The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), intended action to award housing credit funding to Marquis Partners, Ltd. (“Marquis Partners”), based on the Request for Applications 2017-113 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties (the “RFA”) is contrary to governing statutes, Florida Housing rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the award is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated findings of fact, the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Findings of Fact are as follows: Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. HTG Village and Marquis Partners submitted applications for funding from Florida Housing to develop affordable housing developments. Both applications were deemed “eligible” for funding. Marquis Partners was preliminarily selected for funding under the RFA. While HTG Village was determined to be eligible for funding, it was not selected for an award of funding. The “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. 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. Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits, SAIL funding, and other funding by means of requests for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48), and adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60, which govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing handles disputes regarding the allocation of 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). 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 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 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). At issue here is RFA 2017-113: Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. The RFA was issued on October 6, 2017, and responses were due December 28, 2017. The RFA was modified on November 1 and November 29, 2017. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,601,863.00 of housing credits to applicants that propose developments in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. Florida Housing received 33 applications in response to RFA 2017-113. A review committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The review committee found 25 applications eligible and eight applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, seven applications were recommended for funding, including Marquis Partners. On March 16, 2018, Florida Housing’s Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee for RFA 2017-113. Later, on March 16, 2018, at approximately 1:05 p.m., Petitioners and all other applicants in RFA 2017-113 received notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and that certain eligible applicants were selected for award of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets on the Florida Housing website, one listing the "eligible" applications in RFA 2017-113 and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In that March 16, 2018, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven applicants, including Marquis Partners. HTG Village was eligible, but not recommended for funding. All of the parties in this case applied for funding to develop a proposed development in Broward County. According to the terms of the RFA, a maximum of two Broward County applications are to be funded. Sailboat Bend was the other application, in addition to that of Marquis Partners that was selected for funding in Broward County. Once Marquis Partners dismissed its petition in DOAH Case No. 18-2157BID, there were no remaining challenges to Sailboat Bend. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. Marquis Partners timely intervened. No challenges were made to the terms of RFA 2017-113. RFA 2017-113 Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A list of the eligibility items is available in section 5.A.1, beginning on page 63 of the RFA. Only applications that meet all the eligibility items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. The eligibility items also include Submission Requirements, Financial Arrearage Requirements, and the Total Development Cost Per Unit Limitation requirement. Applicants can earn points for each of the following items (for a maximum of 20): Submission of Principal Disclosure Form stamped by Corporation as “Pre-Approved” (maximum 5 points); Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive (maximum 5 points); and either Local Government Contribution Points (maximum 5 points) or Local Government Area of Opportunity Points (10 points). The RFA’s stated goal is to fund one application wherein the applicant applied and qualified as a non-profit applicant. As part of the funding selection process, the RFA starts with the application sorting order. All eligible applications are ranked by first sorting all eligible Applications from the highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.11.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The RFA also outlines the funding selection process as follows: The highest ranking eligible Application will be selected for funding for proposed Developments located in each of the following counties for which an eligible Application was received: Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas. If funding remains after funding the highest ranking eligible Applications as outlined in a. above, and if none of the Applications selected for funding in a. above qualify for the Non-Profit goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application wherein the Applicant applied and qualified as a Non-Profit Applicant, regardless of county. If the selected Application cannot be fully funded, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If funding remains after funding the highest ranking eligible Applications as outlined in a. above and at least one (1) of the selected Applications qualified for the Non-Profit goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application in Broward County. If the selected Application cannot be fully funded, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If funding remains after selecting the highest ranking eligible unfunded Broward County Application, or if there is no eligible unfunded Application located in Broward County, no additional Applications from any county will be selected for funding and any remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. HTG Village Standing One of the eligibility requirements in the RFA is that applicants are required to demonstrate site control by providing certain documentation as Exhibit 8 to the application. The RFA provides three ways to demonstrate site control: 1) eligible contract, 2) deed or certificate of title, or 3) lease. In order to demonstrate site control as an eligible contract, the following must be demonstrated: Eligible Contract - For purposes of this RFA, an eligible contract is one that has a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018; specifically states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and 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. Any assignment must be signed by the assignor and the assignee. 