The Issue The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“FHFC”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact FHFC and Affordable Housing Tax Credits FHFC is a public corporation that finances affordable housing in Florida by allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. See § 420.504(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that FHFC is “an entrepreneurial public corporation organized to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing and related facilities in this state.”); § 420.5099(2), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he corporation shall adopt allocation procedures that will ensure the maximum use of available tax credits in order to encourage development of low-income housing in the state, taking into consideration the timeliness of the application, the location of the proposed housing project, the relative need in the area for low-income housing and the availability of such housing, the economic feasibility of the project, and the ability of the applicant to proceed to completion of the project in the calendar year for which the credit is sought.”). The tax credits allocated by FHFC encourage investment in affordable housing and are awarded through competitive solicitations to developers of qualifying rental housing. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150. In contrast, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Not surprisingly, the demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. A successful applicant/developer normally sells the tax credits in order to raise capital for a housing development. That results in the developer being less reliant on debt financing. In exchange for the tax credits, a successful applicant/developer must offer affordable rents and covenant to keep those rents at affordable levels for 30 to 50 years. The Selection Process FHFC awards tax credits through competitive solicitations, and that process is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications (“RFA”). Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(2) provides that unsuccessful applicants for tax credits “may only protest the results of the competitive solicitation process pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 120.57(3), F.S., and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.” For purposes of section 120.57(3), an RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67.60.009(4), F.A.C. FHFC issued RFA 2015-111 on October 23, 2015, and responses from applicants were due on December 4, 2015. Through RFA 2015-111, FHFC seeks to award up to $5,901,631 of tax credits to qualified applicants that commit to preserve existing affordable multifamily housing developments for the demographic categories of “Families,” “the Elderly,” and “Persons with a Disability.” FHFC only considered an application eligible for funding from RFA 2015-111, if that particular application complied with certain content requirements. FHFC ranked all eligible applications pursuant to an “Application Sorting Order” set forth in RFA 2015-111. The first consideration was the applicants’ scores. Each application could potentially receive up to 23 points based on the developer’s experience and the proximity to services needed by the development’s tenants. Applicants demonstrating that their developments received funding from a U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Rural Development program known as RD 515 were entitled to a 3.0 point proximity score “boost.” That proximity score boost was important because RFA 2015-111 characterized counties as small, medium, or large. Applications associated with small counties had to achieve at least four proximity points to be considered eligible for funding. Applications associated with medium-sized counties and those associated with large counties had to achieve at least seven and 10.25 proximity points respectively in order to be considered eligible for funding. Because it is very common for several tax credit applicants in a particular RFA to receive identical scores, FHFC incorporated a series of “tie-breakers” into RFA 2015-111. The tie-breakers for RFA 2015-111, in order of applicability, were: First, by Age of Development, with developments built in 1985 or earlier receiving a preference over relatively newer developments. Second, if necessary, by a Rental Assistance (“RA”) preference. Applicants were to be assigned an RA level based on the percentage of units receiving rental assistance through either a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or USDA Rural Development program. Applicants with an RA level of 1, 2, or 3 (meaning at least 75 percent of the units received rental assistance) were to receive a preference. Third, by a Concrete Construction Funding Preference, with developments incorporating certain specified concrete or masonry structural elements receiving the preference. Fourth, by a Per Unit Construction Funding Preference, with applicants proposing at least $32,500 in Actual Construction Costs per unit receiving the preference. Fifth, by a Leveraging Classification favoring applicants requiring a lower amount in housing credits per unit than other applicants. Generally, the least expensive 80 percent of eligible applicants were to receive a preference over the most expensive 20 percent. Sixth, by an Applicant’s specific RA level, with Level 1 applicants receiving the most preference and Level 6 the least. Seventh, by a Florida Job Creation Preference, which estimated the number of jobs created per $1 million of housing credit equity investment the developments were to receive based on formulas contained in the RFA. Applicants achieving a Job Creation score of at least 4.0 were to receive the preference. Eighth, by lottery number, with the lowest (smallest) lottery number receiving the preference. Rental assistance from the USDA or HUD is provided to existing developments in order to make up for shortfalls in monthly rent paid by tenants. For example, if an apartment’s base rent is $500 per month and the tenant’s income limits him or her to paying only $250 towards rent, then the USDA or HUD rental assistance pays the other $250 so that the total rent received by the development is $500. As evident from the tie-breakers incorporated into RFA 2015-111, the amount of rental assistance, or “RA Level,” played a prominent role in distinguishing between RFA 2015-111 applicants having identical scores. RFA 2015-111 required that applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter containing the following information: (a) the development’s name; (b) the development’s address; (c) the year the development was built; (d) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC;/3 (e) the total number of units that would receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development were to be funded; (f) all HUD or RD financing program(s) originally and/or currently associated with the existing development; and (g) confirmation that the development had not received financing from HUD or RD after 1995 when the rehabilitation was at least $10,000 per unit in any year. In order to determine an applicant’s RA Level Classification, RFA 2015-111 further stated that Part of the criteria for a proposed Development that qualifies as a Limited Development Area (LDA) Development to be eligible for funding is based on meeting a minimum RA Level, as outlined in Section Four A.7.c of the RFA. The total number of units that will receive rental assistance (i.e., PBRA and/or ACC), as stated in the Development Category qualification letter provided as Attachment 7, will be considered to be the proposed Development’s RA units and will be the basis of the Applicant’s RA Level Classification. The Corporation will divide the RA units by the total units stated by the Applicant at question 5.e. of Exhibit A, resulting in a Percentage of Total Units that are RA units. Using the Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart below, the Corporation will determine the RA Level associated with both the Percentage of Total Units and the RA units. The best rating of these two (2) levels will be assigned as the Application’s RA Level Classification. RFA 2015-111 then outlined a Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart to delineate between the RA Levels. That chart described six possible RA Levels, with one being developments that have the most units receiving rental assistance and six pertaining to developments with the fewest units receiving rental assistance. A development with at least 100 rental assistance units and greater than 50 percent of the total units receiving rental assistance was to receive an RA Level of 1. FHFC also utilized a “Funding Test” to assist in the selection of applications for funding. The Funding Test required that the amount of unawarded housing credits be enough to satisfy any remaining applicant’s funding request. In other words, FHFC prohibited partial funding. In addition, RFA 2015-111 applied a “County Award Tally” designed to prevent a disproportionate concentration of funded developments in any one county. As a result, all other applicants from other counties had to receive an award before a second application from a particular county could be funded. After ranking of the eligible applicants, RFA 2015-111 set forth an order of funding selection based on county size, demographic category, and the receipt of RD 515 financing. The Order was: One RD 515 Development (in any demographic category) in a medium or small county; One Non-RD 515 Development in the Family Demographic Category (in any size county); The highest ranked Non-RD 515 application or applications with the demographic of Elderly or Persons with a Disability; and If funding remains after all eligible Non- RD 515 applicants are funded, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Elderly demographic (or, if none, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Family demographic). Draft versions of every RFA are posted on-line in order for stakeholders to provide FHFC with their comments. In addition, every RFA goes through at least one workshop prior to being finalized. FHFC often makes changes to RFAs based on stakeholder comments. No challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. A review committee consisting of FHFC staff members reviewed and scored all 24 applications associated with RFA 2015-111. During this process, FHFC staff determined that none of the