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 Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing, Corporation, or Respondent) rejection of the funding for the application submitted by Capital Grove Limited Partnership (Capital Grove) was contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the specifications of Request for Applications 2014-114 (the RFA). If so, whether Florida Housing’s decision to fund the application submitted by HTG Wellington Family, LLC (HTG Wellington), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to applicants in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Applicants then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the owner would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax-credit property can offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of ten years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. Tax credits are made available by the U.S. Treasury to the states annually. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48), and adopted Florida Administrative Code chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Rule 67-60.002(1) defines “Applicant” as “any person or legally-formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter for one or more of the Corporation’s programs.” Applicants request in their applications a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants typically sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the Applicant entity) to an investor to generate the majority of the capital necessary to construct the Development. The amount of housing credits an Applicant may request is based on several factors, including but not limited to a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. Florida Housing’s competitive application process for the allocation of tax credits is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications. In this case, that document is Request for Applications 2014-114 (the RFA). The RFA was issued November 20, 2014, and responses were due January 22, 2015. Capital Grove submitted Application No. 2015-045C in RFA 2014-114 seeking $1,509,500 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 94-unit residential rental development in Pasco County (a Medium County), to be known as Highland Grove Senior Apartments. HTG Wellington submitted Application No. 2015-101C seeking $1,510,000 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 110-unit multifamily residential development in Pasco County, Florida, to be known as Park at Wellington Apartments. Florida Housing has announced its intention to award funding to nine Medium County Developments, including Park at Wellington in Pasco County (Application No. 2015-101C), but not Highland Grove Senior Apartments. Florida Housing received 82 applications seeking funding in RFA 2014-114, including 76 for Medium County Developments. The process employed by Florida Housing for this RFA makes it virtually impossible for more than one application to be selected for funding in any given medium county. Because of the amount of funding available for medium counties, the typical amount of an applicant’s housing credit request (generally $1.0 to $1.5 million), and the number of medium counties for which developments are proposed, many medium counties will not receive an award of housing credit funding in this RFA. Florida Housing intends to award funding to nine developments in nine different medium counties. The applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of RFA 2014-114; Florida Administrative Code chapters 67- 48 and 67-60; and applicable federal regulations. Florida Housing’s executive director appointed a Review Committee of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed “eligible,” based on whether the application complies with Florida Housing’s various content requirements. Of the 82 applications submitted to Florida Housing in RFA 2014-114, 69 were found “eligible,” and 13 were found ineligible, including Capital Grove. Florida Housing determined that Capital Grove was ineligible on the ground that its Letter of Credit was deficient under the terms of the RFA. A five-page spreadsheet created by Florida Housing, entitled “RFA 2014-114 – All Applications,” identifying all eligible and ineligible applications was provided to all Applicants. In addition to scoring, Applicants received a lottery number to be applied in tie situations, with the lower number given preference. Capital Grove received lottery number 12. HTG Wellington received lottery number 9. On March 11, 2015, the Review Committee met and considered the applications submitted in response to the RFA, and made recommendations regarding the scoring and ranking of the applications to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the Board). Capital Grove’s Letter of Credit The RFA provides for a Withdrawal Disincentive in which an applicant could either provide a $25,000 check or a $25,000 Letter of Credit that would be forfeited if the application was withdrawn by the applicant before a certain period of time. Applicants so withdrawing would also suffer a deduction from the full developer-experience point total in certain future Requests for Applications issued by Florida Housing. According to specifications in the RFA, any Letter of Credit submitted must be in compliance with all the requirements of subsection 4.a. of Section Three, Procedures and Provisions of the RFA, which provides in pertinent part: 4. $25,000 Letter of Credit. Each Applicant not submitting a $25,000 Application Withdrawal Cash Deposit (as outlined in 3 above) must submit to the Corporation a letter of Credit that meets the following requirements with its Application: a. The Letter of Credit must: Be issued by a bank, the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC, and which has a banking office located in the state of Florida available for presentation of the Letter of Credit. Be on the issuing bank’s letterhead, and identify the bank’s Florida office as the office for presentation of the Letter of Credit. Be, in form, content and amount, the same as the Sample Letter of Credit set out in Item 14 of Exhibit C of the RFA, and completed with the following: Issue Date of the Letter of Credit (LOC) which must be no later than January 22, 2015. LOC number. Expiration Date of the LOC which must be no earlier than January 22, 2016. Issuing Bank’s legal name. Issuing Bank’s Florida Presentation Office for Presentation of the LOC. Florida Housing’s RFA number RFA 2014- 114. Applicant’s name as it appears on the Application for which the LOC is issued. Development name as it appears on the Application for which the LOC is issued. Signature of the Issuing Bank’s authorized signatory. Printed Name and Title of the Authorized Signatory. The Sample Letter of Credit included in Exhibit C, Item 14 of the RFA reads: (Issuing Bank’s Letterhead) Irrevocable Unconditional Letter of Credit To/Beneficiary: Florida Housing Finance Corporation Issue Date: [a date that is no later than January 22, 2015] Attention: Director of Multifamily Programs 227 N. Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Letter of Credit No.: Expiration Date: [a date that is no earlier than January 22, 2016] Issuing Bank: Florida Presentation Office: FHFC RFA # 2014-114 Applicant: Development: Gentlemen: For the account of the Applicant, we, the Issuing Bank, hereby authorize Florida Housing Finance Corporation to draw on us at sight up to an aggregate amount of Twenty- Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($25,000.00). This letter of credit is irrevocable, unconditional, and nontransferable. Drafts drawn under this letter of credit must specify the letter of credit number and be presented at our Florida Presentation Office identified above not later than the Expiration Date. Any sight draft may be presented to us by electronic, reprographic, computerized or automated system, or by carbon copy, but in any event must visibly bear the word “original.” If the document is signed, the signature may consist of (or may appear to us as) an original handwritten signature, a facsimile signature or any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication. Payment against this letter of credit may be made by wire transfer of immediately available funds to the account specified by you, or by deposit of same day funds in a designated account you maintain with us. Unless we notify you in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the Expiration Date, the Expiration Date of this letter of credit must be extended automatically for successive one-month periods. This letter of credit sets forth in full the terms of our obligations to you, and such undertaking shall not in any way be modified or amplified by any agreement in which this letter is referred to or to which this letter of credit relates, and any such reference shall not be deemed to incorporate herein by reference any agreement. We engage with you that sight drafts drawn under, and in compliance with, the terms of this letter of credit will be duly honored at the Presentation Office. We are an FDIC insured bank, and our Florida Presentation Office is located in Florida as identified above. Yours very truly, [Issuing Bank] By Print Name Print Title Despite these requirements, Capital Grove submitted an “Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit” issued by PNC Bank National Association (PNC). Capital Grove’s Letter of Credit provides, in pertinent part: Beneficiary: Applicant: Florida Housing Finance Westbrook Housing Corp. Corp. Development, LLC 4110 Southpoint Blvd., 227 North Bronough Street Ste 206 Suite 5000 Jacksonville, Fl 32216 Tallahassee, Fl 32301 ATTENTION: DIR. OF MULTI- FBO CAPITAL GROVE FAMILY PROGRAMS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT OUR REFERENCE: 18123166-00-00 AMOUNT: USD $25,000.00 ISSUE DATE: JANUARY 20, 2015 EXPIRY DATE: JANUARY 22, 2016 EPIRY PLACE: OUR COUNTER RE: FHFC RFA #2014-114 DEVELOPMENT: HIGHLAND GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS GENTLEMEN: WE HEREBY ESTABLISH OUR IRREVOCABLE STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 18123166-00-000 IN FAVOR OF FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE ACCOUNT OF WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LLC AVAILABLE FOR PAYMENT AT OUR COUNTERS IN AN AMOUNT OF USD $25,000.00 (TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 UNITED STATES DOLLARS) AGAINST BENEFICIARY'S PURPORTEDLY SIGNED STATEMENT AS FOLLOWS: "I (INSERT NAME AND TITLE) CERTIFY THAT I AM AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND HEREBY DEMAND PAYMENT OF USD (INSERT AMOUNT) UNDER PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 18123166-00-000. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC HAS FAILED TO COMPLY UNDER THE PROJECT NAME: HIGHLAND GROVE SENIOR APARTMENTS BETWEEN FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND WESTBROOK HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, LLC." Ken Reecy, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, personally reviewed all Letters of Credit submitted by RFA applicants, and reported his findings to the Review Committee. The Review Committee recommended finding Capital Grove’s application nonresponsive and ineligible for funding because Capital Grove failed to include a responsive Letter of Credit. The Review Committee also found four other applications ineligible for failing to meet the Letter of Credit requirements, all of which used PNC Bank and involved entities related to Capital Grove, including Westbrook Housing Development, LLC, appearing as Co-Developer. All such PNC Letters of Credit failed for the same reasons. Mr. Reecy and the Review Committee found that the Letters of Credit from PNC Bank (including that submitted by Capital Grove) did not meet the facial requirements of the RFA, in that the Letters of Credit were not in the name of the applicant. The General Partner of the applicant, Capital Grove Limited Partnership, is Capital Grove GP, LLC. The Co-Developer entities are JPM Development, LLC, and Westbrook Housing Development, LLC. Co-Developer Westbrook Housing Development, LLC, a Michigan Company authorized to conduct business within the State of Florida, is a different legal entity from Co-Developer JPM Development, LLC. Mr. Reecy and the Review Committee also found the PNC Letters of Credit (including that submitted by Capital Grove) nonresponsive to the specification of the RFA because the Letters included a condition requiring Florida Housing, in order to draw on the Letter of Credit, to certify that the Co- Developer (and not the applicant) had “failed to comply under the project name: Highland Grove Senior Apartments.” However, under the RFA specifications, the action that is the basis for the presentment of the Letter of Credit is a withdrawal of the application by the applicant, not the developer. Only an applicant may withdraw an application. If the Letter of Credit cannot be drawn upon, the RFA provides that the applicant, “shall be responsible for the payment of the $25,000 to the Corporation; payment shall be due from the applicant to the Corporation within 10 calendar days following written notice from the Corporation.” Applicant Capital Grove is a single-purpose entity that has no assets. In order to collect on the Letter of Credit submitted by Capital Grove, Florida Housing would have to submit a different certification than that called for under the RFA sample letter of credit. According to Kathleen Spiers, Vice President of PNC Bank, to draw down the Letter of Credit, Florida Housing would have to copy the statement outlined in paragraph 2 of the Capital Grove Letter of Credit, sign it, and submit it to PNC to draw upon the letter of credit. At the final hearing, Mr. Reecy testified, “I am not prepared to certify to something that isn’t true. I am not going to certify that the developer didn’t comply by the Applicant withdrawing.” All other Letters of Credit submitted by applicants under this RFA were accepted as responsive. HTG Wellington’s Unit Count HTG Wellington indicated in its application to Florida Housing that its proposed Park at Wellington Development would be 110 multifamily units. In its application for Local Government Support, HTG Wellington described the Development as a 120-unit, multifamily development in five three-story buildings. The RFA requires a minimum $50,000 Local Government Contribution in Pasco County for an applicant to receive the maximum of five points. In order to obtain a Local Government Contribution, tax credit developers must submit an application to Pasco County at least six weeks before the matter is presented to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Pasco County, in turn, has their underwriter, Neighborhood Lending Partners ("NLP"), organize the applications and create an underwriting package. NLP does not make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for funding. Rather, NLP alerts Pasco County if there is a red flag concerning the Development and scores the applications based upon financial stability of the organization, financing of the project, and the development pro forma. HTG Wellington submitted an application for Local Government Contribution to Pasco County in November 2014. The application contemplated a 120-unit development. Impact fees schedules are adopted by the Pasco County Board of Commissioners. Pasco County has established an impact fee rate for affordable and non-affordable development and the difference between the two is multiplied by the number of units to determine the impact fee amount. The impact fee waiver amount approved for Park at Wellington Apartments was $219,600. This amount was calculated based upon 120 units contemplated in November 2014, multiplied by $1830.00, which is the difference between the normal impact fee rate, minus the rate for affordable housing development. The $219,600 figure was used in HTG Wellington’s application. At 110 units (as opposed to 120 units), the total Local Government Contribution available to HTG Wellington is $201,300. Either amount ($219,600 or $201,300) meets the minimum for HTG Wellington to receive five points for its Local Government Contribution. The change in the contribution amount would have no effect on the scoring of the HTG Wellington application. Pasco County’s Manager of Community Development and Officer of Community Development, George Romagnoli, testified that for approximately 15 years, Pasco County has employed a strategy to approve all applications for Local Government Contribution and then let Florida Housing choose which Development will receive tax credits. Pasco County is not concerned about the ultimate accuracy of the number of units submitted for a Contribution –- as stated by Mr. Romagnoli: "We funded 84, 120, whatever. It's really not material to the approval one way or the other." Although Florida Housing approved HTG Wellington’s application before discovering the discrepancy, had Florida Housing discovered the discrepancy in the number of units during the scoring process, the discrepancy would have been deemed a minor irregularity unless the discrepancy resulted in a change in scoring or otherwise rendered the application nonresponsive as to some material requirement and the discrepancy would generally be handled with a simple