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, and, if a contract, must contain the following elements of an eligible contract: a) have a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or contain extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018, and b) specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. In response to RFA 2017-113, HTG Village timely submitted application number 2018-303C (“HTG Village Application”) requesting an allocation of $2,561,000 in housing credits. HTG Village proposed to develop a 96-unit affordable, multifamily housing development in Broward County. The address of the development site provided within the application of HTG Village is “N Andrews Ave and NE 6th St., Fort Lauderdale.” (“HTG Village Development Site”). HTG Village had a contractual right to purchase the HTG Village Development Site as of the application deadline and satisfied the site control requirement of RFA 2017-113 as of the application deadline. HTG Village terminated its contract to purchase the HTG Village Development Site in a letter dated January 16, 2018, and delivered on January 17, 2018. HTG Village entered a First Amendment and Reinstatement to the original Purchase and Sale Agreement on May 8, 2018 (“Amended Purchase and Sale Agreement”), with a retroactive effective date of January 17, 2018. Although HTG Village terminated its purchase agreement after the application deadline, Ms. Button credibly testified that the determination of whether the applicant is ready to proceed with the development is at the time of the application deadline (through submission of the completed application) and again at the time of underwriting. Of the applicants that submitted applications in response to the RFA, four applicants submitted applications for development in Broward County. Two applicants received a score of 20 points, Sailbooat Bend and Marquis Partners. Of the two applicants that received 20 points, Marquis Partners was assigned a lottery number of nine. HTG Village and another applicant, Casa St. Angelo, received scores of 15 points. HTG Village was assigned a lottery number 1. In the solicitation process, if Marquis Partners is deemed ineligible, HTG Village would be the next highest-ranked application for funding for development in Broward. If Marquis Partners remains eligible, but its score is reduced to 15, HTG Village would replace Marquis Partners in the line for funding because HTG Village has the lowest lottery number (1). Marquis Partners Application In response to RFA 2017-113, Marquis Partners timely submitted application number 2018-279C (“Marquis Partners Application”) requesting an allocation of $1,727,000 in housing credits. Marquis Partners proposed to develop a 100-unit affordable, multifamily housing development in Broward County. Florida Housing determined that the Marquis Partners Application was eligible for an award of housing credits and preliminarily selected the Marquis Partners Application for an award of housing credits. The Marquis Partners Application was selected as the second Broward County application under subpart (c) of the funding selection process. As another eligibility item, RFA 2017-113 required that applicants identify their “Principals” by completing and submitting with their applications a Principal Disclosure Form as follows: Eligibility Requirements to meet the submission requirements, the Applicant must upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 08- 16) (“Principals Disclosure Form”) with the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, 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 should 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 should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. RFA 2017-113 also enabled an applicant to obtain “points” by participating in Florida Housing’s advance review process as follows: Point Item: Applicants will receive 5 points if the uploaded Principal Disclosure Form was stamped “Approved” during the Advance Review Process provided (a) it is still correct as of Application Deadline, and (b) it was approved for the type of funding being requested (i.e., Housing Credits or Non-Housing Credits). The Advance Review Process for Disclosure of Applicant and Developer Principals is available on the Corporation’s Website http://www.floridahousing.org/programs/ developers-multifamilyprograms/competitive/ 2017/2017-113 (also accessible by clicking here) and also includes samples which may assist the Applicant in completing the required Principals Disclosure Form. Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline. Marquis Partners participated in the advance review process, and on or about December 21, 2017, Florida Housing approved the Principal Disclosure Form submitted by Marquis Partners for an award of housing credits. The Principal Disclosure Form approved by Florida Housing during the advance review process did not properly identify Marquis Partners’ Principals for the corresponding types of entities as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93). Rule 67-48.002(93) defined the term “Principal” based on the applicant or developer entity, and then by the organizational structure of those specific entities. The term “Principal” was capitalized in the RFA. The RFA provided that unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms within the RFA have the meaning as set forth in Exhibit B, in chapters 67-48 and 67-60, or in applicable federal regulations. Within the disclosure form, the applicant was required to disclose the type of Principal, name of the Principal and organization structure of that Principal at each disclosure level. There were three disclosure levels provided on the disclosure form. The Principal Disclosure Form submitted with the Marquis Partners Application included errors at the second Principal disclosure level. The second Principal disclosure level required Marquis Partners to provide the type of Principal being associated with the corresponding first-level Principal entity and the name of the Principal. Marquis Partners failed to disclose one Principal at the second level as further outlined below. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, amongst other partners, Cornerstone Marquis, LLC (“Cornerstone Marquis”), was identified as a general partner of Marquis Partners. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, the members of Cornerstone Marquis were as follows: a) Jorge Lopez; b) Awilda Lopez; c) Mara Mades; and d) M3 Acquisitions, LLC. The members were properly disclosed at the second Principal disclosure level. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, the managers of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, were as follows: a) Jorge Lopez; b) Mara Mades; and c) Leon Wolfe. At the second Principal disclosure level, Awilda Lopez and M3 Acquisitions were incorrectly identified as managers of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, when they were in fact only members. More importantly, Leon Wolfe was not identified at the second Principal disclosure level as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis. Since Leon Wolfe was a manager of Cornerstone Marquis, he should have been identified as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, at the second Principal disclosure level. Florida Housing’s approval of Marquis Partners’ Principal Disclosure Form during the advance review process did not verify the accuracy of the information contained within the Principal Disclosure Form. The information in the Principal Disclosure Form was incorrect at the time it was submitted for approval and remained incorrect when it was submitted with the Marquis Partners’ Application. Florida Housing evaluates omissions from the Principal Disclosure Form based on whether the inclusion of the incorrect information negatively impacts other applicants. Marisa Button, director of multifamily allocation, testified that the misidentification of Awilda Lopez and M3 Acquisitions, LLC, as managers of Cornerstone Marquis is a minor irregularity. On the other hand, Florida Housing considered the failure to properly disclose Leon Wolfe as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis to be a material deviation. Leon Wolfe was disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form at the third disclosure level as a member and manager of M3 Acquisitions, LLC. However, Mr. Wolfe was not properly disclosed at the second level of disclosure as required. The RFA required that applicants disclose Principals in the Principal Disclosure Form for each type of entity. Ms. Button testified that the purpose of proper disclosure of all Principals of the entities that are associated with the applicant is so that Florida Housing is aware of who it is doing business with. Florida Housing screens the Principals to determine whether a Principal has been deficient to the corporation on prior affordable housing deals, identify bad actors, or to limit the amount of funding received by any related applicants. Florida Housing uses the disclosed Principals to determine if applications are related. Florida Housing made the advance review process available to assist applicants with completing the Principal Disclosure Form. During the process, there were sample charts provided to assist the applicants with completing the form. Marquis Partners participated in the review process and Florida Housing approved the form. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Marquis Partners did not properly disclose Mr. Wolfe on its Principal Disclosure Form and, as a result, it should not have been awarded the additional five points for the advance review approval. Moreover, the omission of Mr. Wolfe as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis is a material deviation that cannot be waived. Thus, the evidence shows that Marquis Partners is not eligible for funding.
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 Marquis Partners Application was erroneous, concluding that Marquis Partners was ineligible for funding and not eligible for five additional points, and awarding funding to HTG Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2018, 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 27th day of July, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 304 1725 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s intended decision to find the application of Clearlake Village, L.P., ineligible for funding is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation 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 Statutes, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida for purposes of allocating low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program incentivizes 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. When sold to investors, the tax credits provide equity that reduces the debt associated with the project. With lower debt, the affordable housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rent. As consideration for receipt of tax credits, developers covenant to keep rent at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply. The Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits and other funding by means of requests for proposals or other competitive solicitations allowed by section 420.507(48), Florida Statutes. Florida Housing adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 was adopted on August 20, 2013, replacing prior procedures used by Florida Housing for allocating tax credits, and provides that the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3) govern its process for allocating tax credits. Applicants request in their applications a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. The amount of housing tax 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. On November 21, 2014, Florida Housing issued the RFA at issue in the instant