RD-515 applicants satisfied all of the threshold eligibility requirements. On June 24, 2016, FHFC’s Board of Directors announced its intention to award funding to five applicants, subject to those applicants successfully completing the credit underwriting process. Pineda Village in Brevard County was the only successful applicant in the Non-RD 515 Family Demographic. The four remaining successful applicants were in the Non-RD 515 Elderly or Persons with Disability Demographic: Three Round Tower in Miami-Dade County; Cathedral Towers in Duval County; Isles of Pahokee in Palm Beach County; and Lummus Park in Miami- Dade County. The randomly-assigned lottery number tie-breaker played a role for the successful Non-RD 515 applicants with Three Round Tower having lottery number one, Cathedral Towers having lottery number nine, and Isles of Pahokee having lottery number 18. While Lummus Park had a lottery number of 12, the County Award Tally prevented it from being selected earlier because Three Round Tower had already been selected for funding in Miami-Dade County. However, after the first four applicants were funded, only $526,880 of credits remained, and Lummus Park was the only eligible applicant with a request small enough to be fully funded. All Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The Challenge by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns Woodcliff is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 34-unit development for elderly residents in Lake County.4/ Colonial is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 30-unit development for low-income families in Lake County.5/ St. Johns is seeking an award of tax credits to acquire and preserve a 48-unit development for elderly residents in Putnam County.6/ FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns to be ineligible because of a failure to demonstrate the existence or availability of a particular source of financing relied upon in their applications. Specifically, FHFC determined that the availability of USDA RD 515 financial assistance was not properly documented. For applicants claiming the existence of RD 515 financing, RFA 2015-111 stated: If the proposed Development will be assisted with funding under the United States Department of Agriculture RD 515 Program and/or RD 538 Program, the following information must be provided: Indicate the applicable RD Program(s) at question 11.b.(2) of Exhibit A. For a proposed Development that is assisted with funding from RD 515 and to qualify for the RD 515 Proximity Point Boost (outlined in Section Four A.6.b.(1)(b) of the RFA), the Applicant must: Include the funding amount at the USDA RD Financing line item on the Development Funding Pro Forma (Construction/Rehab Analysis and/or Permanent Analysis); and Provide a letter from RD, dated within six (6) months of the Application Deadline, as Attachment 17 to Exhibit A, which includes the following information for the proposed Preservation Development: Name of existing development; Name of proposed Development; Current RD 515 Loan balance; Acknowledgment that the property is applying for Housing Credits; and Acknowledgment that the property will remain in the USDA RD 515 loan portfolio. (emphasis added). FHFC was counting on the letter mentioned directly above to function as proof that: (a) there was RD 515 financing in place when the letter was issued; and that (b) the RD 515 financing would still be in place as of the application deadline for RFA 2015-111. FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns ineligible because their RD letters were not dated within six months of the December 4, 2015, deadline for RFA 2015-111 applications. The Woodcliff letter was dated May 15, 2015, the Colonial letter was dated May 15, 2015, and the St. Johns letter was dated May 5, 2015. FHCA had previously issued RFA 2015-104, which also proposed to award Housing Credit Financing for the Preservation of Existing Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments. The deadline for RFA 2015-104 was June 23, 2015, and Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns applied using the same USDA letter that they used in their RFA 2015-111 applications. Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns argued during the final hearing that FHFC should have accepted their letters because: (a) they gained no competitive advantage by using letters that were more than six months old; (b) waiving the six- month “shelf life” requirement would enable FHFC to satisfy one of its stated goals for RFA 2015-111, i.e., funding of an RD 515 development; and (c) other forms of financing (such as equity investment) have no “freshness” or “shelf life” requirement. However, it is undisputed that no party (including Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns) challenged any of the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. In addition, Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Programs) testified that there must be a point at which FHFC must ensure the viability of the information submitted by applicants. If the information is “too old,” then it may no longer be relevant to the current application process. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for FHFC to utilize a six-month shelf life for USDA letters.7/ Furthermore, Mr. Reecy testified that excusing Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns’ noncompliance could lead to FHFC excusing all deviations from all other date requirements in future RFAs. In other words, applicants could essentially rewrite those portions of the RFA, and that would be an unreasonable result. Excusing the noncompliance of Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns could lead to a “slippery slope” in which any shelf- life requirement has no meaning. The letters utilized by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns were slightly more than six months old. But, exactly when would a letter become too old to satisfy the “shelf life” requirement? If three weeks can be excused today, will four weeks be excused next year? St. Elizabeth’s and Marian Towers’ Challenge St. Elizabeth is seeking low-income housing tax credit financing in order to acquire and preserve a 151-unit development for elderly residents in Broward County, Florida. Marian Towers is an applicant for RFA 2015-111 funding seeking low-income housing tax credits to acquire and preserve a 220-unit development for elderly residents in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The same developer is associated with the St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers projects. In its scoring and ranking process, FHFC assigned St. Elizabeth an RA Level of two. RFA 2015-111 requires that Applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter from HUD or the USDA with specific information. That information is then used to establish an RA Level for the proposed development. As noted above, the RFA requires the letter to contain several pieces of information, including: (a) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC; and (b) the total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development is funded. RFA 2015-111 provided that a development with at least 100 rental units would receive an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth included with its application a letter from HUD’s Miami field office stating in pertinent part that: Total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC: 99 units. Total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed Development is funded: 100 units*. The asterisk in the preceding paragraph directed readers of St. Elizabeth’s HUD letter to a paragraph stating that: HUD is currently processing a request from the owner to increase the number of units subsidized under a HAP Contract to 100 by transferring budget authority for the one additional unit from another Catholic Housing Services Section 8 project under Section 8(bb) in accordance with Notice H-2015-03. Because of the foregoing statement from HUD, FHFC concluded that St. Elizabeth did not have 100 units receiving rental assistance as of the application deadline. Accordingly, FHFC used 99 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance when calculating St. Elizabeth’s RA Level, and that led to FHFC assigning an RA Level of two to St. Elizabeth’s application.8/ If St. Elizabeth had been deemed eligible and if FHFC had used 100 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance, then St. Elizabeth would have received an RA Level of one. Given the application sorting order and the selection process outlined in RFA 2015-111, St. Elizabeth (with a lottery number of six) would have been recommended for funding by FHFC, and that outcome would have resulted in Intervenors Isles of Pahokee and Lummus Park losing their funding. St. Elizabeth asserted during the final hearing that the 100th unit had obtained rental assistance financing since the application deadline on December 4, 2015. However, FHFC could only review, score, and calculate St. Elizabeth’s RA Level based on the information available as of the application deadline. While St. Elizabeth argues that the asterisk paragraph sets forth a “condition,” Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Housing) agreed during the final hearing that the asterisk paragraph was more akin to information that was not explicitly required by RFA 2015-111. FHFC did not use that additional information to declare St. Elizabeth’s application ineligible for funding. Despite being assigned an RA Level of two, St. Elizabeth’s application still could have been selected for funding because RFA 2015-111 merely established RA Level as a basis for breaking ties among competing applications. However, too many applicants for RFA 2015-111 had identical scores, and RFA 2015-111’s use of RA Level as a tiebreaker forced St. Elizabeth’s application out of the running. Under the circumstances, FHFC’s treatment of St. Elizabeth’s application was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As noted above, tie- breakers are very important, because there is often very little to distinguish one application for tax credits from another. Given that there was a degree of uncertainty about whether St. Elizabeth’s would have 100 qualifying units, FHFC acted reasonably by assigning St. Elizabeth’s application an RA Level of two for this tie-breaker rather than an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers argue that other applications contained language that indicated a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, those other applications received an RA Level of one. For example, FHFC assigned an RA Level of one to Three Round and Haley Sofge even though their HUD letters stated that both developments would be “subject to a Subsidy Layering Review to be conducted by HUD.” Marian Towers argued that if FHFC does not accept HUD or RD letters containing conditional language about the number of units that will be subsidized, then FHFC should have assigned an RA Level of six to Three Round and Haley Sofge. If Three Round and Haley Sofge had been assigned an RA Level of six, then Marian Towers (with a lottery number of five) would have been recommended for funding. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers cited another instance in which an application received an RA Level of one, even though its application contained a letter from the RD program stating that “USDA Rural Development will consent to the transfer if all regulatory requirements are met.” (emphasis added). However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate that the language cited above applied only to those particular applications rather than to all applications for tax credits. For example, if all applications are subject to a subsidy layering review and compliance with all regulatory requirements, then inclusion of such language in a HUD letter (in and of itself) should not prevent an applicant from being assigned an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers also cited a HUD Letter used in another recent RFA by an applicant that received an RA Level of one. The HUD letter in question contained an asterisk followed by the following statement: “It is HUD’s understanding that two separate applications are being submitted – one for each tower comprising St. Andrew Towers. If funded, HUD will consider a request from the owner to bifurcate the St. Andrew Towers HAP contract in order to facilitate the separate financing of each tower.” However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate why the language quoted directly above should have resulted in the applicant in question being awarded an RA Level less than one. There is no indication that the total number of units receiving rental assistance would change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order awarding funding to Three Round Tower A, LLC; Cathedral Towers, Ltd; Isles of Pahokee Phase II, LLC; SP Manor, LLC; and Pineda Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G.W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue 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 bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) 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 Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Findings of Fact are as follows: Parties Petitioner, Madison Point, is a Florida limited liability company and the designated applicant for funding through the RFA to construct an 85-unit development for low- income elderly persons in Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner, American Residential Development, LLC, is the designated developer for the proposed development. Intervenor, Heritage Oaks, is a Florida limited liability limited partnership in the business of providing affordable housing. Heritage Oaks is an applicant for financing in response to the RFA to construct an 85-unit development for low-income elderly persons in Pinellas County, Florida. Intervenor, HTG Hudson, is a Florida limited liability company in the business of developing affordable housing. HTG Hudson was an applicant for financing in response to the RFA to construct an 87-unit development for low-income elderly persons in Pinellas County, Florida. However, all issues regarding HTG Hudson have been resolved pursuant to a settlement agreement which was attached as Exhibit “A” to the Joint Prehearing Stipulation. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, HTG Hudson’s application is ineligible for funding. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, and for the purpose of this proceeding, 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. Affordable Housing Tax Credits The low-income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as “tax credits” or “housing credits”) was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is that it reduces 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. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits, State Apartment Incentive Loan (“SAIL”) funding, 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 program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its tax credits, which were made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). Application Process In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing 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’s 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” (total costs incurred in the completion of a development); 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. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. Tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). The RFA at issue here is RFA 2016-113, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas counties. The RFA was issued on October 28, 2016, and responses were initially due December 8, 2016. The RFA was modified on November 10, 2016, and, among other revisions, the application deadline was extended to December 30, 2016. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,669,052 of housing credits to qualified applicants in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas counties. In response to RFA 2016-113, 43 applications were submitted for funding, including Madison Point and Heritage Oaks. Madison Point submitted application No. 2017-232C seeking $1,660,000 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of an 80-unit development in Pinellas County. Heritage Oaks submitted application No. 2017-201C, seeking $1,660,000 in annual allocation of housing credits to finance the construction of an 85-unit development in Pinellas County. The RFA sets forth the information required to be provided by an applicant, which includes a general description of the type of projects that will be considered eligible for funding and delineates the submission requirements. In order to be considered for funding selection, the application must meet all of the eligibility requirements set forth in the RFA. The eligibility requirements include, among other things, “[a]ll “Mandatory Items” described in section five of the RFA.” The RFA sets forth a list of mandatory items that must be included in a response including, but are not limited to, appropriate zoning, site control, development category, and occupancy status of any existing units. As part of the general development information, the RFA requires applicants to select a development category applicable to its proposed development. This is a mandatory item of the RFA. Applicants are instructed to select amongst the following categories: New Construction (where 50 percent or more of the units are new construction) Rehabilitation (where less than 50 percent of the units are new construction) Acquisition and Rehabilitation (acquisition and less than 50 percent of the units are new construction) Redevelopment (where 50 percent or more of the units are new construction) Acquisition and Redevelopment (acquisition and 50 percent or more of the units are new construction) Once disclosed in the application, the development category cannot be changed. In the RFA, “new construction” while capitalized is not a defined term. However, rule 67-48.002(98), defines “redevelopment” as follows: With regard to a proposed Development that involves demolition of multifamily rental residential structures currently or previously existing that were originally built in 1986 or earlier and either originally received financing or are currently financed through one or more of the following HUD or RD programs: Sections 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. §1701q), 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. §1701), 514, 515, or 516 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. §1484), 811 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. §1437), or have PBRA; and new construction of replacement structures on the same site maintaining at least the same number of PBRA units; or With regard to proposed Developments that involve demolition of public housing structures currently or previously existing on a site with a Declaration of Trust that were originally built in 1986 or earlier and that are assisted through ACC; and new construction of replacement structures on the same site, providing at least 25 percent of the total new units with PBRA, ACC, or both, after Redevelopment. Although the Rehabilitation Category is defined, it is not relevant for purposes of this proceeding. Additionally, the RFA requires applicants to answer whether the proposed development consists of: a) 100 percent new construction units; b) 100 percent rehabilitation units; or c) a combination of new construction units and rehabilitation units, and state the quantity of each type. This is a mandatory item of the RFA. Selection Process Florida Housing received 43 applications seeking funding in RFA 2016-113. Florida Housing’s executive director appointed a Review Committee of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring and to make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, the applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked. The Review Committee determined that, among other applicants, the applications of Heritage Oaks and Madison Point were eligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, Heritage Oaks was recommended to the Board of Directors to be selected for funding within Pinellas County. The Review Committee developed a chart listing its funding recommendations for the RFA to be presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors. On May 5, 2017, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee for RFA 2016-113. Also, on May 5, 2017 following the Board meeting, Petitioners, and all other applicants in RFA 2016-113, received notice that Florida Housing’s Board of Directors determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and that certain eligible applicants were selected for award of tax credits. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” and “ineligible” applications in RFA 2016-113 and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund on the Florida Housing website, www.floridahousing.org. Of the 43 applications submitted, 37 were deemed “eligible” and six were deemed “ineligible.” In that May 5, 2017, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven applications, including Heritage Oaks. Madison Point was deemed eligible but not selected for funding. Madison Point timely filed a Notice of Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. Heritage Oaks intervened as a named party and intervention was granted. The scoring decisions at issue in this proceeding are related to Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to Heritage Oaks based on its responses regarding occupancy status and local government contribution. The RFA specifies an “application sorting order” to rank applicants for potential funding. The first consideration in sorting eligible applications for potential funding is application score. The maximum score an applicant can achieve is 28 points. In the case of a tie score, Florida Housing incorporated a series of “tie breakers” into the sorting process. The tiebreakers for this RFA, in order of applicability, are: First, by Development Category Funding Preference; Second, by a Per Unit Construction Funding Preference; Third, by a Leveraging Classification based on the amount of total Florida Housing funding per set-aside unit; Fourth, by the eligibility for the 75 or More Total Unit Funding Preference; Fifth, by satisfaction of a Florida Job Creation Funding preference, which applies a formula to reflect the estimated number of jobs created per $1 million of funding; Lastly, if necessary, by randomly assigned lottery number. The RFA set out a selection process for eligible applicants, after the sorting and ranking process outlined above. That selection process consisted of selecting the highest ranking eligible application for a proposed development in each of the following counties first: Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas. If funding remained after those selections, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded application in Broward would be selected next. Heritage Oaks and Madison Point selected the elderly non-Assisted Living Facility (“ALF”) demographic and the proposed developments were located in Pinellas County. Florida Housing’s preliminary agency action selected Heritage Oaks for funding for Pinellas County. Heritage Oaks’ Application Heritage Oaks’ proposed development site consists of approximately 4.99 acres. Heritage Oaks’ proposed development site contains existing roads owned by Pinellas County. Heritage Oaks indicates that its proposed development site was comprised of scattered sites. There are existing housing units on Heritage Oaks’ development site. However, Heritage Oaks’ application indicates that “there are no existing units.” Heritage Oaks’ application selected “new construction” as its development category. Heritage Oaks’ proposed development involves demolition of currently-occupied, multifamily, public housing rental structures that were originally built in 1986 or earlier and either originally received financing or are currently financed through one or more of the following HUD or RD programs: Sections 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. § 1701 q); 236 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. § 1701); 514, 515, or 516 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. § 1484); and 811 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. § 1437). Development Category In response to the RFA requirements, Heritage Oaks selected “New Construction” as its development category. Heritage Oaks also indicated that its proposed development consists of 100 percent new construction. Mr. Evjen acknowledged that Heritage Oaks’ proposed development involves the demolition of existing structures on the proposed development site and the construction of 85 new units. Mr. Evjen explained that the proposed development includes 71 senior units in a three-story, mid-rise building, and seven duplex buildings, which would include the other 14 units on the proposed development site. The testimony at hearing indicated that at the time of the application deadline, Heritage Oaks’ proposed development did not satisfy all of the criteria set forth in the definition of redevelopment, as set forth in paragraph 18, supra. At hearing, Mr. Evjen and Ms. Blinderman testified that to qualify as redevelopment, at least 25 percent of the new units must receive Project Based Rental Assistance (“PBRA”). PBRA units are those with a rental subsidy through a contract with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or the Rural Development Services (formerly the Farmer’s Home Administration) of the United States Department of Agriculture. See Fla. Admin. Code Rules 67-48.002(72), (85), and (98). Heritage Oaks intends to develop the proposed development with Pinellas County Housing Authority (“Housing Authority”). At the time of the application deadline, the Housing Authority was in discussions with HUD regarding the final count, if any, of PBRA units. The lack of a resolution with HUD is beyond the authority of Heritage Oaks and remains uncertain. As of the application deadline, Heritage Oaks could not know if 25 percent of its new units would receive PBRA and, therefore, could not classify the proposed development as redevelopment. While it may be possible that Heritage Oaks’ proposed development may meet the definition of redevelopment at some point in the future, at the time of the application it did not meet the definition. At hearing, no testimony or documentary evidence was offered to establish that the proposed development currently falls within the definition of redevelopment. Respondent found this classification to be acceptable. Petitioners assert that it is reasonable that Heritage Oaks would meet the threshold to satisfy the criteria for the redevelopment category. However, it was more reasonable that Heritage Oaks would not meet the threshold and be ineligible for funding, if the redevelopment category had been incorrectly selected. Therefore, the evidence supports that it was reasonable for Heritage Oaks to identify its development project as new construction. Occupancy Status Petitioners also argue that Heritage Oaks should not be awarded funding because it failed to disclose the occupancy status of existing units on the proposed development site. In the RFA, the subheading and language for section four (A)(5)(e)(3) provides as follows: Number of Units in Proposed Development: The Applicant must indicate which of the following applies with regard to the occupancy status of any existing units: Existing units are currently occupied Existing units are not currently occupied There are no existing units The section then instructs the applicant to refer to section four (A)(5)(e) of the RFA instructions before answering the occupancy status question. The RFA instructions at section four (A)(5)(e) provide as follows: e. Number of Units in Proposed Development: The Applicant must state the total number of units. Note: The proposed Development must consist of a minimum of 50 total units. Proposed Developments consisting of 75 or more total units will be eligible for the 75 or More Total Unit Funding Preference (outlined at Section Four B.2. of the RFA). If the Elderly Demographic Commitment (ALF or Non- ALF) is selected at question 2.b. of Exhibit A, the proposed Development cannot exceed the maximum total number of units outlined in Item 1 of Exhibit C of the RFA. The Applicant must indicate whether the proposed Development consists of (a) 100% new construction units, (b) 100% rehabilitation units, or (c) a combination of new construction units and rehabilitation units, and state the quantity of each type. The Applicant must indicate the occupancy status of any existing units at question 5.e.(3) of Exhibit A. Developments that are tentatively funded will be required to provide to the Credit Underwriter a plan for relocation of existing tenants, as outlined in Item 2.b.(6) of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form. The plan shall provide information regarding the relocation site; accommodations relevant to the needs of the residents and length of time residents will be displaced; moving and storage of the contents of a resident’s dwelling unit; as well as the approach to inform and prepare the residents for the rehabilitation activities. In response to this RFA requirement and the cited RFA Instructions concerning Occupancy Status, Heritage Oaks indicated that “there are no existing units” in its proposed development. However, Mr. Evjen testified that there were existing units on the development site as of the application deadline and some of those units were occupied. Heritage Oaks pointed out that a review of the RFA reflects that it is organized in an outline format with headings and subheadings. For example, section four concerns information to be provided in the application. Section four A(5) then requests general development information. Section four (A)(5)(e) requests information concerning the number of units in the proposed development. Mr. Evjen further testified that, based on review of the RFA and the instructions, Heritage Oaks took a three-step approach in responding to the occupancy status question. Heritage Oaks properly answered the first two questions. First, Heritage Oaks provided the total number of units as 85. Second, Heritage Oaks indicated that “all 85 units would be new construction.” In the final question, Heritage Oaks considered whether any existing units would remain as a “part of its proposed development.” Because no existing units would be part of its proposed development, Heritage Oaks responded “there are no existing units” in its proposed development. However, the term “proposed” was not used in question 5.e.