adjustment to the amount presented on the application Pro Forma, if necessary. Additionally, changes to the number of units in a development may be increased (but not decreased) under certain circumstances during the credit underwriting process which follows the competitive solicitation process. The discrepancy in the number of units does not provide any competitive advantage to HTG Wellington. The discrepancy in the number of units does not provide a benefit to HTG Wellington not enjoyed by others. Florida Housing’s waiver of the discrepancy in the number of units does not adversely impact the interests of the public. HTG Wellington’s Bus Stop The RFA allows an applicant to obtain 18 proximity points, including six points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Florida Housing awarded HTG Wellington 4.5 proximity points for its purported Public Bus Transfer Stop. The RFA defines a Public Bus Transfer Stop as: This service may be selected by all Applicants, regardless of the Demographic Commitment selected at question 2 of Exhibit For purposes of proximity points, a Public Bus Transfer Stop means fixed location at which passengers may access at least three routes of public transportation via buses. Each qualifying route must have a scheduled stop at the Public Bus Transfer Stop at least hourly during the times of 7 am to 9 am and also during the times of 4 pm to 6 pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays on a year-round basis. This would include both bus stations (i.e. hub) and bus stop with multiple routes. Bus routes must be established or approved by a Local Government department that manages public transportation. Buses that travel between states will not be considered. In response to this requirement HTG Wellington submitted a Surveyor Certification Form which lists coordinates submitted to qualify for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. The site identified by HTG Wellington as a Public Bus Transfer Stop, however, is not a fixed location where passengers may access at least three routes of public transportation. While another bus stop which serves an additional two routes is within 700 feet, stops cannot be combined for purposes of the RFA. Therefore, the site designated as a Public Bus Transfer Stop by HTG Wellington is not a “fixed location” for purposes of the RFA and HTG Wellington is not entitled to obtain proximity points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop. Not including the 4.5 proximity points for a Public Bus Transfer Stop, HTG was awarded 11.5 total proximity points for selected Community Services. The required minimum total of proximity points for developments located in a medium county that must be achieved in order to be eligible to receive the maximum amount of 18 points as set forth in the RFA is 9. HTG had more than the required minimum total of proximity points to receive the maximum award of 18 proximity points based on its Community Services score alone. The disqualification of HTG’s submitted Public Bus Transfer Stop would have no effect on the scoring or ranking of the HTG Wellington application, nor affect its ranking relative to any other application, nor affect the ultimate funding selection. The RFA requires each applicant to read and sign at Attachment A, an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form (the Form). The signing of the Form is mandatory. Page 5, Paragraph 8 of the Form provides: In eliciting information from third parties required by and/or included in this Application, the Applicant has provided such parties information that accurately describes the Development as proposed in this Application. The Applicant has reviewed the third party information included in this Application and/or provided during the credit underwriting process and the information provided by any such party is based upon, and accurate with respect to, the Development as proposed in this Application. Even though there was a discrepancy in the unit numbers submitted to Pasco County for a Local Government Contribution and its application submitted in response to the RFA, HTG signed the Form. No evidence was submitted indicating that HTG signed the Form with knowledge of the discrepancy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: Rejecting Capital Grove’s application as nonresponsive and denying the relief requested in its Petition; Concluding that Capital Grove lacks standing to bring allegations against HTG Wellington; and, Upholding Florida Housing’s scoring and ranking of the HTG Wellington application. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2015.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the actions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2016-110, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the “RFA”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the issue is whether Florida Housing acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications in finding that the applications of Petitioners JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership (“JPM Outlook”) and Grande Park Limited Partnership (“Grande Park”) were ineligible for funding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: JPM Outlook is a Florida limited partnership based in Jacksonville, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Grande Park is a Florida limited partnership based in Jacksonville, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Hammock Ridge is a Florida limited liability company based in Coconut Grove, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. For the purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. 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 that qualify. The credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect of this sale 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 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. 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, 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 is authorized to allocate housing tax credits and other funding by means of a request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has 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 are made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants will normally sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount which can be received depends upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated area of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications. A Request for Applications is equivalent to a “request for proposal,” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). The RFA in this case was issued on October 7, 2016. A modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 2, 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 dismissed prior to hearing. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $12,312,632 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments in Medium Counties, as well as up to an estimated $477,091 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments in Small Counties other than Monroe County. By the terms of the RFA, a review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviewed and scored each application. These scores were presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately made a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation was presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (“the Board”) for final agency action. On March 24, 2017, all applicants received notice that the Board had approved the recommendation of the review committee concerning which applications were eligible or ineligible for funding and which applications were selected for awards of housing tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. The notice was provided by the posting on Florida Housing’s website (www.floridahousing.org) 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 10 developments, including Intervenor Hammock Ridge. Petitioners JPM Outlook and Grande Park were deemed ineligible. If JPM Outlook and Grande Park had been deemed eligible, each would have been in the funding range based on its assigned lottery number and the RFA selection criteria. If Grande Park had been deemed eligible, Hammock Ridge would not have been recommended for funding. Petitioners JPM Outlook and Grande Park timely filed notices of protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The scoring decision at issue in this proceeding is based on Florida Housing’s decision that Petitioners failed to submit as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A the correct and properly signed version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form. Petitioners’ admitted failure to submit the correct Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was the sole reason that Florida Housing found Petitioners’ applications to be ineligible for funding. Section Four of the RFA was titled, “INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN APPLICATION.” Listed there among the Exhibit A submission requirements was the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form, described as follows: The Applicant must include a signed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A to indicate the Applicant’s certification and acknowledgement of the provisions and requirements of the RFA. The form included in the copy of the Application labeled “Original Hard Copy” must reflect an original signature (blue ink is preferred). The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form is provided in Exhibit B of this RFA and on the Corporation’s Website http://www.floridahousing.org/Developers/ MultiFamilyPrograms/Competitive/2016- 110/RelatedForms/ (also accessible by clicking here). Note: If the Applicant provides any version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form other than the version included in this RFA, the form will not be considered. The final sentence of the quoted language is referred to by Florida Housing as the “effects clause.” The November 10, 2016, modifications to the RFA were communicated to applicants in three ways. First, Florida Housing provided a Web Board notice. The Florida Housing Web Board is a communication tool that allows interested parties and development partners to stay apprised of modifications to procurement documents. Second, each RFA issued by Florida Housing, including the one at issue in this proceeding, has its own specific page on Florida Housing's website with hyperlinks to all documents related to that RFA. Third, Florida Housing released an Official Modification Notice that delineated every modification, including a “blackline” version showing the changes with underscoring for emphasis. Brian Parent is a principal for both JPM Outlook and Grande Park. Mr. Parent received the Web Board notification of the RFA modifications via email. Upon receiving the email, Mr. Parent reviewed the modifications on the Florida Housing website. The modification to the RFA, posted on Florida Housing’s website on November 10, 2016, included the following modification of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form, with textual underscoring indicating new language: Pursuant to Rule 67-60.005, F.A.C., Modification of Terms of Competitive Solicitations, Florida Housing hereby modifies Item 2.b.(4) of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form to read as follows: (4) Confirmation that, if the proposed Development meets the definition of Scattered Sites, all Scattered Sites requirements that were not required to be met in the Application will be met, including that all features and amenities committed to and proposed by the Applicant that are not unit- specific shall be located on each of the Scattered Sites, or no more than 1/16 mile from the Scattered Site with the most units, or a combination of both. If the Surveyor Certification form in the Application indicates that the proposed Development does not consist of Scattered Sites, but it is determined during credit underwriting that the proposed Development does meet the definition of Scattered Sites, all of the Scattered Sites requirements must have been met as of Application Deadline and, if all Scattered Sites requirements were not in place as of the Application Deadline, the Applicant’s funding award will be rescinded; Note: For the Application to be eligible for funding, the version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form reflecting the Modification posted 11-10-16 must be submitted to the Corporation by the Application Deadline, as outlined in the RFA. Rule 67-48.002(105) defines “Scattered Sites” as follows: “Scattered Sites,” as applied to a single Development, means a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition “contiguous” means touching at a point or along a boundary. Real property is contiguous if the only intervening real property interest is an easement, provided the easement is not a roadway or street. All of the Scattered Sites must be located in the same county. The RFA modification included other changes concerning Scattered Sites. Those changes either modified the Surveyor Certification Form itself or required applicants to correctly provide information concerning Scattered Sites in the Surveyor Certification Form. Each Petitioner included in its application a Surveyor Certification Form indicating that its proposed development sites did not consist of Scattered Sites. The Surveyor Certification Forms submitted were the forms required by the modified RFA. There was no allegation that Petitioners incorrectly filled out the Surveyor Certification Forms. However, the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form submitted by each of the Petitioners was the original form, not the form as modified to include the underscored language set forth in Finding of Fact 20 regarding the effect of mislabeling Scattered Sites on the Surveyor Certification Form. The failure of JPM Outlook and Grande Park to submit the correct Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was the sole reason that Florida Housing found them ineligible for funding. In deposition testimony, Ken Reecy, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, explained the purpose of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form: There’s a number of things that we want to be sure that the applicants are absolutely aware of in regard to future actions or requirements by the Corporation. If they win the award, there are certain things that they need to know that they must do or that they are under certain obligations, that there’s certain obligations and commitments associated with the application to make it clear what the requirements--what certain requirements are, not only now in the application, but also perhaps in the future if they won awards. At the conclusion of a lengthy exposition on the significance of the modified language relating to Scattered Sites, Mr. Reecy concluded as follows: [W]e wanted to make sure that if somebody answered the question or did not indicate that they were a scattered site, but then we found out that they were, in fact, a scattered site, we wanted to make it absolutely clear to everyone involved that in the event that your scattered sites did not meet all of those requirements as of the application deadline, that the funding would be rescinded. Petitioners argue that the failure to submit the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form should be waived as a minor irregularity. Their simplest argument on that point is that their applications did not in fact include Scattered Sites and therefore the cautionary language added to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form by the November 10, 2016, modifications did not apply to them and could have no substantive effect on their applications. Petitioners note that their applications included the substantive changes required by the November 10, 2016, modifications, including those related to Scattered Sites. Petitioners submitted the unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form as Attachment 1 to their modified Exhibit A. Petitioners further note that the “Ability to Proceed Forms” they submitted with their applications on December 2, 2016, were the forms as modified on November 10, 2016. They assert that this submission indicates their clear intent to acknowledge and certify the modified RFA and forms, regardless of their error in submitting the unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. Petitioners assert that the Scattered Sites language added to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form by the November 10, 2016, modifications was essentially redundant. Mr. Reecy conceded that the warning regarding Scattered Sites was not tied to any specific substantive modification of the RFA. The language was added to make it “more clear” to the applicant that funding would be rescinded if the Scattered sites requirements were not met as of the application deadline. Petitioners point out that this warning is the same as that applying to underwriting failures generally. Petitioners assert that the new language had no substantive effect on either the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form or on the certifications and acknowledgements required of the applicants. Even in the absence of the modified