dispute. According to the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award an estimated $12,914,730 of housing tax credits which are available for award to proposed developments located in medium counties, and up to an estimated $1,513,170 of housing tax credits available for award to proposed developments located in small counties. On January 21, 2015, Petitioner, in response to the RFA, submitted an application seeking $1,418,185 in housing tax credits to finance the construction of an 80-unit residential rental development in Brevard County, Florida (a medium county), to be known as Clearlake Village. Though Petitioner has submitted other applications for housing tax credits, this is the first time Petitioner has done so in Florida. Petitioner’s application was assigned lottery number 4 by Florida Housing. On January 20, 2015, Intervenor, in response to the RFA, submitted an application requesting $1,475,000 in housing tax credits to support the construction on an 80-unit affordable housing development also in Brevard County. As part of the RFA process, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to nine medium county developments, including Intervenor’s application number 2015-073C for Brevard County. Notice On March 20, 2015, Petitioner received notice that Florida Housing intended to designate Petitioner’s application ineligible for funding and that other applications were selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. In response to Respondent’s notice of intended action, Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Protest, and Petitioner’s Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. RFA 2014-114 Ranking and Selection Process Florida Housing received 82 applications seeking funding in response to the RFA, including 76 for medium county developments. Developments were proposed in 21 different medium counties throughout the State, including four in Brevard County. 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, many medium counties will not receive an award of housing tax credit funding in this RFA, due to the typical amount of an applicant’s housing tax credit request (generally $1.0 to $1.5 million), and the number of medium counties for which developments are proposed. Florida Housing intends to award funding to nine developments in nine different medium counties. The RFA requires that applicants file an online electronic application with development cost pro forma. Each applicant is also required to submit several hard copies of its application and attachments. One of the applications is designated by the applicant as the “original,” which must contain an original signature in blue ink; and two others it designates as “copies,” which are used by Florida Housing staff to score the applications. Florida Housing scans the application attachments from the original and posts the online application with the scanned attachments on its web page. The applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed “eligible,” which means that the application complies with Florida Housing’s various content requirements. Of the 82 applications submitted to Florida Housing for the RFA, 69 were found “eligible,” and 13 were found ineligible. Petitioner’s application was found ineligible. A five-page spreadsheet created by Florida Housing, entitled “RFA 2014-114 – All Applications,” which identifies all eligible and ineligible applications, was provided to each applicant. The first consideration in sorting eligible applications for funding is application scores. Applicants can achieve a maximum score of 23 points. Eighteen of those 23 points are attributable to “proximity” scores based on the distance of the proposed development from services needed by tenants and the remaining five points are attributable to local government contributions. All 69 eligible applications received the maximum score of 23 points. Petitioner’s application was not fully scored, because it was deemed ineligible. If Petitioner’s application had been scored, rather than being found ineligible, it would have received a score of 23. Many applicants achieve tie scores, and in anticipation of that occurrence Florida Housing designed the RFA and rules to incorporate a series of “tie breakers,” the last of which is randomly assigned lottery numbers. Lottery numbers have historically played a significant role in the outcome of Florida Housing’s funding cycles, and lottery numbers were determinative of funding selections in the current RFA. Florida Housing employs a “funding test” to be used in the selection of medium county applications for funding in this RFA. The “funding test” requires that the amount of tax credits remaining (unawarded) when a particular medium county application is being considered for selection must be enough to fully fund that applicant’s request amount, and partial funding will not be given. The RFA also specifies a sorting order for funding selection, with applications first arranged from highest score to lowest. Applicants with tie scores are separated based on criteria not relevant to resolving the instant protest. Suffice to say that Petitioner’s application qualified for each funding preference and it had a better lottery number than Intervenor. County Award Tally In selecting among eligible applicants for funding, Florida Housing also applies a “County Award Tally.” The County Award Tally is designed to prevent a disproportionate concentration of funded developments in any one county. Generally, before a second application can be funded in any given county, all other counties that are represented by an eligible applicant must receive an award of funding. As there were eligible medium county applications submitted from 21 different counties for the RFA, there cannot be more than one applicant funded from any given medium county. The nine medium county applicants selected for funding had lottery numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 20, 26, 27, and 28. The applicant with lottery number 6 (Intervenor), is from Brevard County. If Petitioner is deemed eligible, it would be selected for funding because it has a lower lottery number (4) than Intervenor and would displace Intervenor as the only project funded in Brevard County. Basis for Petitioner’s Ineligibility Florida Housing reviewed Petitioner’s application and