevard, LLC. The principal disclosure form submitted by Intervenor for its developer entity lists approximately 62 individuals that are principals of BOACDC and identifies them as officers, directors, and shareholders. However, two officers who met the definition of principal were omitted from Intervenor’s principals disclosure form for the developer entity. The evidence establishes that the annual report filed by BOACDC with the Florida Secretary of State’s office on March 31, 2016, lists four officers and directors for BOACDC. The listed officers and directors include Mr. Jason Pritchard as senior vice president and Mr. Nathan Barth as secretary. Neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on the principals disclosure form submitted to Florida Housing by Intervenor. Intervenor concedes that the principals disclosure form is missing these two principals, but asserts that neither Mr. Barth nor Mr. Pritchard had actual authority to bind BOACDC or had any direct involvement with the proposed project. Intervenor further points out that neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on Respondent’s past due report dated April 5, 2017, which was the most recently published past due report prior to the RFA review committee meeting on April 25, 2017. Intervenor also asserts that there is no specific language in the RFA that prohibits waiving this admitted deviation. Accordingly, Intervenor alleges that the failure to include these two principals should be waived as a minor irregularity. The RFA requires that principals be listed and does not include qualifiers or exemptions to these requirements in instances where the omitted principal is either not on the latest arrears list or does not have the authority to bind the designated entity. Mr. Reecy testified that while Respondent has waived other failures to submit certain information, it did so only when the missing information could be found elsewhere in the application. In the present case, there is no other place in the application where a list of the principals of the developer could be found. The evidence establishes that the accurate and complete disclosure of principals is important in the RFA process for several reasons. First, Respondent uses the disclosure of principals to determine if any individuals associated with a proposed development are in arrears or indebted to Florida Housing in connection with other developments previously funded by Florida Housing. A Florida Housing staff member, during the review process, checks each principal listed for arrearages and reports back to the review committee accordingly. Second, Respondent uses the information to determine if any principal associated with a proposed development is ineligible to participate in any Florida Housing program due to prior illegal acts or misconduct. Mr. Reecy testified as to several recent instances where individuals have been subject to “timeouts” due to misrepresentations made to Florida Housing. Mr. Reecy credibly testified that Florida Housing must know who it is dealing with for each applicant and developer entity, and that to not know this information would harm the basic structure of the RFA application process, which resultantly would adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing and the public. Developer Experience Chart Section Four, 4(a)(3) of the RFA provides, in part, as follows: General Development experience (5 Points): To be eligible to be awarded 5 points for General Development Experience, the Prior General Development Experience chart must meet the requirements of (a) below. At least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Development Experience requirements in (i) and (ii) below. General Development Experience: A Principal, which must be a natural person, of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1996, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2006. If the experience of a natural person Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the natural person Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity as the term Principal was defined by the Corporation at that time. Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each natural person Principal intending to meet the minimum general development experience reflecting the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. The RFA requires that at least one principal of the designated developer entity have completed at least three affordable rental housing developments since January 1996. If the designated principal is using experience from a previous developer entity, the named principal must have been a principal of that entity as the term principal “was defined by the Corporation at that time.” Intervenor submitted a general development experience chart as part of its application in accordance with the RFA. This chart listed Eileen M. Pope as its principal with the required developer experience, and specified three developments for which Ms. Pope was identified as a principal of the developer. Based upon this chart, Intervenor was awarded five points by the scoring review committee. One of these developments was First Ward Place Phase I, which was listed as being completed in 1998. In 1998, Ms. Pope was employed as a regional property manager for the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA). She was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the CHA. The RFA in this case requires an applicant to state the name of each developer, including all co-developers. It is thus relatively easy for applications submitted to Florida Housing in 2017 to determine whether or not a particular entity is considered a “co-developer” of a project. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to make this determination with respect to developers of projects located in North Carolina in 1998. There is no evidence directly identifying CHA as a “co-developer” of First Ward Place Phase I. However, Ms. Pope identified it as such, and there is evidence in the record that the CHA was in partnership with NationsBank Community Development Corporation (NBCDC), and that NBCDC was the developer of the project. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the CHA should not be considered a co-developer of First Ward Place Phase I. Whether Ms. Pope should be considered a principal of a co-developer, however, is another matter. The evidence is uncontroverted that she was employed by the CHA as a regional property manager. The CHA was governed by a board of directors along with several officers (president, CEO, CFO), any of whom would have been considered a principal of the CHA. Ms. Pope was not a director, officer, or shareholder of the CHA; for the First Ward Place Phase I project, she “worked on the development team middle-to-back-end piece.” She considered herself a member of the “senior management” of the CHA and part of the “development team.” She testified that the CHA was, to some extent, a regulatory agency, and that part of her job was to oversee compliance issues and to track how certain funds were being spent. She testified that it was her understanding that a “principal” was “a person in authority” and, thus, she considered herself to be a “principal.” However, she also testified that she did not claim to be a principal: I disagree with your first part of the comment in that you said that I said I was a principal of the housing authority. I didn’t say I was a principal. I said there were no principals, and I was asked if I viewed myself as a principal, and I said I don’t understand what the definition of the principal would be, that a principal is somebody in authority. So, if you’re asking me that, yes, I would have viewed myself as a principal. I never claimed to be a principal of the housing authority. (Jt. Ex. 8, pg. 53) Mr. Reecy testified that Ms. Pope was “an employee, but not a principal in any way that Florida Housing has ever defined principal in any regard.” Mr. Reecy also testified that Florida Housing had never considered a person other than an officer, director, shareholder, or managing member to be a principal of either an applicant or a developer. In fact, Mr. Reecy compared Ms. Pope’s position with the CHA to his own position with Florida Housing, in that both had a high level of responsibility, and both were integral to the operation of the entity, but that neither could be considered a principal. As noted above, the RFA requires that in order to gain points for developer experience, the natural person principal must have also been a principal of that previous developer entity as the term principal was defined by the Florida Housing “at that time.” There is no dispute that Respondent’s rules in effect in 1998 did not explicitly define a principal of a developer. Both Florida Administrative Code Rules 9I-48.002(69) and 67-48.002(77) defined “principal” to include only officers, directors, shareholders or general partners, but these rules specifically applied only to applicants. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that it has been Respondent’s position and practice that a principal did not include all employees of an applicant or developer, even those in positions of authority, but instead, included only the officers, directors, shareholders, or general partners of an applicant or developer. The greater weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Pope had some degree of experience. As Mr. Reecy indicated, however, simply having experience is only part of the equation; Ms. Pope must also have been a principal. There is no evidence establishing that Ms. Pope was an officer, director, or shareholder of either NBCDC or the CHA in conjunction with the First Ward Place Phase I development. It is, therefore, found that Ms. Pope was not a principal of either entity, and the award to Intervenor of five points for its developer experience was clearly erroneous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Florida Housing’s initial scoring decision regarding the West River application was erroneous, concluding that the West River application is ineligible for funding, and awarding funding to Blue Broadway. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2017.