language, Petitioners would be required to satisfy all applicable requirements for Scattered Sites if it were determined during underwriting that their applications included Scattered Sites. Petitioners conclude that, even though the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was not included with either of their applications, the deviation should be waived as a minor irregularity. Florida Housing could not have been confused as to what Petitioners were acknowledging and certifying. The unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was submitted with a modified Attachment 1 that included all substantive changes made by the November 10, 2016, modifications to the RFA. Petitioners gained no advantage by mistakenly submitting an unmodified version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. The submittal of the unmodified version of the form was an obvious mistake and waiving the mistake does not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. Mr. Reecy testified that he could recall no instance in which Florida Housing had waived the submittal of the wrong form as a minor irregularity. He also observed that the credibility of Florida Housing could be negatively affected if it waived the submission of the correct form in light of the “effects clause” contained in Section Four: Due to the fact that we did have an effects clause in this RFA and we felt that, in accordance with the rule requirements regarding minor irregularities, that it would be contrary to competition because we wanted everybody to sign and acknowledge the same criteria in the certification; so we felt that if some did--some certified some things and some certified to others, that that would be problematic. And the fact that we had very specifically instructed that if we did not get the modified version, that we would not consider it, and then if we backed up and considered it, that that would erode the credibility of the Corporation and the scoring process. Mr. Reecy testified that the modification to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was intended not merely to clarify the Scattered Sites requirement but to strengthen Florida Housing’s legal position in any litigation that might ensue from a decision to rescind the funding of an applicant that did not comply with the Scattered Sites requirements as of the application deadline. He believed that waiving the “effects clause” would tend to weaken Florida Housing’s legal position in such a case. Petitioners had clear notice that they were required to submit the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. They did not avail themselves of the opportunity to protest the RFA modifications. There is no allegation that they were misled by Florida Housing or that they had no way of knowing they were submitting the wrong form. The relative importance of the new acknowledgement in the modified form may be a matter of argument, but the consequences for failure to submit the proper form were plainly set forth in the effects clause. Florida Housing simply applied the terms of the modified RFA to Petitioners’ applications and correctly deemed them ineligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order confirming its initial decision finding JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership and Grande Park Limited Partnership ineligible for funding, and dismissing each Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing filed by JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership and Grande Park Limited Partnership. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Boynton Associates, Ltd., is entitled to receive additional points for Form 5 of its application, related to local government contributions, for the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's 2001 Combined Rental Cycle and, if so, whether Petitioner qualifies for an allocation of federal low-income housing tax credits.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Boynton Associates Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, is the Applicant and owner of property know as Boynton Terrace Apartments located in Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida ("City" or "City of Boynton Beach"). To encourage the development of low-income housing for families, in 1987, Congress created the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program that is allotted to each state, including Florida Tax Credits, each year. The low-income housing credits equate to a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the holder's federal tax liability. This reduction can be taken for up to ten years if the project satisfies the Internal Revenue Code's requirements each year. Each state receives an annual allotment of housing credits, primarily on a per capita basis. For the year 2001, Florida's allotment of low-income housing credits is $23,973,567, of which $20,695,689 is available for allocation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation is the "housing credit agency" responsible for the allocation and distribution of Florida's low-income housing tax housing credits to applicants for the development and/or substantial rehabilitation of low-income housing. See Subsection 420.5099(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to state and federal mandates, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation has established a competitive application process for the award of low-income housing credits. Rule 67-48.004, Florida Administrative Code, as adopted on February 22, 2001, established the process by which the Florida Housing Finance Corporation evaluates, scores, and competitively ranks the applicants for the award of funds and the allocation of housing credits. Under the review and application process, staff of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation first conducts a preliminary review of the applications. Based on that review, a preliminary score is assigned to each application. After the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's preliminary review and scoring, all applicants may review the applications and challenge what they believe to be scoring errors made by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Any applicant alleging scoring errors must make such challenges, in writing, on a Notice of Possible Scoring Error Form (NOPSE) within ten days of the applicant's receiving the preliminary score. This form is an official form developed and provided by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation then reviews each timely filed NOPSE, adjusts scores where applicable, and issues a position paper to the affected applicants informing them of the decision relative to the NOPSE. Affected applicants are then given an opportunity to submit supplemental information, documentation, or revised documents that might address challenges made in any NOPSE. Any such submission by an applicant whose scores have been challenged is called a "Cure." The Florida Housing Finance Corporation provides a Cure Form on which the challenged applicant may submit its statement of explanation addressing the issues raised in the NOPSEs. Following the submission of a Cure by an applicant whose application has been challenged, competitors are allowed to review the supplemental or corrective information which comprises the Cure. After reviewing the Cure, competitors may point out what they perceive to be errors or deficiencies on the challenged applicant's Cure. These perceived errors or deficiencies are then submitted to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, in writing, on a form entitled, Notice of Alleged Deficiency (NOAD), that was developed and provided by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation reviews the Cure submitted by the applicant whose application has been challenged and the NOADs submitted by competing applicants. Following this review, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation assigns each application a pre-appeal score. Boynton submitted an application to Florida Housing Finance Corporation for the 2001 Combined Rental Cycle ("2001 Combined Cycle") to receive annually $559,025.14 in tax credits for the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace, a multifamily housing property. The application was submitted on February 26, 2001, the deadline for submitting applications for the 2001 Combined Cycle. Pursuant to the review and scoring procedures set forth in the 2001 Combined Cycle Application Form and Rule 67- 48.004, Florida Administrative Code, as adopted February 22, 2001, described in paragraphs 7 through 12 above, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation scored the application of Boynton. The application for the allocation of housing credits consists of several forms. However, the only form at issue in this case is Form 5, entitled "Local Government Contributions." Form 5 indicates a local government's support of the affordable housing project for which tax credits are being sought. In scoring Form 5, Florida Housing Finance Corporation awards points based on the amount of "tangible, economic benefit that results in a quantifiable cost reduction and are development specific." The maximum number of points that can be awarded on Form 5 is 20 points. To obtain the maximum number of points for Form 5, the applicant must provide evidence of a local government contribution for which the dollar amount is equal to or greater than one of the following: (1) a specified amount according to the county in which the proposed project is located, or (2) ten percent (10%) of the total development costs of the project listed in Form 4 of the application. In this case, Boynton's application indicated that the local government contribution was 10 percent of its total development costs of $5,096,789, or $509,678.90. At or near the time Boynton's application was submitted, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation determined that the application was complete and, thereafter, conducted a preliminary review of the application. Based on its preliminary review of Boynton's application, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation awarded a total of 618 points to Boynton. Of this preliminary score, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation awarded Boynton 20 points, the maximum allowed, for Form 5. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation's preliminary award of 20 points to Boynton for its Form 5 was based on local government contributions listed on the application as follows: donation of landscaping materials valued at $50,000 and donation of dumpsters during the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace valued at $19,845; (2) waiver of tipping fees at the local landfill of $25,500 and waiver of building permit fees of $61,609; and (3) $353,196 for waiver of the requirement to construct 58 parking spaces at $6,089.60 per space. Form 5 provides that a local government contribution for a waiver of parking space requirements will not be recognized except in certain circumstances. Among the circumstances in which a waiver of parking space requirements is expressly recognized as a local government contribution are rehabilitation developments located in areas targeted for neighborhood revitalization by local governments. Once this threshold requirement is established, the local government must also verify that the existing local government code would require the additional parking, and that the parking requirements are waived specifically for the subject development. As part of the information required by Form 5, Boynton provided a letter from Mr. Michael Rumph, the Director of Planning and Zoning for the City of Boynton Beach, verifying that Boynton Terrace is a rehabilitation development located in an area targeted for revitalization by the local government. Additionally, the letter stated in part the following: In support of the [Boynton Terrace Apartments] housing development, the City of Boynton Beach has accepted and processed an application for a variance to provide relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 Supplemental Regulations, H. 16. a.(2)., requiring a minimum parking space ratio of 2 spaces per unit, to allow a reduction of 58 spaces or a 1.3 space per unit variance. The Boynton Terrace Apartments rehabilitation development is located in an area targeted for neighborhood revitalization by the local government. As such, if parking requirements are waived for the project, such waiver or variance is recognized as a local contribution. Boynton Terrace is comprised of 84 multi-family residential units. For each unit in the development, the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations requires two parking spaces. Accordingly, based on the City's regulations, 168 parking spaces would be required for the Boynton Terrace development. Boynton applied for a variance to be able to construct fewer parking spaces than the 168 spaces, since much of the area currently occupied by existing parking would be encroached upon by the construction of the new clubhouse/community center, the new landscaping, and other amenities. The City Commission for the City of Boynton Beach, after a full hearing on Boynton's request, granted the variance, which obligated Boynton to provide 1.3 parking spaces for every multi-family residential unit at the property rather than two parking spaces for every such unit. As a result of the City Commission's decision, the Boynton Terrace development was required to have 110 parking spaces instead of the 168 spaces required by the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations. On Form 5 of its application, Boynton indicated that the City reduced the required number parking spaces from 168 to 110. Form 5 of the application also indicated that by the City's reducing the required number of parking spaces by 58 spaces, the local government contribution with regard to parking spaces was the cost of constructing 58 parking spaces at a cost of $6,089.60 per space, or $353,196.80. An attachment to the City's "contribution letter" referred to in paragraph 21, and part of Boynton's application, indicated that as a result of the City's reducing the number of parking spaces required at Boynton Terrace, the City's contribution to the Boynton Terrace development was $353,196.80. According to the aforementioned attachment, this amount represented the cost of constructing 58 parking spaces at a cost of $6,089.60 per space. After the Florida Housing Finance Corporation issued it preliminary scores, three competing applicants submitted NOPSEs, challenging Boynton's Form 5 score of 20. According to the NOPSEs, the competing applicants believed that Boynton was not entitled to be awarded points based on a local contribution of $353,196 for a waiver or variance of the number of parking spaces required for the development. According to the NOPSEs, Boynton was only receiving a cost savings from not having to construct 11 parking spaces because 157 parking spaces already existed at Boynton Terrace. Based on these challenges, the competing applicants indicated that the local government contribution for a waiver of the City's parking space requirement should be reduced from $353,196 to $66,985.60, the cost of Boynton's constructing 11 parking spaces at $6,089.60 per space. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation reviewed and considered the NOPSEs filed by competing applicants that challenged the local government contribution of $353,196 listed on Form 5 of Boynton's application. Following its review, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation reduced Boynton's preliminary score on Form 5 from 20 points to 8.79 points. This reduction in points represented a pro rata reduction based on the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's decision that the local government contribution, with regard to parking spaces, was $66,985.60 instead of $353,196, the amount stated on Form 5 of Boynton's application. As previously noted in paragraph 10, applicants whose applications have been challenged are permitted to submit a Cure in response to NOPSES filed by competing applicants. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation's Cure Form consists, in part, of a page entitled "Brief Statement of Explanation for Revision/Addition for Application 2001- ." In addition to submitting a Cure Form, pursuant to Rule 67.48.004 (11), Florida Administrative Code, as adopted February 22, 2001, Boynton was allowed to submit additional documentation, revised forms, and other information that it deemed appropriate to address the issues raised in the NOPSEs and to any score reductions imposed by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. In response to the NOPSEs filed by the competing applicants and the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's reduction in Boynton's Form 5 score, Boynton submitted an explanation on a Cure Form, which stated in relevant part the following: [T]he application involves substantial rehabilitation with new amenity areas, a clubhouse/community center and dumpsters. To meet the demands called for under the proposed renovation, many of the parking spaces are lost to provide for the rehabilitation and other features called for within the application. As such, because of these significant changes, the applicant would have had have [sic] new parking areas and the incurred costs in providing for the new parking. In cooperation and conjunction with the City, the applicant was able to obtain specific cost savings for the parking and has evidenced same within the application as called for. The applicant is saving the stated number of spaces and the costs associated with otherwise having to build them. According to the Cure submitted by Boynton, the application "involves substantial rehabilitation with new amenity areas, a clubhouse/community center and dumpsters." Boynton also stated that "to meet the demands called for under the proposed renovation, many of the parking spaces are lost to provide for the rehabilitation and other features called for within the application." While the Cure submitted by Boynton referred generally to "amenity areas" and a "clubhouse/community and dumpsters," Form 7 of Boynton's application noted the specific features that would be included in the Boynton Terrace rehabilitation project. Form 7 of the application listed several features that could be included in the rehabilitation project. From this list, applicants were to mark the boxes, indicating the particular features that would be included in their respective developments. Form 7 including the category, "Quality of Design," includes Sections A, B, and C. Each section lists features which the applicant may provide as part of the rehabilitation project. At the end of the "Quality of Design" category" is the following pre-printed language: IMPORTANT! CHECKING ITEMS IN SECTIONS A, B, AND C OF QUALITY DESIGN COMMITS THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THEM. . . . On Form 7, Section B of the "Quality of Design" category, Boynton indicated that it would provide eight of the listed features. These features included the following: an exercise room, a community center or clubhouse, a playground/tot lot, a covered picnic area, an outside recreation facility for older children, and a library. After Boynton submitted its Cure Form, competing applicants filed (NOADs) with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation pursuant to Rule 67-48.004(12), Florida Administrative Code, as adopted on February 22, 2001. One NOAD indicated that no documents were submitted by Boynton to show the number of spaces that would have to be eliminated or demolished as part of the rehabilitation or how many spaces would have to be constructed as part of the rehabilitation process. Another NOAD stated that the Cure submitted by Boynton amounted to a "de facto appeal," because the initial application did not indicate that the renovation would involve the loss of parking spaces. The NOADs relied on a 1980 as-built survey to argue that Boynton Terrace already contained a parking lot with 157 spaces. Based on its review of Boynton's Cure Form and the NOADs submitted in response thereto, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation determined that Boynton should be awarded 8.79 points for Form 5. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation believes that the 8.79 points awarded to Boynton for Form 5 are appropriate based on its determination of the local government contribution listed on and substantiated by the application and the information provided on Boynton's Cure Form. In reducing Boynton's preliminary award for Form 5 from 20 points to 8.79, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation accepted and concurred with the statements expressed in the NOPSEs. According to those statements, described in paragraph 28, Boynton should receive credit for a local contribution of $66,985, the cost of building 11 parking spaces. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation does not accept that the proposed cost of constructing each new parking space is $6,089, as noted in Boynton's application, is the actual cost. Rather, it considers the proposed cost of $6,089 to be questionable. The reason the Housing Corporation questioned the proposed cost of $6,089 to construct each new parking space was that documentation reflected that during a period of less than three months, the projected cost went from $4,017.19 per space as of December 6, 2000, to $5,821 as of February 12, 2001, and finally to $6,089 as of February 23, 2001. During the time Boynton's application was being reviewed, Mr. Christopher Bushwell, a former construction manager with the Corps of Engineers and an auditor with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, questioned the increased cost of the construction of each parking space from $4000 to $6000. Despite Mr. Bushwell's concern about the accuracy of the projected cost of construction of each parking space, no staff member of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation called to verify the figure with the City of Boynton Beach. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation produced no evidence to support its contention that the projected or estimated cost for construction of each parking space was not accurate. Yet it persisted in its belief that Boynton "back[ed] into" the parking space estimates solely for the purpose of presenting to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation a local government contribution equal to or near $353,196, a figure that would result in Boynton's being awarded the maximum of 20 points for Form 5. The projected cost of $4,017 for construction of a parking space was included on the City's Variance Review Report dated December 6, 2000. That report analyzed Boynton's request that a variance be granted that allowed one parking space per unit, or a total of only 84 parking spaces. It is unknown who arrived at this figure or how it was derived. On January 16, 2001, the City agreed to grant Boynton a variance to reduce the number of parking space by 58, thereby reducing the number of required parking spaces from two spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit. After the variance was granted on January 16, 2001, on February 12, 2001, the City of Boynton Beach submitted a letter to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation stating that the variance had been granted reducing the required number of parking spaces from two spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit. The letter stated that the cost for each parking space was $5,821, which would result in a local government contribution of $337,630. On February 23, 2001, the City of Boynton Beach submitted another letter to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation identical to the February 12, 2001, letter except that the attachment to the former letter indicated that the construction cost for each parking space was $6.089.60. This projected cost would result in the local government contribution of $353,196.80 for the reduction in required parking spaces. The estimates for the cost of constructing each parking space stated in the February 12 and February 23, 2001, letters were made by Jeffrey Kammerude and approved by the City's Engineering Department. Mr. Kammerude is a licensed contractor and the construction manager of Heritage Construction Company, the company that would be responsible for the renovation of Boynton Terrace. Mr. Kammerude changed the estimated cost of each parking space from $5,821 to $6,089 because at the time of the former estimate, it was his belief that the local building code required a 20-foot minimum driveway or aisle-way. However, after meeting with City officials, Mr. Kammerude was told that the 20-foot aisle-way that he had used in making the February 12, 2001, estimate was incorrect and that with the back-to-back parking that existed at Boynton Terrace, the aisle-way had to be 27 feet wide. The increased size of the aisle-way would require a corresponding increase in the required pavement and, thus, an increase in the cost of constructing each parking space. The reason given by Mr. Kammerude for increasing the estimated cost of each parking space was uncontroverted. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence established that the estimated cost of $6,089 per parking space was not only reasonable, but was likely lower than the actual per space construction cost because it did not include the cost of curbing. In view of the credible testimony of Mr. Kammerude, the cost estimate of $6,089.60 for constructing a parking space at Boynton Terrace is reasonable. In February 2001, at or near the time Boynton submitted its application to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, the parking lot at Boynton Terrace was in poor condition and had many potholes and cracks in the pavement. Given the condition of the parking lot, the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace would require repaving of at least part of the parking lot. On October 31, 2001, about eight months after Boynton submitted its application, Mr. Bushnell went to Boynton Terrace to count the parking spaces and look at the parking lot. From his cursory observation, it appeared that the parking lot had been recently resurfaced and was in "excellent shape. However, Mr. Bushnell did not conduct a comprehensive inspection of the parking lot and was unable to determine the quality of the work done on the parking lot or whether the work complied with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Code. The City of Boynton Beach requires a permit for the repaving and/or repair of parking lots at developments such as Boynton Terrace. However, no permit was issued for the repaving and/or repair of the parking lot at Boynton Terrace referenced in the preceding paragraph. Consequently, the City never conducted an inspection of the parking lot to determine if the parking lot repairs and/or repaving at Boynton Terrace met the applicable City Code requirements. Based on the number of parking spaces that he counted while at Boynton Terrace, Mr. Bushnell questioned the cost reduction of eliminating spaces. Moreover, because Mr. Bushnell saw concrete pads in place for dumpsters, he did not believe that parking spaces needed to be eliminated in order to place dumpsters on the property. Finally, in reaching the conclusion that there would be no reduction in parking spaces, Mr. Bushnell did not consider the number of spaces that would be eliminated as a result of the addition of any of the new amenities to the property such as the clubhouse/community center, picnic areas, and mailbox kiosks, and the landscaping required under the City Code. Boynton had a site plan prepared on or near December 2000, which showed the placement of many of the new amenities to be included as a part of the rehabilitation of the Boynton Terrace development. The site plan was used as part of Boynton's submission and presentation to the City when it was seeking a parking space variance. According to the site plan, the clubhouse/community center would consume 25 to 30 parking spaces, the landscaping of the development would consume about 15 parking spaces, and the picnic area would consume about two to four parking spaces. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation did not consider that the addition of the new amenities would reduce the number of parking spaces at the property and result in the need to construct new parking spaces unless the City of Boynton Beach granted a variance to Boynton. Boynton did not include the December 2000 site plan as part of its application or Cure submitted to the Florida Housing Corporation. Moreover, Boynton did not provide information in its application or Cure regarding how many spaces would be eliminated as a result of construction of a clubhouse community center. At hearing, Boynton presented credible evidence that the clubhouse/community center would be constructed over existing parking spaces and that without a variance from the City of Boynton Beach, it would have to construct new spaces to replace those spaces lost to construction as well as to other features related to the rehabilitation of the development. Boynton also presented credible evidence that additional parking spaces at Boynton Terrace would be eliminated due to the City's landscaping requirements, the construction of a picnic area, a tot lot, and mail box kiosks. The City's Code requires 20 feet of landscaping for each parking space. However, this information was not included in the Cure submitted by Boynton to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The variance granted by the City of Boynton Beach amounted to a waiver of the parking space requirements applicable to the Boynton Terrace rehabilitation project which provided a tangible economic benefit that resulted in a quantifiable cost reduction that is specific to the development.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation award to Petitioner, Boynton Associates, Ltd., the maximum number of 20 points for Form 5 of the 2001 Combined Cycle, and enter a Final Order awarding Boynton Associates, Ltd., a total of 622 points for it Combined Cycle Application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 17th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Kaplan, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Elizabeth G. Arthur, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Jon C. Moyle, Jr., Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Kollins, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner Janice Brice was the subject of housing discrimination by Respondent based on Petitioner's race, color, and familial status, in violation of Florida's Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African American female and, therefore, belongs to a class of persons subject to protection under Florida's Fair Housing Act, Sections 760.20 through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2006).1/ Petitioner is a dark-skinned African American, which she claims was a second factor underlying the alleged unlawful housing practice by Respondent. Petitioner is a single mother, which she stated in her complaint filed with the Commission, was a third factor that caused her to be discriminated against by Respondent. Respondent Concord Management, Ltd. (Concord), is a management company that operates over 100 apartment complexes around the country. It is the managing agent for Regatta Bay Apartments (Regatta Bay) located in Kissimmee, Florida. Respondent Sharon Harper Ivey is the director of compliance for Concord. She was not hired by Concord until after the events which form the basis of Petitioner's claim of housing discrimination. She communicated with the Commission during its investigation of Petitioner's complaint against Concord and was subsequently listed by the Commission as a Respondent when the case was referred to DOAH. That listing was an error. Petitioner has never claimed that Ms. Ivey had any role in the alleged unlawful housing practice. On August 4, 2005, Petitioner applied for a lease at Regatta Bay. Petitioner filled out some application forms and waited for a response. Concord conducts a financial credit and criminal background check of persons applying to become tenants at Regatta Bay. The credit check is made to determine whether the applicant has good or bad credit history and has the ability to pay the rent. Concord also conducts a separate compliance check to verify that the applicant is a qualifying tenant for purposes of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program which makes it possible for Concord to rent apartments at below-market rates. The information that Petitioner provided to the staff at Regatta Bay was sent to Concord's offices in Maitland, Florida, for review and handling. The Security Deposit and Surety Bond Concord completed its credit and criminal background check of Petitioner on August 22, 2005. Because Concord determined that Petitioner had poor credit history, based in part on being employed less than a year at her current place of employment, Petitioner was required to have someone co-sign her lease or pay a security deposit and purchase a security (surety) bond. Petitioner paid a security deposit of $873 and purchased a security bond in the amount of $175. Petitioner claims that it was an act of discrimination for Concord to have required both a security deposit and a security bond. The only basis for this claim, however, is Petitioner's interpretation of a form provided to tenants,2/ entitled "Frequently Asked Questions," which explains the security deposit and bond. Petitioner believes that the form explains that only the bond is needed, not a bond and a security deposit. However the form states that the bond "replaces (or supplements) a traditional security deposit." Sharon Ivey, Concord's director of compliance, testified that the requirement for a security deposit and security bond is applied uniformly to all tenants by Concord and produced exhibits showing that tenants at Regatta Bay who were not African Americans were required to pay a security deposit and purchase a security bond if they had poor credit histories. Petitioner produced no evidence to show that African Americans at Regatta Bay, dark-skinned African Americans, or single mothers, are treated differently by Concord with respect to security deposits and bonds. Qualification for Low Income Housing In order for Concord to qualify for the federal tax credits under