determined that it was ineligible as it failed to meet the RFA requirement that applicants must demonstrate control of the site upon which the development is to be constructed. Florida Housing rejected Petitioner’s site control documentation. Site control is an important element of an application––the “meat and potatoes of the application.” Proof that the applicant has control of the development site is a matter of “do or die if you miss a document.” The RFA has a general requirement that each application be complete, and must include all applicable documentation. Site control can be established through a deed, a long-term lease, or a contract for purchase and sale. In each case, the entity with control of the site must be the applicant entity. If the purchaser under a contract for purchase and sale is not the applicant, then the application must contain one or more assignments that give the applicant all rights and remedies of the purchaser. Section 4.A.7 of the RFA, at page 23, lists the requirements for site control. The instructions provide, in relevant part: 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. a. Eligible Contract - For purposes of the RFA, an eligible contract is one that[:] has a term that does not expire before a date that is six (6) months after the Application Deadline or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than six (6) months after the Application Deadline; specifically states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and 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. As an overall submittal requirement, the RFA requires that each application be complete and include all “applicable documentation.” The RFA process does not provide an opportunity for applicants to cure errors or omissions discovered after submission of an application to Florida Housing. Petitioner’s application sought to establish site control through attachment 13 to its application, which includes, among other things, a vacant land contract, and an assignment and assumption agreement. The vacant land contract pertains to the land that Petitioner intends to use for the site identified in its application. The vacant land contract was prepared using a Florida Association of Realtors form contract. Paragraph 12 of the vacant land contract contains boilerplate language which reads as follows: “ASSIGNABILITY; PERSONS BOUND: Buyer may not assign this Contract without Seller’s written consent.” According to Petitioner, the word “not” was struckthrough in the following manner, to wit: not. Amy Garmon, Florida Housing’s multi-family programs manager, scored the site control element of all 82 applications filed in response to the RFA. Ms. Garmon has scored site control applications for nine to ten years, and is very familiar with the Florida Association of Realtors’ form contract, having scored hundreds of contracts submitted on that form. Ms. Garmon reviewed paragraph 12 of the vacant land contract submitted by Petitioner and concluded that the language set forth therein does not allow for an assignment of the contract without written consent from the seller. Ms. Garmon reached her conclusion because in her opinion, the strikethrough of the word “not” in paragraph 12, although the word itself appears somewhat darker and not as clear as some of the other words in the paragraph, is not sufficiently obvious so as to alert a reader to the presence of the strikethrough. Upon review of paragraph 12, the undersigned agrees with Ms. Garmon, and concludes that the strikethrough of the word “not” is not sufficiently observable so as to alert a reviewer to the presence of the strikethrough. Given the findings in paragraph 31, the provision of the vacant land contract which provides that “[h]andwritten or typewritten terms inserted in or attached to th[e] contract prevail over preprinted terms” is not triggered because the purported strikethrough of the word “not” in paragraph 12 of the contract, given its ambiguity, does not rise to the level of constituting a “handwritten or typewritten” modification of a preprinted contractual term. Additionally, the finding in paragraph 31 also means that Petitioner, in order to demonstrate site control, must prove that the seller gave written consent to DPKY Development Company’s assignment of its interest in the vacant land contract to Petitioner. Petitioner also submitted with its application an assignment and assumption agreement which relates to paragraph 12 of the vacant land contract. The assignment and assumption agreement provides that DPKY Development Company, LLC, is assigning to Petitioner its interest in the vacant land contract it has with William T. Taylor. The vacant land contract provides that “William T. Taylor, in his capacity as trustee of the Hidden Creek Land Trust Agreement dated January 15, 2004,” is the “seller” of the land and “DPKY Development Company, LLC, or assigns” is the “buyer” of land. While the assignment and assumption agreement lists the name of the seller, it does not include a signature line for the seller or any other acknowledgement by the seller expressing consent to the assignment. Petitioner does not dispute that the assignment and assumption agreement is deficient in this regard. Turning to the vacant land contract, Petitioner contends that the first page of the vacant land contract identifies the buyer as “DPKY Development Company, LLC, or assigns,” and because the seller initialed the bottom of the first page of the vacant land contract this means that Respondent should have reasonably known that the presence of seller’s initials means that the seller is consenting to the assignment of DPKY Development Company’s interest in the property. The portion of page one of the vacant land contract initialed by the seller provides that “Buyer ( ) and Seller ( ) acknowledge receipt of a copy of this page, which is page 1 of 7.” Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the introductory provision of the vacant land contract that identifies the “buyer” as “DPKY Development Company, LLC, or assigns,” cannot be read in isolation when there is another provision in the contract which specifically addresses the issue of assignability, to wit: “[b]uyer may not assign th[e] contract without [s]ellers written approval.” The introductory provision of the vacant land contract relied upon by Petitioner may have conveyed a stronger expression of the seller’s purported intent to consent to an assignment if Petitioner removed from paragraph 12 of the vacant land contract any reference to assignability. Because Petitioner failed to do so, the fact that the seller acknowledged that it received a copy of the page of the contract identifying the buyer as “DPKY Development Company, LLC, or assigns” is not sufficient, in itself, to establish that the seller consented to DPKY Development Company’s assignment of its interest in the contract to Petitioner.2/ Ms. Garmon, after determining that the required consent of the seller to the assignment was not included in the original copy of Petitioner’s application, reviewed each of the other copies of Petitioner’s application in Respondent’s possession. Ms. Garmon’s review of the other copies of Petitioner’s application confirmed that the seller’s written consent to assignment was not a part of Petitioner’s application. The evidence supports the conclusions reached by Ms. Garmon and Florida Housing.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner’s protest be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2015, 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 25th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues are whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2020-208 (“RFA”), titled “SAIL and Housing Credit Financing for the Construction of Workforce Housing,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications and, if so, whether the challenged award was contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and/or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: THE PARTIES Quail Roost was an applicant for funding in the RFA. Quail Roost’s application was assigned number 2020-461SC and was preliminarily deemed eligible for consideration for funding, but was not selected for funding. Ali Baba was an applicant for funding in the RFA. Ali Baba’s application was assigned number 2020-476BS and proposed a development named City Terrace in Miami-Dade County. Ali Baba’s application was preliminarily deemed eligible and was selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. Florida Housing has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. For purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Housing credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for qualifying rental housing projects. These credits are then typically sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is to reduce the amount of money that the developer is required to borrow commercially. In return for the subsidized debt reduction, a housing credit property is required to offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers must also agree to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of thirty to fifty years. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funding, and other named funding by section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process. Rule 67-60.009(1) provides that parties wishing to protest any aspect of a Florida Housing competitive solicitation must do so pursuant to section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a request for applications. Rule 67-60.009(4) provides that a request for application is considered a “request for proposal” for purposes of section 120.57(3)(f). Applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be awarded to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. A successful applicant usually sells the rights to the future income stream of housing credits to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. This sale is usually by way of an ownership interest in the applicant entity. The amount of funding that Florida Housing can award to an applicant depends on such factors as an RFA-designated percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. The RFA was issued on February 24, 2020, with responses due on March 30, 2020. The RFA was modified on March 13, 2020, and March 19, 2020, but the application deadline was unchanged. No challenges were made to the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing expects to award up to $17,954,000 in SAIL funding and up to $2,980,000 of housing credits through the RFA. Florida Housing received 22 applications in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The Review Committee found 19 applications eligible and three applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, three applications were preliminarily recommended for funding, including that submitted by Ali Baba. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On June 11, 2020, Florida Housing’s Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee. Also, on June 11, 2020, at approximately 4:35 p.m., Quail Roost and all other applicants in the RFA received notice via the Florida Housing website of the Board’s eligibility determinations and of the preliminary selection of certain eligible applicants for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. The notice consisted of two spreadsheets, one listing the Board approved scoring results in RFA 2020-208 and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Ali Baba’s was one of the applications proposed for funding. Under the scoring and ranking mechanism of the RFA explained below, Quail Roost’s application would be selected for funding were Ali Baba’s application to lose points or be found ineligible. Quail Roost timely filed the Petition. Ali Baba timely intervened. The Petition was referred to the DOAH. The RFA provided point scoring for mandatory “eligibility items.” The RFA then set forth an “Application Sorting Order” of funding goals and priorities that were used to break ties in the point scoring. Only applications that met all the eligibility items could participate in the ranking scheme that determined funding selection. The RFA included only one point scoring item. Applicants could receive five points for submission of a Principals Disclosure Form stamped by Florida Housing as “Approved” during the Advance Review Process. The Advance Review Process is available online and includes instructions and samples to assist the applicant in completing the Principals Disclosure Form. Section Four A.3.c.