(3) as was the case in the prior questions in the same subsection. Mr. Evjen also testified that he read the question as “if there are rehab[ilitation] units, are they occupied? Heritage Oaks’ erroneous interpretation of the question resulted in its failure to provide an accurate answer. The question simply requested the “occupancy status of any existing units.” The question was clear and unambiguous. The parties have stipulated that there are existing housing units on the Heritage Oaks proposed development site. However, Heritage Oaks’ application indicates that there are no existing units. The representation that there were no existing units was a false statement of material fact. It is worth noting that the parties stipulated at the beginning of the hearing that there is no allegation of fraud or intentional deception. There is also no evidence in the record of intentional deception and therefore, there is no finding by the undersigned that Heritage Oaks engaged in intentional misconduct. However, whether intentional or not, Heritage Oaks’ representation of no existing units is a false statement. According to Mr. Reecy, Florida Housing asks the question regarding occupancy status of existing units because Florida Housing wants to make sure that the developer can handle the cost issues related to relocation and that the relocation needs of the existing tenants will be met. Additionally, Mr. Reecy testified that Florida Housing relies upon applicants to accurately respond to questions in the RFA because, at the time of scoring, no independent research is conducted to verify responses. Regarding a relocation plan, Heritage Oaks relies on the Declaration of Trust’s requirement to have a tenant relocation plan as a remedy for the failure to properly respond to the occupancy status question. However, the Declaration of Trust is a HUD requirement that is not controlled by Florida Housing. In fact, Mr. Evjen testified that Heritage Oaks’ co-developer was researching terminating the Declaration of Trust. Given the fact that Heritage Oaks could terminate its Declaration of Trust, the Declaration of Trust does not provide adequate assurance that the tenants in the existing housing units will be adequately relocated once Florida Housing allocates its funding. Florida Housing has a material interest in ensuring that tenants located in existing housing units are properly and adequately relocated during the development phase of any Florida Housing-funded development. Accordingly, Florida Housing’s scoring decision with regard to Heritage Oaks’ response to the occupancy status question was contrary to the terms of the RFA and clearly erroneous. Heritage Oaks is ineligible for funding under RFA 2016-113. Local Government Contribution At section four (A)(10)(b), an applicant can obtain 10 points if it can demonstrate a high level of local government interest in its project via an increased amount of local government contribution. To satisfy this requirement, an applicant must attach a properly completed and executable Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Contribution-Loan Form (“loan form”). The RFA establishes a contribution threshold amount which qualifies an application for the local government area of opportunity points. The RFA defines “local government areas of opportunity” as follows: Developments receiving a high level of Local Government interest in the project as demonstrated by an irrevocable funding contribution that equals or exceeds 2.5 times the Total Development Cost Per Unit Base Limitation (exclusive of any add-ons or multipliers), as provided in Item 7 of Exhibit C to the RFA, for the Development Type committed to for the proposed Development. The minimum local government areas of opportunity funding amounts are outlined in section four A.10.b. of the RFA. A single jurisdiction (i.e., the county or a municipality) may not contribute cash loans and/or cash grants for any other proposed development applying in the same competitive solicitation in an amount sufficient to qualify as Local Government Areas of Opportunity, per the competitive solicitation. In response to this RFA requirement, Heritage Oaks submitted Attachment 15, a loan form from Pinellas County, Florida, in the amount of $551,000. Based upon the minimum local government area of opportunity funding amounts established in the RFA, this amount qualified Intervenor Heritage Oaks for 10 points. Petitioners challenge Intervenor Heritage Oaks’ loan form for two reasons. First, Petitioners opine that the face value of the commitment and the net present value included in the loan form cannot be the same amount and, therefore, a calculation error must have occurred. Petitioners rely on examples of various calculations found in the RFA. Next, Petitioners allege that the loan form was not properly signed and no final approval was given by Pinellas County. Intervenor Heritage Oaks provided a loan form from Pinellas County. The loan form committed Pinellas County to a loan in the amount of $551,000. Mr. Bussey, the individual who processed the application and award of commitment, indicated that the commitment was a loan that would be forgiven as long as certain requirements were met and kept. Mr. Bussey further indicated that there were no loan payments or interest rates associated with the loan. Accordingly, he indicated that the loan value was the net present value of the loan, which means the commitment amount and the net present value for the Pinellas County loan is the same number, $551,000. While Petitioners allege that the loan form was not appropriately signed and no final approval had occurred, the greater weight of the evidence shows otherwise. Specifically, Petitioners opine that either a resolution or some action by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners or the County Administrator was necessary as asserted by their witness, Mr. Banach. While Mr. Banach was critical of the loan verification form, he acknowledged that he is not an expert regarding the process for Pinellas County loan contribution and he did not process the loan application. He further acknowledged that Mr. Bussey, the individual who processed the loan, found no error with the form. The evidence shows that the loan form was executed by Charles Justice, who at the time of the loan form’s execution was the Chairman of the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Bussey explained the process for approving the loan form and indicated that Mr. Justice, as Chairman, had the authority to sign the loan form. Mr. Bussey also pointed out language in the loan form which provides as follows: “This certification must be signed by the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approval, . . . Chairperson of the Board of the County Commissioners.” Mr. Justice is one of the designated individuals the form itself indicated is acceptable. Mr. Bussey indicated that no further approvals were necessary. At hearing, Florida Housing indicated that the loan form submitted by Heritage Oaks satisfied the requirements of the RFA and this position was not shown to be erroneous or unreasonable.
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 rescinding the intended award to Heritage Oaks and designating Madison Point and America Residential Development, LLC, as the recipients of the funding under RFA 2016-113. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 11th day of August, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Marisa G. Button, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Michael G. Maida, Esquire Michael G. Maida, P.A. 1709 Hermitage Boulevard, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 (eServed) Paria Shirzadi, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 204 South Monroe Street, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser, & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Sarah Pape, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser, & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC 1725 Capital Circle Northeast, Suite 304 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Kate Flemming, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, designates Respondent as the "housing credit agency" responsible for allocating Florida's share of federal income tax credits for low- income housing. Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code provides federal income tax credits for qualifying low-income housing expenditures. The amount of the tax credit is nine percent of the qualifying basis, and this nine percent credit is available annually for ten years. Calculation of the qualifying basis starts with the project cost, less the cost of land acquisition. The difference is then multiplied by a ratio of affordable units (or floor space, if a smaller ratio results) over total units (or floor space) in the proposed project. The amount of federal income tax credit is based on the population of each state. In Florida, the demand exceeds the supply of these credits, so Florida's allocation plan includes procedures for the allocation of these limited credits. Section 42(m)(2)(A), Internal Revenue Code, limits the credit allocation for any project to the amount Respondent "determines is necessary for the financial feasibility of the project and its viability as a qualified low- income housing project throughout the credit period." Section 42(m)(2)(B)(iv), Internal Revenue Code, requires Respondent, in determining the feasibility and viability of the project, to consider "the reasonableness of the developmental and operational costs of the project." Certain guidelines have evolved in the low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program to limit the fees payable to developers and contractors, on which credits may be calculated. The portion of an allocation based on developer's fees is limited to fees constituting no more than 20 percent of a project's hard costs plus land acquisition. The 20 percent developer's limitation, which is not a promulgated rule, is not directly involved in any of the four cases. Another guideline, which is contingently involved in these cases, is that the portion of an allocation based on contractor's fees is limited to fees constituting no more than 14 percent of a project's hard costs. The so-called "626 rule" breaks the contractor's maximum fees into 6 percent general requirements, 2 percent overhead, and 6 percent profit. Each Petitioner is a limited partnership that constructed, owns, and leases low-income houses. Each Petitioner has applied for and received an allocation of LIHTCs for the construction and leasing of these low-income houses. In the related cases, Respondent tried to reduce Petitioners' LIHTCs for the two projects. Respondent claimed that the apparent general contractor, Heritage Construction Co. Inc. (Heritage), was not the real general contractor because Heritage had entered into prime subcontracts on both projects with Picerne Construction Corp. (Picerne) assuming