the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, all of the tenants of Regatta Bay must have personal incomes that fall below 60 percent of the median annual income for persons living in the Orlando Metropolitan Statistical Area, taking into account the number of persons in the household.3/ Petitioner has two children and, therefore, in order to qualify to rent an apartment at Regatta Bay, she had to have an annual income less than the median annual income for three-person households in the Orlando area. Based on statistics used by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, Petitioner's income had to be less than $29,760. To verify that Petitioner would qualify for tenancy at Regatta Bay, an employment verification form had to be filled out and submitted by her employer, Quest Diagnostics, Inc. The human resources representative at Quest Diagnostics filled out "Part B" of the employment verification form on August 17, 2005, indicating that Petitioner worked 20 hours per week and made $12 per hour. Jessica Reyes, a rental agent at Regatta, called Petitioner and discussed the fact that the employment verification form indicated she was only a part-time employee. Petitioner informed Ms. Reyes that she had just become a full-time employee. Ms. Reyes requested that Petitioner have the human resources representative at Quest Diagnostics send Regatta Bay another employment verification form and complete "Part A" of the form which asks for the employee's anticipated annual income and year-to-date income. A second employment verification form was sent to Regatta Bay on August 18, 2005, indicating that Petitioner's anticipated annual salary was $25,708.80. The human resources representative did not fill in the space provided for year-to- date income. Ms. Reyes was unable to get the year-to-date earnings information from Quest Diagnostics. Ms. Reyes filled-in the figure $17,144 in the space provided for Petitioner's year-to- date earnings on the employment verification form. In a written statement obtained later from her, Ms. Reyes stated that she thought the absence of this information on the form might cause the form to be "kicked back" by the compliance auditors at Concord. She stated that she calculated the year-to-date earnings of $17,144 from Petitioner's annual income. It appears that Ms. Reyes did not realize that Petitioner had only worked at Quest Diagnostics for five months, and that a year-to-date income of $17,144 would translate to an annual income that was above the limit to qualify for low income housing. Even though only a credit check had been completed on Petitioner, and not a compliance check to verify that she had qualifying income for the federal tax credit program, Petitioner was allowed to sign a lease and move into Unit 101 at Regatta Bay on or about September 20, 2005. On September 15, 2005, Robert Green, a compliance auditor with Concord, reviewed the paperwork he received from Regatta Bay concerning Petitioner, including the employment verification form. He determined that, based on the year-to- date earnings figure, Petitioner's income was too high to qualify for housing at Regatta Bay. In Ms. Reyes' written statement of December 9, 2005, she said she was asked to get pay stubs from Petitioner. Ms. Reyes stated that Petitioner brought in her last pay stub, which included her year-to-date earnings. Ms. Reyes claims to have recalculated Petitioner's year-to-date earnings using her pay stub and, although not $17,144, the recalculated number was still too high. The community director at Regatta Bay, Christine Lombardi, testified that Petitioner came in on September 20 or 21, 2005, and spoke to Ms. Reyes about her income. Ms. Lombardi said she saw Ms. Reyes with pay stubs in her hand and with a calculator tape that Ms. Reyes had used to calculate Petitioner's year-to-date income. Ms. Lombardi testified that she asked Ms. Reyes to make a copy of the pay stubs, but Petitioner would not allow them be copied. Petitioner was unaware that Ms. Reyes had altered the employment verification form to add a year-to-date income figure, but it is undisputed that Petitioner was told that her annual income had been calculated to be a figure over $31,000. Petitioner's pay stub for work through September 3, 2005, shows year-to-date earnings, including overtime, of $12,489.60.4/ Because Petitioner had worked for Quest Diagnostics for five months, the year-to-date figure from her pay stub would result in an estimated annual income of about $29,976. This amount is just over the maximum income allowed, but it includes some overtime work. It was not shown how Ms. Reyes came up with an estimate of $31,000, and her own statement on that point is unclear. However, if Ms. Reyes assumed that Petitioner had been working at Quest Diagnostics since January 1, 2005, the income shown on Petitioner's last pay stub would support an estimated annual income of about $32,000. Petitioner denies that she brought in her pay stubs to show Ms. Reyes, but she testified that Ms. Reyes "had her calculator in front of her, and she calculated it up." Petitioner asked Ms. Reyes to add her adult daughter to her household, so that she could qualify under the higher income allowed for a four-person household. On September 21, 2005, Ms. Lombardi sent Petitioner a letter informing Petitioner that she would have to move out of Regatta Bay because her income was too high. At the final hearing, Petitioner repeatedly referred to a comment in the letter that "we would like to point you in the right direction," which Petitioner took great offense to and perceived almost as a racial slur. However, the comment appeared in the following context: Whereas we are sincerely sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you, there are other communities in the area that do not have the same income guidelines. These communities might be able to accommodate you and we would like to point you in the right direction. In context, there is nothing about the comment that shows animus towards Petitioner's race, color, or familial status. On September 26, 2005, Ms. Lombardi sent Petitioner a letter stating "Per our conversation today . . . you and your daughter need to come into the office to fill out the proper paperwork." This letter indicates that Ms. Lombardi was willing to pursue Petitioner's suggestion to have Petitioner's daughter added to her household so that Petitioner would qualify to stay at Regatta Bay. However, Petitioner apparently abandoned this idea after she consulted with a lawyer. Petitioner refused to vacate the apartment. On October 13, 2005, Regatta Bay served Petitioner with a Seven Day Notice to Cure Noncompliance to satisfy the requirements of Section 83.56, Florida Statutes. On October 26, 2005, Regatta Bay served Petitioner with a Seven Day Notice of Noncompliance Without Opportunity to Cure. On November 5, 2005, Regatta Bay filed a Complaint for Tenant Eviction in the circuit court for Osceola County. Concord showed that it has filed eviction actions against non-African Americans that resided in Regatta Bay when Concord discovered that they were not qualified for low income housing at the time they began their tenancies. Before Petitioner received the first "seven day notice," she contacted a legal aide attorney to assist her regarding her dispute with Regatta Bay. She also contacted Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) for help. On November 30, 2005, Janet Peterson of FHFC made a request of Robin Robuck, senior vice president of Concord, for a written explanation of how Concord "arrived at the conclusion that [Petitioner] was ineligible." In her response, Ms. Robuck referred to the year-to- date income figure of $17,144 on the employment verification form prepared by Quest Diagnostics. Ms. Robuck made no mention of the recalculation of a $31,000 figure. The communication between Concord and FHFC soon revealed the discrepancy between the employment verification form prepared by Quest Diagnostics and the form that was altered by Ms. Reyes. Ms. Reyes was asked for an explanation of the discrepancy on December 9, 2005, which she then put in writing. On that same day, Ms. Reyes was fired by Concord for altering the employment verification form. Regatta Bay then voluntarily dismissed its eviction action against Petitioner in the circuit court. Petitioner claims that Jessica Reyes and Christine Lombardi were motivated by racial discrimination to prevent Petitioner from renting an apartment at Regatta Bay. Petitioner claims that racial discrimination was the motive for Ms. Reyes putting the figure of $17,144 on the employment verification form and the motivation for Ms. Lombardi to continue to demand that Petitioner move out despite having sufficient information to know that Petitioner qualified for housing at Regatta Bay. Petitioner raised several questions about the timing of and reason for certain events that occurred, which were never fully answered by the evidence presented by the parties. For example, why was Petitioner allowed to move in before the compliance review? Why wasn't the issue of Petitioner's income simply resolved by getting more information from the human resources representative at Quest Diagnostics? Did Ms. Reyes or Ms. Lombardi ever explain to Petitioner exactly how they determined that she made too much income? Why didn't Ms. Reyes or Ms. Lombardi tell Ms. Robuck about the recalculation of a $31,000 figure when Ms. Robuck was making her internal investigation? Unanswered questions, however, are not a sufficient basis to prove housing discrimination. Petitioner failed to establish that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race. No evidence was presented by Petitioner on her claims that Respondent discriminated against her because of her dark skin color or her familial status as a single mother. Mistreatment, even if proven, may have other motivations than discrimination. In this case, all that was proven by Petitioner was a fact never contested by Concord, that Ms. Reyes improperly altered the employment verification form. Petitioner did not prove that Ms. Reyes was motivated by discrimination. The evidence suggests that Ms. Reyes and Ms. Lombardi were inept at explaining to Petitioner how it was determined that her income was too high, but Petitioner's demeanor and testimony at the final hearing indicate that she was probably partly responsible for the poor communication between them on that subject. Petitioner remained a tenant at Regatta Bay until she voluntarily moved out in July 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Sharon Harper Ivey be dismissed from the case; and The Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2007.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits in Miami-Dade County through Request for Applications 2013-003 to HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd., is contrary to governing statutes, the corporation’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Overview FHFC is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, FHFC is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to housing developers in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Developers then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax credit property can offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of 10 years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. These are tax credits and 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. However, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Developers that are awarded tax credits can use them directly. However, most sell them to raise equity capital for their projects.2/ Developers sell these credits for up-front cash. A developer typically sets up a limited partnership or limited liability company to own the apartment complex. The developer maintains a small interest but is responsible for building the project and managing (or arranging for the management) of the project. The investors have the largest ownership interest but are typically passive investors with regard to development and management.3/ Because the tax credits can be used by the investors that provide the equity for 10 years, they are very valuable. When sold to the investors, they provide equity which reduces the debt associated with the project. With lower debt, the affordable housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rent. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply. FHFC has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule chapter 67-60, to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 was newly enacted on August 20, 2013. It replaced prior procedures used by FHFC for the competitive process for allocating tax credits. FHFC has now adopted the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, as its process for allocating tax credits.4/ The Competitive Application Process Tax credits are made available annually. FHFC begins the competitive application process through the issuance of a Request for Applications.5/ In this case, that document is Request for Applications 2013-003. A copy of the RFA, including its Questions & Answers, is Joint Exhibit 1. The RFA was issued September 19, 2013 and responses were due November 12, 2013. According to the RFA, FHFC expected to award up to approximately $10,052,825 in tax credits for qualified affordable housing projects in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Knowing that there would be far more applications than available credits, FHFC established an order for funding in the three counties: The Applications will be considered for funding in the following funding order: first the highest scoring eligible Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Broward County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Palm Beach County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test and then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Broward County regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this last Broward County Application, the Application will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. No further Applications will be considered for funding and any remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. RFA at page 36. Applications were scored using a 27-point scale based on criteria in the RFA. RFA at page 37. This process was described in the RFA as follows: The highest scoring Applications will be determined by first sorting all eligible Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated first by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.c.(1)(a) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.9.e. of the RFA, (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications to [sic] do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application’s Leveraging Classification (applying the multipliers outlined in Exhibit C below and having the Classification of A be the top priority), then by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Preference which is outlined in Exhibit C below (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), and then by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. RFA at page 36 (emphasis added). The way this process works in reality is that the developers know that they must first submit a project that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors.6/ Developers also strive to submit projects structured to receive all 27 points. The tiebreaker is then the luck-of-the-draw. At the time each application is filed, it is randomly assigned a lottery number7/ used to break the ties. The role of the lottery numbers is demonstrated by the following facts. One hundred and nineteen applications were filed in response to the RFA. All but six received the maximum score of 27 points. Seventy of the 119 were deemed eligible. Of those 70, 69 received the maximum score of 27 points. A copy of the RFA Sorting Order is Joint Exhibit 2.8/ As such, the lottery numbers are a big factor in deciding the winners and, concomitantly, the challengers are (1) the projects with high lottery numbers that were deemed ineligible; and (2) those with lottery numbers outside the funding range that are trying to displace those with lower lottery numbers. A copy of the final Review Committee Recommendations is Joint Exhibit 3. This document shows the developers selected, the county and the lottery number. The two Miami-Dade projects selected for funding are: HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC d/b/a Wagner Creek - lottery number 3 Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd. - lottery number 6 The Petitioners/Intervenors in these consolidated proceedings are: Town Center Phase Two, LLC - lottery number 7 Pinnacle Rio, LLC - lottery number 9 APC Four Forty Four, Ltd. - deemed ineligible and with a lottery number of 10 The protests here center upon whether various applicants were correctly deemed eligible or ineligible. Applications are competitively reviewed, and so determinations as to one applicant affect other applicants’ positions. Each application, and the allegations against it, will be considered in turn. HTG’s Application APC argues that HTG should be found ineligible for allocation of tax credits because HTG failed to disclose its principals and those of its developer, as required by the RFA. The RFA at Section Four A.2.d. provides, in part, that each applicant will submit an application that identifies: d. Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer. All Applicants must provide a list, as Attachment 3 to Exhibit A, identifying the Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer, as follows: * * * (2) For a Limited Liability Company, provide a list identifying the following: (i) the Principals of the Applicant as of the Application Deadline and (ii) the Principals for each Developer as of the Application Deadline. This list must include warrant holders and/or option holders of the proposed Development. * * * This eligibility requirement may be met by providing a copy of the list of Principals that was reviewed and approved by the Corporation during the advance-review process. To assist the Applicant in compiling the listing, the Corporation has included additional information at Item 3 of Exhibit C. RFA at page 5. The RFA goes on to provide in Exhibit C 3.: 3. Principal Disclosures for Applicants and Each Developer The Corporation is providing the following charts and examples to assist the Applicant in providing the required list identifying the Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer. The term Principals is defined in Section 67-48.002, F.A.C. a. Charts: (1) For the Applicant: * * * (b) If the Applicant is a Limited Liability Company: Identify All Managers and Identify All Members and For each Manager that is a Limited Partnership: For each Manager that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Manager that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder and For each Member that is a Limited Partnership: For each Member that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Member that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder For any Manager and/or Member that is a natural person (i.e., Samuel S. Smith), no further disclosure is required. RFA at page 61. The RFA at Section Three F.3. Provides: 3. Requirements. Proposed Developments funded with Housing Credits will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the credit underwriting and HC Program requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. RFA at page 3. The term “principal” is defined by rule 67-48.002(89)9/, as follows: (89) “Principal” means: (a) Any general partner of an Applicant or Developer, any limited partner of an Applicant or Developer, any manager or member of an Applicant or Developer, any officer, director or shareholder of an Applicant or Developer, * * * (c) Any officer, director, shareholder, manager, member, general partner or limited partner of any manager or member of an Applicant or Developer, and . . . . HTG received an “advance review” approval of its designation of principals on October 8, 2013. HTG submitted this stamped and approved list of principals with its application. Applicant HTG is a limited liability company, as is its developer, HTG Miami-Dade 5 Developer, LLC. In its submission of principals, HTG disclosed the names of the manager and member of the applicant and the manager and member of the developer, all of which were also LLCs. HTG also disclosed the names of the managers and members of these component LLCs. HTG did not disclose any officers of the applicant, the developer, or any of the component LLCs. Other documents submitted as part of the application indicate that Mr. Matthew Rieger is a Vice President of the applicant, HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and that the component LLCs also have officers. APC contends that the rule’s definition of principal requires HTG to disclose not only the managers and members of the applicant and developer, and those of their component LLCs, but also the officers of any of these entities, if they also have officers. FHFC asserts that such disclosure is not required, arguing that the term “officer” as found in the rule’s definition of “principal” only applies to corporations. FHFC argues that there is no inconsistency between the rule and the charts of the RFA with respect to disclosure of principals. FHFC contends that the charts in the RFA, read in conjunction with the rule, indicate that officers must be disclosed only when the entity is a corporation, and that members and managers must be disclosed when the entity is a LLC. FHFC interprets rule 67-48.002(89) in a manner consistent with the charts. It does not interpret the rule to require that an LLC disclose its officers, even if it has them, but only that an LLC disclose its managers and members. Both Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Thorp testified to that effect. The examples provided in the RFA are also consistent with this interpretation. The rule certainly might have been drafted with more precision to expressly indicate that a principal is any officer, director, or shareholder if the entity is a corporation; any manager or member if the entity is an LLC; and any general partner or limited partner if the entity is a Limited Partnership. It cannot be said, however, that the Corporation’s interpretation of the RFA and its rule is impermissible. ATA’s Application Mr. Kenneth Reecy, Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that FHFC revised the “Universal Application Cycle” process that had been conducted in the past. Under the old universal cycle, most of the criteria were incorporated into the rule, and then there was a “cure” process that provided an opportunity to correct errors that didn’t necessarily have a bearing on whether a project was good enough to be funded. Under the newer process, several issues were moved out of the eligibility and scoring phase and into the credit underwriting phase.10/ Specifically relevant here, site plan issues and the availability of infrastructure, such as sewer service, were no longer examined as part of the eligibility and scoring phase set forth in the RFA. Mr. Reecy testified that these issues were complex and had been intentionally pushed to the “rigorous review” that takes place during the credit underwriting phase. In signing and submitting Exhibit A of the RFA, each applicant acknowledges and certifies that certain information will be provided to FHFC by various dates in the future. RFA at page 46. Section Four 10.b.(2)(b) provides in part that the following will be provided: Within 21 Calendar Days of the date of the invitation to enter credit underwriting: Certification of the status of site plan approval as of Application Deadline and certification that as of Application Deadline the site is appropriately zoned for the proposed Development, as outlined in Item 13 of Exhibit C of the RFA; Certification confirming the availability of the following for the entire Development site, including confirmation that these items were in place as of the Application Deadline: electricity, water, sewer service, and roads for the proposed Development, as outlined in Item 13 of Exhibit C of the RFA; Item 13 of Exhibit C goes on to provide: 13. Certification of Ability to Proceed: Within 21 Calendar Days of the date of the invitation to enter credit underwriting, the following information must be provided to the Corporation: a. Submission of the completed and executed 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan approval for Multifamily Developments form. * * * c. Evidence from the Local Government or service provider, as applicable, of the availability of infrastructure as of Application Deadline, as follows: * * * Sewer: Submission of the completed and executed 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure — Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form or a letter from the service provider which is dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline, is Development specific, and specifically states that sewer service is available to the proposed Development as of the Application Deadline. The 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments Form (Site Plan Approval Form) and the 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure — Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank Form (Certification of Sewer Capacity Form) are incorporated by reference in the RFA. The Site Plan Approval Form requires (in the case of Miami-Dade County which does not have a preliminary or conceptual site plan approval process) that the local government confirm that the site plan was reviewed as of the application deadline. Pinnacle and APC assert that the site plan that ATA submitted to the City of Miami for review included a strip of land that is not legally owned by the current owner and will not be conveyed to ATA under the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As a result, they contend, the site plan review which was required on or before the application deadline did not occur. Pinnacle argues that ATA’s certification in its application was incorrect, that this was a mandatory requirement that was not met, and that it will be impossible for ATA to provide the Site Plan Approval Form in credit underwriting. TC similarly maintains that ATA could not “acknowledge and certify” as part of its application that it would later certify that it had “ability to proceed” because the RFA (at Section Four 10.b.(2)(b) quoted above) requires that “sewer service” be “in place” for ATA’s proposed development as of the application deadline. TC also asserts that the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form explicitly states (and that any service provider letter must, too) that no moratorium is applicable to a proposed development. ATA did not submit a Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. Miami-Dade County will not complete such forms. The “letter of availability” option was created to accommodate Miami-Dade County. The November 12, 2013, letter from Miami-Dade Water and Sewer regarding ATA’s development does not state that there is no applicable moratorium in effect. In fact, the letter affirmatively acknowledges that flow to the gravity system already connected to the property cannot be increased because there is a moratorium in effect as to the pumping station serving the abutting gravity sewer basin. The letter from the County states that, if the pumping station is still in Moratorium Status “at the time this project is ready for construction,” that a private pump station is acceptable. It is logical to conclude that this means sewer service would be available at that time and that sewer service was similarly available at the time of application deadline. The letter, therefore, implies, but does not specifically state, that “sewer service is available to the proposed development as of the application deadline.” The moratorium in effect at the application deadline was not a “general” moratorium. It applied only to the pump station serving the abutting gravity sewer basin, but it was applicable to the proposed development and precluded any increase in the flow to the gravity system connected to the property. A moratorium pertaining to sewer service applicable to ATA’s proposed development was in effect at the time that ATA’s application was submitted. Sewer capacity was otherwise available for the proposed development through use of a private pump station. ATA asserts, first, that ATA has not yet filed certification of ability to proceed or the required forms or letter, that it is not to do so until after it is invited to enter credit underwriting, that FHFC has consequently yet to make a determination as to ATA’s ability to proceed, and that therefore any issues as to site plan or sewer service are not yet ripe for consideration. As to the site plan, ATA further maintains that even if it had been required to provide evidence of ability to proceed as part of its application, the site plan submitted to the City of Miami did not represent that the alley was part of the ATA site. ATA, therefore, asserts that the site plan that was reviewed was the correct one, and that its application certification was correct. The plan of the site of ATA’s development project indicates that the site is bifurcated by a private alley, which is not dedicated as a street, avenue, or boulevard. The legal description of the development project, as submitted to the Department of Planning and Zoning of the City of Miami, included lots 2 through 7 and lots 19 and 20. It did not include the strip of land that lies between these lots (lots 2 through 7 lie to the West of the alley and lots 19 and 20 lie to the East of it.) As to sewer availability, ATA asserts that the 2011 Universal Cycle and the RFA are significantly different. ATA maintains that while the former provided that the existence of a moratorium pertaining to sewer service meant that infrastructure was unavailable, this language was removed from the RFA. ATA contends that a letter of availability need not “mimic” the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form and that the RFA allows a development to certify sewer availability by other means when a moratorium is in effect. Mr. Reecy testified that FHFC takes the certified application at face value, regardless of what other information the Corporation might have at hand. As to the site plan, he testified that even had site plan approval been a part of the scoring process, FHFC would not have found ATA’s application ineligible on that ground. He testified that the alley would not be a problem unless it was a “road” or something similar. He testified that it also could have been a problem if the measurement point to measure the distance to nearby amenities was not on the property, but he was not aware that that was the case in ATA’s application. As for sewer service, Mr. Reecy testified that a letter from the service provider does not have to say “exactly” what is on the form, but stated that it does have to give “the relevant information” to let FHFC know if sewer is “possible.” He testified that the only guidance as to what constituted sewer “availability” was contained in the criteria found on the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. One of the four numbered requirements on the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form is that there are no moratoriums pertaining to sewer service that are applicable to the proposed development. Under the RFA, the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form could not be completed for a proposed development for which a moratorium pertaining to sewer service was in effect at the time the application was submitted. The form could not be certified by the service provider even if it was possible for such a development to obtain sewer service by other means. The text on the 2013 form is substantively identical to that on the form used during the 2011 Universal Cycle, that wording was specifically drafted to require that any moratorium on sewer infrastructure would be a disqualifying criterion, and the 2013 Certification of Sewer Capacity Form still has that effect. No challenge to the use of the form in the RFA was filed. Even though the language of the 2011 Universal Cycle which paralleled the text on the form does not appear in the RFA, that criterion remains as part of the RFA because of the incorporated Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. In any event, the site plan and sewer availability issues must await at least initial resolution by FHFC during the credit underwriting phase. The testimony of Mr. Reecy clearly indicated that FHFC interprets the RFA specifications and its rules to move consideration of site plan issues and infrastructure availability to the credit underwriting phase. It has not been shown that this is an impermissible interpretation. Town Center’s Application Pinnacle alleges that TC’s application fails to demonstrate site control, because the applicant, Town Center Phase Two, LLC, is not the buyer of the site it intends to develop. The RFA requires at Section Four A.7. that an applicant must provide a copy of a contract, deed, or lease to demonstrate site control: 7. Site Control: The Applicant must demonstrate site control by providing, as Attachment 7 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. a. Eligible Contract - For purposes of the RFA . . . the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer's rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided . . . . RFA at page 23. The Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property submitted as Attachment 7 to TC’s application is signed by Mr. Milo, who is identified as Vice President. The Buyer on the signature page is incorrectly listed as RUDG, LLC. No other assignment, intermediate contract, agreement, option, or conveyance was included with TC’s application to indicate that TC otherwise had site control of the property. The applicant entity, Town Center Phase Two, LLC, is correctly listed in the opening paragraph of the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property as the “Buyer.” RUDG, LLC, is the 99.99 percent Member of Town Center Phase Two, LLC, and is also the sole Member and Manager of Town Center Phase Two Manager, LLC, which is the .01 percent Managing Member of Town Center Phase Two, LLC. Mr. Milo is a Vice President of RUDG, LLC, a Vice President of Town Center Phase Two Manager, LLC, and a Vice President of the applicant, Town Center Phase Two, LLC. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.008, provides that the Corporation may waive minor irregularities in an otherwise valid application. The term “Minor Irregularity” is defined by rule 67- 60.002(6), as follows: (6) “Minor Irregularity” means a variation in a term or condition of an Application pursuant to this rule chapter that does not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants, and does not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Mr. Reecy testified that FHFC interpreted the rule to mean that if information requested by the RFA is reasonably available within the Application, even if it was not provided exactly in the place where it was requested, the failure to have it in the particular place it was requested is a minor irregularity. Although the information on the signature page of the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property identifying the Buyer as RUDG, LLC, was a discrepancy in the application, the contract elsewhere identified Town Center Phase Two, LLC, as the Buyer, and Mr. Milo was, in fact, authorized to sign for the true Buyer. Ms. Amy Garmon’s deposition testimony indicated that because she was able to determine from other places in the application that the Buyer was the applicant, and that Mr. Milo was authorized to sign for the Buyer, she found this portion of TC’s application to be compliant, and she didn’t see that there was a “minor irregularity” that needed to be waived. However, it is determined that FHFC actually did finally determine that the error in identification constituted a minor irregularity that was waived, in accordance with Mr. Reecy’s testimony. Although it was Ms. Garmon who called attention to the irregularity, Mr. Reecy is in a position of higher authority within the FHFC and is better able to address the Corporation’s actions with respect to TC’s application. Pinnacle also asserts that TC’s finance documents fail, based upon the same signature issue. TC submitted equity proposals detailing its construction funding sources that were addressed to Mr. Milo and endorsed by him as “Vice President.” FHFC similarly concluded that Mr. Milo had authority to endorse the finance letters on behalf of TC. There is evidence to support FHFC’s findings that TC was the actual Buyer, that Mr. Milo had authority to sign the contract and the equity documents, and that the discrepancies in the documents were minor irregularities. Pinnacle’s Application The equity commitment letter from Wells Fargo Bank regarding Pinnacle’s development, as submitted to FHFC, contained only pages numbered one, two, and four of a four-page letter. It is clear that page three is actually missing and the letter was not simply incorrectly numbered, because of discontinuity in the text and in the numbering of portions of the letter. APC contends that Pinnacle’s application should have been deemed ineligible for award because of the missing page. Mr. Reecy testified that even though a page of Pinnacle’s equity commitment letter was missing, all of the RFA requirements were set forth in the remaining pages. He acknowledged that the missing page might have included unacceptable conditions for closing or information that was inconsistent with the other things in the application, but stated that FHFC determined that the missing page from Pinnacle’s equity letter was a minor irregularity. There is evidence to support FHFC’s finding that the missing page was a minor irregularity. APC’s Application The RFA provides at Section Four, A.3.c., at page 5: c. Experienced Developer(s) At least one Principal of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Developer Experience requirements in (1) and (2) below. (1) General Developer Experience: A Principal of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1991, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2001. At least one (1) of the three (3) completed developments must consist of a total number of units no less than 50 percent of the total number of units in the proposed Development. For purposes of this provision, completed for each of the three (3) developments means (i) that the temporary or final certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least one (1) unit in one of the residential apartment buildings within the development, or (ii) that at least one (1) IRS Form 8609 has been issued for one of the residential apartment buildings within the development. As used in this section, an affordable rental housing development, including a Housing Credit development that contains multiple buildings, is a single development regardless of the number of buildings within the development for which an IRS Form 8609 has been issued. If the experience of a Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity. (2) Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each 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. Each prior experience chart must include the following information: Prior General Development Experience Chart Name of Principal with the Required Experience Name of Developer Entity (for the proposed Development) for which the above Party is a Principal: ___ ___________ ___ Name of Development Location (City & State) Affordable Housing Program that Provided Financing Total Number Of Units Year Completed RFA at pages 5, 6. Exhibit A to the RFA, at 3.c., further provides: General Developer Experience For each experienced Developer entity, the Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4, a prior experience chart for at least one (1) experienced Principal of that entity. The prior experience chart for the Principal must reflect the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. RFA at page 41. Ms. O’Neill, a Senior Policy Analyst at FHFC and member of the Review Committee responsible for scoring the applications’ developer information section, testified at hearing. When FHFC first started scoring applications, Ms. O’Neill was not taking any action to confirm principal developer experience, but rather was taking the information provided by applicants at face value, as it had been submitted on the chart. A colleague of Ms. O’Neill’s, not serving on the Review Committee, called her attention to the fact that a development that was then going through credit underwriting (following an award during the 2011 funding cycle) had recently requested that FHFC approve a change to the developer entity. Ms. O’Neill testified that this request raised a question at FHFC as to whether Ms. Wong, listed by APC as the principal with the required experience, met the requirements. FHFC decided to confirm that Ms. Wong had the required experience for the developments listed in the RFA. Ms. O’Neill stated that she did not make any inquiry to Ms. Wong or to Atlantic Pacific Communities as to whether Ms. Wong was, in fact, a principal of St. Luke’s Development, LLC, developer of St. Luke’s Life Center, because “we’re not really supposed to do that.” Ms. O’Neill instead looked at portions of a credit underwriting report on the St. Luke’s Life Center project that were researched and shown to her by a colleague. Ms. O’Neill did not see Ms. Wong listed in that report as a principal. She did find information in FHFC files that Ms. Wong was a principal on the other two listed developments. Ms. Thorp testified that she researched several documents in FHFC’s possession and found no information indicating that Ms. Wong was a principal for the St. Luke’s development. She testified that Ms. Wong or another representative of APC was not contacted about the issue because that would have given them an unfair advantage over other applicants. Based upon the information in its files, FHFC determined that Ms. Wong did not meet the requirements for principal developer experience. FHFC then similarly reviewed the files of other applicants who had listed in-state developments as their experience, but was unable to review out-of-state experience, so out-of-state experience continued to be accepted at face value. Ms. Wong was not originally a principal in the St. Luke’s development. However, it was demonstrated at hearing through documentary evidence that Ms. Wong was later appointed an officer of St. Luke’s Development, LLC, effective March 2007. That change was submitted to the credit underwriter, and Ms. Wong was a principal for the developer entity before it completed credit underwriting. Both Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Thorp testified that if the documents provided at hearing by APC had been in FHFC’s possession at the time APC’s application was scored, FHFC would have found that Ms. Wong was a principal of the St. Luke’s development and that her experience met principal developer experience requirements. In light of the evidence presented at hearing, it is clear that FHFC’s conclusion was wrong. The prior experience chart submitted by APC as part of its application provided all of the information requested by the RFA, and all of that information was accurate. The information available to FHFC in the application correctly indicated that Ms. Wong was a principle for the developer of the St. Luke’s Life Center development. APC’s application met all requirements of the RFA with respect to prior developer experience. The Corporation’s preliminary determinations that Ms. Wong was not a principal in the St. Luke’s development, and that the APC application did not, therefore, meet principal experience requirements to the contrary, made in good faith based upon incomplete information contained in its files, was clearly erroneous. FHFC’s contention that APC should have submitted explanations or further documentation of Ms. Wong’s developer experience at the time it submitted its application is untenable. APC submitted all of information requested of it. FHFC asked for a chart to be completed, which APC did, completely and accurately. An applicant cannot be found ineligible for failing to do more than was required by the RFA. Credit Underwriting A comparison of the RFA and rules with the 2011 Universal Cycle process shows that the Corporation has moved many requirements formerly required as part of the eligibility and scoring phase into a second review in the credit underwriting phase, as noted earlier. Rule 67-48.0072 provides in part: 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, including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for Housing Credits. The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team’s experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. The rule goes on to provide that this de novo review in the credit underwriting phase includes not only economic feasibility, but other factors statutorily required for allocation of tax credits, such as evidence of need for affordable housing and ability to proceed. These factors might cause an application to fail and never receive funding, even though it was nominally “awarded” the credits earlier. In that event, the RFA provides: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed to the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in the same county as the Development that returned the funding regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this Application, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If an applicant nominally “awarded” funding in the eligibility and scoring phase fails credit underwriting, the next applicant in the queue of eligible applicants may still be granted funding, and so, is substantially affected by FHFC’s decisions in the credit underwriting phase.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order finding that APC Four Forty Four, Ltd., is eligible for funding, adjusting the Sorting Order accordingly, and otherwise dismissing the formal written protests of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 4th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to competition by deeming the applications of Joe Moretti Phase Three, LLC. (“Moretti Phase Three”) and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three, LLC. (“Stirrup Plaza Phase Three”) ineligible for Request for Applications 2016-114, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County (“RFA 2016-114”).
Findings Of Fact Facts Regarding Florida Housing and Affordable Housing Tax Credits Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes.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. Accordingly, Florida Housing 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. 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 reduces the amount of capital that developers have to borrow. 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. Accordingly, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocates its tax credits, which are made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. In their applications for tax credits, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be supplied each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants will normally sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. Tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications (“RFA”). An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4)(providing that “[f]or purposes of Section 120.57(3), F.S., any competitive solicitation issued under this rule chapter shall be considered a ‘request for proposal.’”). “Applicants not selected for funding under any competitive solicitation issued pursuant to [Chapter 67-60, F.A.C.] 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.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(2). Facts Specific to RFA 2016-114 RFA 2016-114 describes its purpose as follows: This Request for Applications (RFA) is open to Applicants proposing the development of affordable, multifamily housing located in Miami-Dade County. Under this RFA, Florida Housing Financing Corporation (the Corporation) expects to have up to an estimated $5,682,725 of Housing Credits available for award to proposed Developments located in Miami-Dade County. The Corporation is soliciting applications from qualified Applicants that commit to provide housing in accordance with the terms and conditions of this RFA, inclusive of Exhibits A, B, C, an D, applicable laws, rules and regulations, and the Corporation’s generally applicable construction and financial standards. Florida Housing’s Board of Directors approved the issuance of RFA 2016-114 on June 24, 2016. Prior to the issuance of RFA 2016-114, Florida Housing conducted a public workshop on August 25, 2016. A draft version of RFA 2016-114 was posted on Florida Housing’s website on September 15, 2016. The final version of RFA 2016-114 was issued on October 28, 2016, and applications were due by 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time on December 15, 2016. There were no challenges to the terms of RFA 2016- 114 after it was issued. A provision within RFA 2016-114 stated that “[a]pplicants should review subsection 67-48.023(1), F.A.C., to determine eligibility to apply for the Housing Credits offered in this RFA.” The aforementioned rule provides in pertinent part that an applicant is ineligible to apply for competitive housing credits if [t]he proposed Development site or any part thereof is subject to any Land Use Restriction Agreement or Extended Use Agreement, or both, in conjunction with any Corporation affordable housing finance intended to foster the development or maintenance of affordable housing ” (emphasis added). An Extended Use Agreement (“EUA”) is an agreement between an applicant seeking tax credits and Florida Housing. An EUA runs with a particular piece of property and is meant to assure that the property is devoted to affordable housing. In addition, Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(44) defines an “EUA” in the context of this tax credit program as “an agreement which sets forth the set aside requirements and other Development requirements under the housing credit program.” Set aside requirements reflect how much of the development is set aside for low-income tenants. An applicant can seek to have an EUA amended by filing a request with Florida Housing. The request would begin with a staff member of Florida Housing, move to Florida Housing’s assistant director of multifamily programs, and then to the director of multifamily programs for an ultimate decision. The process by which an EUA is amended is not set forth in a rule or policy manual. There is no established time by which Florida Housing must act on a request to amend an EUA. There is no typical time by which Florida Housing grants or denies a request to amend an EUA. Also, there is nothing requiring Florida Housing to expedite a decision on whether to grant or deny a request to amend an EUA. Florida Housing received 25 applications in response to RFA 2016-114. Florida Housing received, processed, evaluated, scored, and ranked each of the applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2016-114, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. The Executive Director of Florida Housing, Ken Reecy, appointed a Review Committee of Florida Housing staff to conduct the aforementioned evaluation, scoring, and ranking. Florida Housing only considered an application for funding if it was deemed “eligible” based on whether that application complied with Florida Housing’s various content requirements. Of the 25 applications submitted, Florida Housing deemed 