nearly all of the work described in the contracts for lower costs. Respondent proposed instead to allocate LIHTCs based on the lower costs of the prime subcontracts. If Respondent failed to prevail in disregarding the contract costs in the contract between each Petitioner and Heritage, the 14 percent limitation would not limit the allocations of LIHTCs to Petitioners. These transactions were structured so that the total contractor's fees payable to Heritage did not exceed the 14 percent limitation or the individual components of the 14 percent limitation. However, if Respondent prevailed in disregarding the contract costs in the contract between each Petitioner and Heritage, and instead succeeded in using the lower contract amounts in the two Picerne prime subcontracts, then the 14 percent limitation would limit the allocation of LIHTCs. In this event, Petitioners challenge the 14 percent limitation in order to try to recover some of the lost tax credits. The 14 percent limitation, which is not promulgated as a rule, is recorded in two documents: the Best Practices Manual for the LIHTC program and the Underwriting Guidebook. It is undisclosed when the Best Practices Manual first included the 14 percent limitation, but this limitation has been in effect for about three years. The reference to the 14 percent limitation was included in the Underwriting Guidebook after March 1995, or else the Underwriting Guidebook itself was not in existence until after March 1995. The Underwriting Guidebook, which was prepared jointly by Respondent and underwriters, prohibits the allowance of general contracting fees in excess of 14 percent of hard costs. Respondent is not engaged in rulemaking as to the 14 percent limitation. Respondent presented no evidence that rulemaking as to this limitation was not feasible. To the contrary, rulemaking as to the 14 percent limitation is both feasible and practicable.
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 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 The issues are (1) whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation's (Florida Housing) intended decision to award low- income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in medium-size counties to Grove Manor Phase I, LTD (Grove Manor), JIC Grand Palms, LLC (Grand Palms), Madison Palms, Ltd. (Madison Palms), and RST The Pines, LP (The Pines), was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition; and (2) whether Florida Housing's determination that Brownsville Manor, LP (Brownsville), achieved the maximum available score of 28 points was contrary to solicitation specifications, and if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504. One of its responsibilities is to award low-income housing tax credits, which developers use to finance the construction of affordable housing. Tax credits are made available to states annually by the United States Treasury Department and are then awarded pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with Florida Housing's issuance of an RFA. On September 3, 2015, Florida Housing issued an RFA in which it expected to award up to an estimated $10,763,426.00 of tax credits for affordable housing developments in medium counties. The RFA also requested proposals for housing developments in small counties, but that portion of the RFA is not at issue. All applicants in this proceeding proposed developments in medium counties. They include Redding (Seminole County), HTG (Hernando County), Brownsville (Escambia), Grove Manor (Polk County), Grand Palms (Manatee County), Madison Palms (Brevard County), and The Pines (Volusia County). Florida Housing retained the right to "waive Minor Irregularities in an otherwise valid Application" filed pursuant to the RFA. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.008. A "minor irregularity" is defined as "a variation or condition of the 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." Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.002(6). These rules are particularly relevant in this case, as during the scoring process Florida Housing waived minor irregularities for several applicants. Florida Housing's Executive Director appointed a review committee comprised of Florida Housing staff to evaluate the applications for eligibility and scoring. Ninety-eight applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA, administrative rules, and applicable federal regulations. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed "eligible," based on whether the application complies with various content requirements. Of the 98 applications filed in response to the RFA, 88 were found to be eligible, and ten were found ineligible. All applicants in this case were preliminarily deemed to have eligible applications and received a maximum score of 28 points. The RFA specifies a sorting order for funding eligible applicants. Recognizing that there would be more applications than available credits, Florida Housing established an order for funding for applicants with tied scores using a sequence of five tie breakers, with the last being a lottery number assigned by the luck of the draw. Applications with lower lottery numbers (closer to zero) are selected before those with higher lottery numbers. On January 29, 2016, Florida Housing posted a notice informing the participants that it intended to award funding to eight developments in medium counties, including those of Grove Manor, Grand Palms, Madison Palms, and The Pines. While the applications of HTG, Brownsville, and Redding were deemed to be eligible, they were not entitled to a preliminary award of funding because of their lottery number ranking. The randomly assigned lottery numbers of those applicants are as follows: HTG (14), Brownsville (16), and Redding (17). HTG and Redding timely filed formal written protests. HTG's protest is directed only at Grove Manor's application. Because Grove Manor agreed that its score should be adjusted downward, HTG is the next applicant in the funding range and should be awarded tax credits, assuming it successfully emerges from the credit underwriting process. No party has challenged the scoring of HTG's application. Redding's protest is directed at the applications of The Pines, Madison Palms, Grand Palms, and Grove Manor, who were selected for funding. Redding also contends that Brownsville, which has a lower lottery number, should have been deemed ineligible or assigned a lower score so that it would no longer be in the funding range. In an unusual twist of events that occurred after the posting of the notice on January 29, 2016, Madison Palms and Grove Manor agreed that they are either ineligible or out of the funding range. Therefore, assuming that adequate funds are available, in order for Redding to be awarded credits, it must establish that at least one of its remaining targets (Grand Palms, Brownsville, and The Pines) is ineligible or should be assigned fewer points. No party has challenged the scoring of Redding's application. Under the RFA, applicants are awarded points in three categories: general development experience, local government contributions, and proximity to services. Depending on whether family or elderly units are being proposed, to obtain proximity to service points, an applicant may select among several types of community services, including transit, a grocery store, a medical facility, a pharmacy, or a public school. Redding has challenged the number of proximity points awarded to The Pines for proximity to a medical facility and public school, Grand Palms for proximity to a pharmacy, and Brownsville for proximity to a public bus transfer stop. Based on Florida Housing's preliminary review of the applications, all three achieved a total proximity score of 18 points. The RFA requires that an applicant submit a Surveyor Certification Form with its application. The form identifies a Development Location Point (DLP), which is representative of where the development is located and must be on or within 100 feet of an existing residential building or a building to be constructed. The DLP is represented by a latitude and longitude coordinate. The distance from the DLP to the selected service is how the proximity points are awarded. The services on which an applicant intends to rely must also be identified on the form, along with the location of the service, as well as the latitude and longitude coordinates for each service. The RFA requires that the coordinates "represent a point that is on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the building where the service is located." Jt. Ex. 1, p. 25. Redding contends that the coordinates for certain services selected by The Pines, Grand Palms, and Brownsville are not on the "doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the building where the service is located." Accordingly, it argues that the number of proximity points awarded to each applicant must be lowered. The Pines selected a public school that has no doors allowing direct public access to the facility. Instead, the school is a series of buildings and classrooms connected by sidewalks and covered breezeways, making a primary "doorway threshold" problematic. The office is interior to the school. Given this unusual configuration, The Pines placed the coordinates at a student drop-off area in front of the school, where students then walk under the covered breezeways to their classrooms, and members of the public walk to offices and/or classrooms. Even if Redding's desired point for the coordinates was used, there would be no difference in the awarded proximity points, as the change in distance would be minimal. The coordinates for The Pines' medical facility are approximately 90 feet from the door that provides direct public access. This was due to an error by the surveyor, who used the back of the facility, rather than the front doorway threshold. Even if the front door had been used for the threshold, The Pines would still be entitled to the same amount of proximity points, as the change in distance would be minimal and not change the scoring. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Brownsville selected a public bus transfer stop for its transit service. Due more than likely to a digital error in one of the satellites used to pinpoint the spot, the coordinates were approximately 150 feet from the canopy where passengers load and unload. Even if the correct point had been used, it would not change the amount of proximity points awarded to Brownsville. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Finally, Grand Palms selected a pharmacy for one of its services. During the process of locating the doorway threshold at the pharmacy, a traverse point was established 70 feet east of the doorway threshold. This was necessary because of an overhang above the doorway threshold. A measurement was then made from the traverse point to the doorway threshold. By mistake, the coordinates on the form represented the location of the traverse point, instead of the doorway threshold of the pharmacy. However, this 70-foot error did not affect the distance from the pharmacy to the DLP or the points awarded to Grand Palms for proximity to a pharmacy. The slight error in the form is a waivable minor irregularity. Florida Housing determined that the coordinates used by The Pines, Brownsville, and Grand Palms yielded the same proximity point score had they been located at the "doorway threshold" and/or "embark/disembark location" as defined in the RFA. Because there is no language in the RFA that provides direction on how to treat these types of minor errors, or mandates that Florida Housing treat them as a non-waivable item, Florida Housing considers them to be a minor irregularity that can be waived. In sum, the deviations were immaterial, no competitive advantage was realized by the applicants, and they were entitled to the proximity points awarded during the preliminary review. Redding also contends that Brownsville is ineligible for funding because it failed to comply with a material requirement in the RFA. In its application, Brownsville stated that it intends to place an 87-unit development on a "scattered site" consisting of two parcels (Site I and Site II) with an intervening roadway (North X Street) between them. The RFA defines a development which consists of a scattered site "to mean a single point on the site with the most units that is located within 100 feet of a residential building existing or to be constructed as part of the required Development." Jt. Ex. 1, p. 25. Stated another way, if multiple parcels are used for the development, the DLP must be located on the site which contains the majority of the residential units. Florida Housing considers this to be a material, non-waivable requirement of the RFA. In Brownsville's Surveyor Certification Form, the DLP is located on Site I, a 1.49-acre parcel that is zoned Commercial and lies west of Site II. In making its preliminary decision to award funding to Brownsville, Florida Housing relied upon the validity of the DLP as of the application deadline and assumed that Site I would have the majority of the units. It had no way to verify the accuracy of that information during the initial scoring process. The RFA requires an applicant to attach to its application a form entitled, "Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations." Brownsville's verification form was signed by Horace L. Jones, Director of Development Services for Escambia County, who confirmed that the intended use of the property was consistent with local zoning regulations. The verification forms do not include any information regarding the number of units on each parcel of the site. Florida Housing defers to the local government in determining whether local zoning requirements will be met. Mr. Jones later testified by deposition that Escambia County zoning regulations allow only "25 dwelling units per acre" on Site I. Therefore, on a 1.49-acre parcel, the maximum number of units allowed is 36, or less than a majority of the 87 units. Because Brownsville did not comply with a material requirement of the RFA for a scattered site, Florida Housing now considers the DLP for proximity purposes to be invalid. Had it concluded otherwise, Brownsville would be given a competitive advantage over the other applicants. Brownsville contends, however, that during the County site review process, it will utilize a procedure by which the County can consider the two parcels as a "Single Unified Development" and "cluster" the dwelling units. Although the County has a process to allow the transfer of density from one parcel to another, Brownsville had not started this process as of October 15, 2015, the due date for all applications and the cutoff date for any changes. Also, this process would entail a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners (Board), and there is no guarantee that the Board would approve the density transfer. In fact, Mr. Jones testified that he was not sure if the density transfer was even a viable option. Therefore, the application of Brownsville contains a material deviation from the RFA and is not eligible for funding.
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 rescinding the preliminary award to Grove Manor Phase I, Ltd. and Madison Palms, Ltd.; determining that Brownsville Manor, LP, is ineligible for funding; and designating HTG Hammock Ridge, LLC, and Redding Development Partners, LLC, as the recipients of tax credits being made available for developments in RFA 1015-106. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Kate Fleming, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Post Office Box 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Betty C. Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 340 1725 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308-1591 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1706 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2637 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the intended decision of Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Respondent/Florida Housing) to fund the application of West River Phase 2, LP (West River/Intervenor), based on the scoring of its application, is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Intervenor is a Florida limited partnership based in Tampa, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. Respondent is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2017).1/ Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. This has the effect of reducing the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150, while a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. Florida Housing allocates housing tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation as authorized by section 420.507(48). Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA at issue here is 2016-113, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. The RFA was issued on October 28, 2016, a modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 30, 2016. A challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA by parties not associated with the instant case, but that challenge was ultimately unsuccessful. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,669,052 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments. A review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviews and scores each application. These scores are presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation is presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (Board) for final agency action. On May 5, 2017, Petitioner and all other participants in RFA 2016-113 received notice that the Board had determined which applications were eligible for consideration for funding and that certain applications were selected for awards of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” and “ineligible” applications and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven developments, including Intervenor. Petitioner’s application was deemed eligible and scored the maximum number of points, but it was not selected for funding due to having a higher lottery number than Intervenor. If Intervenor’s application had been deemed ineligible, Petitioner’s would have been selected for funding. In this proceeding, Petitioner alleges that Intervenor’s application is ineligible for two reasons. First, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to include all “principals” for its designated developer entity as required by the RFA. Next, Petitioner asserts that Intervenor failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish that its designated developer entity, and specifically the identified “principal” of the developer entity, had the requisite developer experience required by the RFA. Disclosure of the Principals of the Developer The RFA at section Four (A)(3)(d) requires the disclosure of information as follows: Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer. The Application must include a properly completed Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 08- 16) (“Principals Disclosure Form”) that was uploaded as outlined in Section Three above. The Principals Disclosure form must identify the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline and must include, for each applicable organizational structure, ONLY the types of Principals required by subsection 67-48.002(93), F.A.C. A Principals Disclosure Form that includes, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals, will not be accepted by the Corporation to meet the Mandatory requirement to provide the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form. The term “principal” is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93)(b) with respect to a developer, and provides as follows when the developer entity is a limited liability company: A limited liability company, at the first principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company, and, with respect to any manager or member of the Developer limited liability company that is: A corporation, at the second principal disclosure level, any officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, A limited partnership, at the second principal disclosure level, any general partner or limited partner of the limited partnership, or A limited liability company, at the second principal disclosure level, any manager or member of the limited liability company. Florida Housing offers a pre-approval of the principals disclosure form to all potential applicants. The pre-approval process verifies that the disclosure form has been completed properly as to form. However, its purpose is not to determine the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant. Intervenor utilized the pre-approval process and its principal disclosure forms were pre-approved. In response to this RFA and rule requirement, Intervenor identified WRDG Boulevard, LLC, as