19 to be “eligible,” and six were deemed “ineligible.” Florida Housing proposed to award funding to three developments: Ambar Key, Verbena, and Northside Property IV, Ltd. As discussed below, Florida Housing deemed the Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three applications to be ineligible because the properties associated with those applications were still subject to EUAs at the December 15, 2016, deadline for RFA 2016-114. Facts Regarding Moretti Phase Three’s and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three’s Applications Moretti Phase Three submitted an application seeking $2,400,000 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of a 103-unit development. Stirrup Plaza Phase Three submitted an application seeking $1,950,000 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of an 85-unit development. The Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three applications represent subsequent phases of existing developments, and both of those developments are devoted to affordable housing. All of the land associated with both developments had been subject to EUAs since 2015. Because Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three wanted to obtain tax credit financing, they needed to have those EUAs amended.2/ Anthony Del Pozzo is the vice president for Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three. Mr. Del Pozzo focuses much of his attention on affordable housing and has assisted with the preparation of 30 to 50 tax credit applications to Florida Housing. After RFA 2016-114 was issued, Mr. Del Pozzo contacted Florida Housing via telephone calls and e-mails in order to ascertain the process by which the EUAs could be amended. Mr. Del Pozzo’s initial e-mail to Florida Housing regarding amending the EUAs was transmitted on November 1, 2016, and stated the following: Libby, I will be sending this request to you, Amy and Lisa to modify the EUA’s for our Joe Moretti (first phase) and Stirrup Plaza (first phase) properties, both of which are 9% deals. I will also have to modify the EUA for our Seville Place deal, which was financed with bonds and 4% credits. Will that one also go to the same people or should I reach out to Bill Cobb or someone else?? Thanks!! Mr. Del Pozzo’s initial e-mail was acknowledged by an Florida Housing employee (Libby O’Neil) later that day. On November 2, 2016, Mr. Del Pozzo transmitted an e-mail to Amy Garmon, Libby O’Neil, and Lisa Nickerson of Florida Housing formally requesting to amend the Moretti Phase Three EUA: Please accept this e-mail as our formal request to modify the legal description of the EUA for Joe Moretti Preservation Phase One, LLC. Attached please find a copy of the recorded EUA, a sketch with Phase I modified legal description and a site plan showing the entire site and the portion where the Phase One building is located (cross-hatched). As you can see from the sketch we are modifying the legal description to include only the portion of the property where the building is located. We will be submitting a portion of the remainder of the property for 9% tax credits in the 2016 RFA.[3/] (emphasis added). Lisa Nickerson is a multifamily programs manager at Florida Housing, and one of her duties involves working with developers seeking EUA amendments. Ms. Nickerson completed the initial processing of all EUA Amendment requests at all times relevant to the instant case. However, Ms. Nickerson was not responsible for approving EUA amendments. On November 3, 2016, Ms. Nickerson responded to Mr. Del Pozzo’s November 2, 2016, e-mail with the following e- mail: We are happy to assist. Because this is a change to the legal description, we will treat it as a site change. Before we can amend the EUA we need the following, as outlined in the carryover agreement: $500 processing fee Affidavit from a Florida licensed surveyor certifying that the tie-breaker measurement point has not moved and that the change in the development site has not affected any zoning requirements. If the tie-breaker measurement point has moved from the location provided in the application, the change in location cannot affect the score and a new surveyor certification form is required. Upon receipt of the above items, we will process [an] amendment to the EUA. On November 8, 2016, Mr. Del Pozzo sent Ms. Nickerson an e-mail stating that he has a “PDF copy of the Survey Affidavit.” Mr. Del Pozzo then asked if he needed the surveyor to send him “an original for my package to FHFC??” Ms. Nickerson responded three minutes later by stating that Florida Housing “can use the PDF to start drafting the amendment, but we will need the original for the file.” On November 9, 2015, Ms. Nickerson sent an e-mail to Mr. Del Pozzo stating that she had reviewed the affidavit and found that application number was incorrect. She gave Mr. Del Pozzo the correct application number, asked him to make that change, and resend the affidavit. In another e-mail transmitted to Mr. Del Pozzo on November 9, 2016, Ms. Nickerson also asked him to send an updated legal description. At 6:52 p.m. on November 9, 2016, Mr. Del Pozzo transmitted an e-mail asking Ms. Nickerson to confirm “if this revised affidavit is acceptable. As requested, I’ve also attached a copy of the legal description. Thanks again for all your help.” At 10:04 a.m. on November 10, 2016, Mr. Nickerson responded with an e-mail stating, “This looks good. As soon as I receive the originals and the $500 fee I will send the amended EUA for you to sign.” On November 10, 2016, Mr. Del Pozzo transmitted an e-mail notifying Ms. Nickerson that he “will be submitting a similar modification request for Stirrup Plaza Preservation Phase One, LLC.” Accordingly, Ms. Nickerson received later that day a draft affidavit, a copy of the legal description of the property associated with the Stirrup Plaza Phase Three property, and a survey identifying the two parcels that were being carved out. However, on November 14, 2016, Mr. Del Pozzo sent Ms. Nickerson an e-mail stating that “[w]e will be making some additional revisions to the legal description for Stirrup Plaza. Please hold off on the request to modify the EUA on that one until I confirm the correct legal description. I apologize for the inconvenience.” By November 14, 2016, Florida Housing had received an explanation letter, a $500 fee, an affidavit, and a new legal description for the Moretti Phase Three EUA amendment. Florida Housing cashed a $500 check pertaining to the Moretti Phase Three application on approximately November 14, 2016. As a result, the request to amend the Moretti Phase Three EUA was transferred to Ken Reecy on November 29, 2016, for final approval. Ken Reecy is Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs and is generally responsible for the program that allocates tax credits in order to finance affordable housing. In addition, Mr. Reecy is the person ultimately responsible for determining whether a request to amend an EUA will be approved. Upon receiving the paperwork associated with the request to amend the Moretti Phase Three EUA, Mr. Reecy noticed that it was seeking to release an unusually large amount of land. That was a concern for Mr. Reecy because releasing that land from the EUA’s restrictions would enable it to become a “market rate development that could be worth . . . millions of dollars.” In contrast, Florida Housing wants land to remain affordable in the future and thus takes a very conservative approach toward releasing land under restrictions. Due to his concern regarding the amount of land in question and because he was very busy with other work, Mr. Reecy put the Moretti Phase Three EUA amendment aside. At this point in time, Mr. Reecy was unaware that the Moretti Phase Three EUA had to be amended prior to the December 15, 2016, deadline for RFA 2016-114. On December 1, 2016, Ms. Nickerson transmitted an e-mail to Mr. Del Pozzo regarding the Moretti Phase Three amendment stating that, “I received your voicemail. I am waiting for the site change approval to come back to me. Once I have it, I will email a copy of the EUA amendment with instructions. I am hopeful you will have it early next week, if not before.” While all of the required documentation for the Moretti Phase Three EUA amendment was received by November 14, 2016, Florida Housing did not receive the explanation letter or the affidavit pertaining to the Stirrup Plaza Phase Three EUA until December 5, 2016. After receiving the affidavit pertaining to the Stirrup Plaza Phase Three EUA, Ms. Nickerson sent Mr. Del Pozzo an e-mail on December 5, 2016, stating, “Thank you, Tony. I will get this underway, this week.” Mr. Reecy received the paperwork for the Stirrup Plaza Phase Three EUA amendment on approximately December 7, 2016. However, he was unaware that this amendment was necessary in order for Stirrup Plaza Phase Three to apply for RFA 2016-114. As the December 15, 2016, deadline for the RFA 2016- 114 applications drew near, Florida Housing had yet to approve Moretti Phase Three’s and Stirrup Plaza Plaza Phase Three’s requests to amend their EUAs. Accordingly, Mr. Del Pozzo wrote the following e-mail to Ms. Nickerson on Monday, December 12, 2016, at 1:54 p.m.: I left a voicemail message for Ken [Reecy] this morning, asking him to follow up with me if he had any questions or needed any additional information to sign-off on the modifications to the EUAs. I also wanted to make sure he was aware that we are modifying the EUA’s so that we can submit new phases to the projects in this year’s 9% LIHTC RFA for Miami-Dade County. Applications are due on 12/15. So, we would greatly appreciate it if he could sign off on the modifications in advance of the application deadline. I will take scanned copies whenever they are ready. This was the first time that Mr. Del Pozzo had communicated to Florida Housing staff that there was any sort of time constraint associated with the requests to amend the Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three EUAs. On Tuesday, December 13, 2016, at 11:50 a.m., Mr. Del Pozzo sent the following e-mail to Mr. Reecy and Ms. Nickerson: I know that you are both extremely busy, so I’m sorry for being so persistent. As I mentioned to Lisa over the phone and indicated in my e-mail below, we will be submitting new phases of the Joe Moretti and Stirrup Plaza projects for funding in RFA #2016-114 for Miami-Dade County. As such, we have been working with Lisa for the past several weeks to ensure that we have submitted all of the information necessary to modify the Extended Use Agreements for the initial phases of these properties. We are removing the portion of the land that will be part of the new phases from the legal descriptions in the EUAs. Based on our latest discussions, I believe everything is in order and we are only awaiting final sign-off. If you could please sign off on these modifications in advance of the RFA due date (12/15/16), we would greatly appreciate it. Please call me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thanks for all of your help. Four minutes later, Ms. Nickerson responded to the above e-mail by stating, “We are aware and your requests are currently under review. Thank you for your patience.” December 13, 2016, is the first day that Ms. Nickerson was aware that Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three were planning to file applications in response to RFA 2016-114. On Thursday, December 15, 2016, at 8:30 a.m., Albert Milo4/ sent the following e-mail to Ms. Nickerson and Mr. Reecy: Good morning, Lisa I hope you are doing well. Just wanted to follow up again on the EUA modifications for our two projects since today is the Application Deadline. Can you please let me know if FHFC has finalized it? Thanks for your assistance. Have a great day. Mr. Reecy responded at 9:01 a.m. with an e-mail asking Mr. Milo “what is the best number to call you right now?” Mr. Reecy wanted to confer with Mr. Milo because Florida Housing had no verification that the land associated with the Stirrup Plaza Phase Three project was under a declaration of trust (“DOT”). Without a DOT, Mr. Reecy was concerned that the land would not be used for affordable housing. In contrast, Florida Housing already had verification that the land associated with Moretti Phase Three was under a DOT. On December 15, 2016, prior to 11:00 a.m., Mr. Reecy advised a representative from Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three via a telephone call that he would approve Stirrup Plaza Phase Three’s EUA Amendment request if he could be provided with verification that the Stirrup Plaza Phase Three development site was subject to a DOT. During the same phone call, Mr. Reecy advised the representative that he did not believe that Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three would be eligible for funding under RFA 2016-114 because their proposed development locations would still be subject to EUAs at the application deadline. On December 15, 2016, at 9:55 a.m., Mr. Milo sent an e-mail to Mr. Reecy providing him with the copy of the Stirrup Plaza Phase Three DOT: Hi Ken as per our conversation here is a copy of the actual DOT for Stirrup Plaza Preservation Phase one. I have also requested a letter from PHCD confirming the same. As I mentioned this was a Preservation deal that consisted of the rehabilitation of 100 Public Housing units. Please let me know if you need anything else from us. Thanks for your assistance getting this finalized. We really appreciate it. Exactly one hour later, Mr. Milo sent the following e-mail to Mr. Reecy: Hi Ken just want to confirm our conversation this morning where you informed me that you had approved and signed off on the EUA modification for Joe Moretti Preservation Phase One. As it relates to Stirrup Plaza Preservation Phase One, we have sent you a copy of the DOT and a letter from PHCD confirming the DOT. Please let me know if you require any additional information from us to finalize your approval as you mentioned in our phone conversation. Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three filed applications for funding under RFA 2016-114 by the application deadline. As of the 11:00 a.m. application deadline, the Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three proposed developments were subject to existing EUAs. At 1:05 p.m. on December 15, 2016, Ms. Nickerson e-mailed the following information to Mr. Milo: Attached, please find the First Amendment to the EUAs for Joe Moretti Preservation Phase One and for Stirrup Plaza Preservation Phase One. The amendments reflect the changes to the legal descriptions found at Exhibit A. Please review and execute the amendments, and return to me with a check made payable to the appropriate county in which the agreements will be recorded. Standard recording fees are $10 for the first page and $8.50 for every page thereafter. However, please contact the appropriate county for confirmation of their fees and any form of payment restrictions. On December 15, 2016, at 2:37 p.m., Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three e-mailed Florida Housing PDF copies of the executed Amended EUAs and indicated the originals and recording fee checks were being sent via FEDEX the same day. Mr. Reecy received the signed amendments and then signed them himself on December 20, 2016. Mr. Reecy’s signature was the final step in the EUA amendment process other than the actual recording of the amended EUAs. The amended EUAs for Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three were recorded on February 6, 2017. Florida Housing scored the applications for RFA 2016- 114 on January 25, 2017. On February 3, 2017, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to three applicants, two of which were Ambar Key and Verbena. Florida Housing did not select the applications of Moretti Phase Three and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three for funding because those applications were deemed ineligible given that the proposed development sites were subject to EUAs at the time their applications were filed. Findings Regarding Florida Housing’s Treatment of the EUA Amendment Applications The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that no relevant personnel at Florida Housing knew about the time- sensitive nature of the requests to amend the EUAs before December 12, 2016. If Ms. Nickerson and/or Mr. Reecy had been advised of the time-sensitive nature within a reasonable time prior to December 15, 2016, the greater weight of the evidence indicates they would have made good faith efforts to expedite the process and that the EUAs would have likely been amended prior to the deadline. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that no one at Florida Housing did anything to delay the applications, to amend the EUAs, or anything to undermine Moretti Phase Three’s or Stirrup Plaza Phase Three’s applications for RFA 2016-114. In sum, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Florida Housing did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to competition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation issue a final order awarding funding to Ambar Key, Ltd.; Verbena, LLC; and Northside Property IV, Ltd. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2017, 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 9th day of June, 2017.