its developer. On the principal disclosure form included within its application, Intervenor further identified Banc of America Community Development Corporation (BOACDC) as the “managing member” and the Housing Authority of the City of Tampa as “member” of WRDG Boulevard, LLC. The principal disclosure form submitted by Intervenor for its developer entity lists approximately 62 individuals that are principals of BOACDC and identifies them as officers, directors, and shareholders. However, two officers who met the definition of principal were omitted from Intervenor’s principals disclosure form for the developer entity. The evidence establishes that the annual report filed by BOACDC with the Florida Secretary of State’s office on March 31, 2016, lists four officers and directors for BOACDC. The listed officers and directors include Mr. Jason Pritchard as senior vice president and Mr. Nathan Barth as secretary. Neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on the principals disclosure form submitted to Florida Housing by Intervenor. Intervenor concedes that the principals disclosure form is missing these two principals, but asserts that neither Mr. Barth nor Mr. Pritchard had actual authority to bind BOACDC or had any direct involvement with the proposed project. Intervenor further points out that neither Mr. Pritchard nor Mr. Barth is listed on Respondent’s past due report dated April 5, 2017, which was the most recently published past due report prior to the RFA review committee meeting on April 25, 2017. Intervenor also asserts that there is no specific language in the RFA that prohibits waiving this admitted deviation. Accordingly, Intervenor alleges that the failure to include these two principals should be waived as a minor irregularity. The RFA requires that principals be listed and does not include qualifiers or exemptions to these requirements in instances where the omitted principal is either not on the latest arrears list or does not have the authority to bind the designated entity. Mr. Reecy testified that while Respondent has waived other failures to submit certain information, it did so only when the missing information could be found elsewhere in the application. In the present case, there is no other place in the application where a list of the principals of the developer could be found. The evidence establishes that the accurate and complete disclosure of principals is important in the RFA process for several reasons. First, Respondent uses the disclosure of principals to determine if any individuals associated with a proposed development are in arrears or indebted to Florida Housing in connection with other developments previously funded by Florida Housing. A Florida Housing staff member, during the review process, checks each principal listed for arrearages and reports back to the review committee accordingly. Second, Respondent uses the information to determine if any principal associated with a proposed development is ineligible to participate in any Florida Housing program due to prior illegal acts or misconduct. Mr. Reecy testified as to several recent instances where individuals have been subject to “timeouts” due to misrepresentations made to Florida Housing. Mr. Reecy credibly testified that Florida Housing must know who it is dealing with for each applicant and developer entity, and that to not know this information would harm the basic structure of the RFA application process, which resultantly would adversely impact the interests of Florida Housing and the public. Developer Experience Chart Section Four, 4(a)(3) of the RFA provides, in part, as follows: General Development experience (5 Points): To be eligible to be awarded 5 points for General Development Experience, the Prior General Development Experience chart must meet the requirements of (a) below. At least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal, which must be a natural person, of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Development Experience requirements in (i) and (ii) below. General Development Experience: A Principal, which must be a natural person, of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1996, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2006. If the experience of a natural person Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the natural person Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity as the term Principal was defined by the Corporation at that time. Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each natural person Principal intending to meet the minimum general development experience reflecting the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. The RFA requires that at least one principal of the designated developer entity have completed at least three affordable rental housing developments since January 1996. If the designated principal is using experience from a previous developer entity, the named principal must have been a principal of that entity as the term principal “was defined by the Corporation at that time.” Intervenor submitted a general development experience chart as part of its application in accordance with the RFA. This chart listed Eileen M. Pope as its principal with the required developer experience, and specified three developments for which Ms. Pope was identified as a principal of the developer. Based upon this chart, Intervenor was awarded five points by the scoring review committee. One of these developments was First Ward Place Phase I, which was listed as being completed in 1998. In 1998, Ms. Pope was employed as a regional property manager for the Charlotte Housing Authority (CHA). She was not an officer, director, or shareholder of the CHA. The RFA in this case requires an applicant to state the name of each developer, including all co-developers. It is thus relatively easy for applications submitted to Florida Housing in 2017 to determine whether or not a particular entity is considered a “co-developer” of a project. Unfortunately, it is not so easy to make this determination with respect to developers of projects located in North Carolina in 1998. There is no evidence directly identifying CHA as a “co-developer” of First Ward Place Phase I. However, Ms. Pope identified it as such, and there is evidence in the record that the CHA was in partnership with NationsBank Community Development Corporation (NBCDC), and that NBCDC was the developer of the project. The available evidence does not demonstrate that the CHA should not be considered a co-developer of First Ward Place Phase I. Whether Ms. Pope should be considered a principal of a co-developer, however, is another matter. The evidence is uncontroverted that she was employed by the CHA as a regional property manager. The CHA was governed by a board of directors along with several officers (president, CEO, CFO), any of whom would have been considered a principal of the CHA. Ms. Pope was not a director, officer, or shareholder of the CHA; for the First Ward Place Phase I project, she “worked on the development team middle-to-back-end piece.” She considered herself a member of the “senior management” of the CHA and part of the “development team.” She testified that the CHA was, to some extent, a regulatory agency, and that part of her job was to oversee compliance issues and to track how certain funds were being spent. She testified that it was her understanding that a “principal” was “a person in authority” and, thus, she considered herself to be a “principal.” However, she also testified that she did not claim to be a principal: I disagree with your first part of the comment in that you said that I said I was a principal of the housing authority. I didn’t say I was a principal. I said there were no principals, and I was asked if I viewed myself as a principal, and I said I don’t understand what the definition of the principal would be, that a principal is somebody in authority. So, if you’re asking me that, yes, I would have viewed myself as a principal. I never claimed to be a principal of the housing authority. (Jt. Ex. 8, pg. 53) Mr. Reecy testified that Ms. Pope was “an employee, but not a principal in any way that Florida Housing has ever defined principal in any regard.” Mr. Reecy also testified that Florida Housing had never considered a person other than an officer, director, shareholder, or managing member to be a principal of either an applicant or a developer. In fact, Mr. Reecy compared Ms. Pope’s position with the CHA to his own position with Florida Housing, in that both had a high level of responsibility, and both were integral to the operation of the entity, but that neither could be considered a principal. As noted above, the RFA requires that in order to gain points for developer experience, the natural person principal must have also been a principal of that previous developer entity as the term principal was defined by the Florida Housing “at that time.” There is no dispute that Respondent’s rules in effect in 1998 did not explicitly define a principal of a developer. Both Florida Administrative Code Rules 9I-48.002(69) and 67-48.002(77) defined “principal” to include only officers, directors, shareholders or general partners, but these rules specifically applied only to applicants. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that it has been Respondent’s position and practice that a principal did not include all employees of an applicant or developer, even those in positions of authority, but instead, included only the officers, directors, shareholders, or general partners of an applicant or developer. The greater weight of the evidence shows that Ms. Pope had some degree of experience. As Mr. Reecy indicated, however, simply having experience is only part of the equation; Ms. Pope must also have been a principal. There is no evidence establishing that Ms. Pope was an officer, director, or shareholder of either NBCDC or the CHA in conjunction with the First Ward Place Phase I development. It is, therefore, found that Ms. Pope was not a principal of either entity, and the award to Intervenor of five points for its developer experience was clearly erroneous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Florida Housing’s initial scoring decision regarding the West River application was erroneous, concluding that the West River application is ineligible for funding, and awarding funding to Blue Broadway. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2017.