(2) of the RFA states: “Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline.” The stated goal of the RFA was to fund one application in Monroe County and one application in a “Large County,” i.e., Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, Palm Beach, or Pinellas County. The Application Sorting Order was set forth as follows at Section Five B.2. of the RFA: The highest scoring Applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Level which is outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that have a lower Leveraging Level listed above Applications with a higher Leveraging Level); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference (which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; and By lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The RFA’s “Funding Test” provision at Section Five B.3. stated that applications “will only be selected for funding if there is enough Workforce SAIL funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Workforce SAIL Request Amount, and, Monroe County Applications will only be selected for funding if there is enough Workforce SAIL funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Workforce SAIL Request Amount, and enough Competitive 9% Housing Credit funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Competitive 9% Housing Credit Request Amount.” The total available amount was $17,954,000 in SAIL funding, with at least $2,520,000 of that amount reserved for Monroe County. Section Five B.4. of the RFA described a “County Award Tally” that provided as follows: As each Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. The RFA’s “Funding Selection Order” was set forth as follows at Section Five B.5.: The first Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Application that is eligible for Monroe County Goal. The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Application that is eligible for the Large County Goal. Once the goals are met or if there are no eligible Applications that can meet the goals, then the Corporation will select the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application(s) subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. If funding remains after funding all eligible Application(s) that can meet the Funding Test or because there is no eligible unfunded Application that can be fully funded, then no further Applications will be selected for funding and any remaining Total Remaining SAIL funding, as well as any unallocated 9% HC funding, will be distributed as approved by the Board. PRINCIPALS DISCLOSURE FORM The RFA required applicants to upload the Principals Disclosure Form, the full title of which is “Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form” (Form Rev. 05-2019). As an eligibility item, Section Four A.3.c.(1) of the RFA required that the Principals Disclosure Form: must identify, pursuant to Subsections 67- 48.002(94), 67-48.0075(8) and 67-48.0075(9), F.A.C., the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. As stated above, applicants received 5 points if the uploaded Principals Disclosure Form was stamped “Approved” during the Advance Review Process. Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form went through the Advance Review Process and was stamped “Approved for Housing Credits” by Florida Housing staff on March 16, 2020. Ali Baba’s application was awarded the requisite 5 points. Rule 67-48.002(94)(a) defines “Principal” for entities including corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, trusts, and public housing authorities. For a corporation, “Principal” means “each officer, director, executive director, and shareholder of the corporation.” Quail Roost alleges that Ali Baba is ineligible for funding and should lose 5 points for failure to disclose all of the principals of the applicant and its developer, Opa-Locka Community Development Corporation, Inc. (“Opa- Locka Corp.”). Specifically, Quail Roost alleges that the name of Chad Jackson, a member of the Board of Directors of Opa-Locka Corp., was not disclosed on Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. Ali Baba concedes that members of the Board of Directors of the Opa- Locka Corp. are by definition principals who must be included on the Principals Disclosure Form. Ali Baba also conceded that Mr. Jackson was a member of the Board of Directors and was not included on Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. Dr. Willie Logan, the President and CEO of Opa-Locka Corp., testified that Mr. Jackson is a local low-income housing resident who is an appointed member of the Board of Directors of Opa-Locka Corp. Dr. Logan testified that a resident such as Mr. Jackson must be on the Board of Directors in order for Opa-Locka Corp. to receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Though Mr. Jackson’s name is not included on the Principals Disclosure Form, Ali Baba did disclose Mr. Jackson’s name in a list of its 2019-2020 Board of Directors included as part of Attachment 3 of its application. Non-Profit entities are required to submit “the names and addresses of the members of the governing board of the Non-Profit entity” in Attachment 3. Ali Baba argues that this submission should be sufficient to render Ali Baba’s failure to include Mr. Jackson’s name on the Principals Disclosure Form a minor irregularity. Marisa Button, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, testified as to the reasons Florida Housing requires disclosure of all principals on the Principals Disclosure Form. The RFA includes a financial arrearage requirement stating that an application will be deemed ineligible for funding if the applicant or any affiliated entity is in financial arrears to Florida Housing. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing uses the information on the Principals Disclosure Form to ensure that the financial arrearage requirement is met and no principals are in financial arrearages to Florida Housing. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing also uses the Principals Disclosure Form as a cross-reference to determine whether any of the disclosed entities or individuals have been de-obligated or barred from participation in Florida Housing’s programs. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing considers it a material deviation from the RFA requirements when an applicant fails to disclose a principal on the Principals Disclosure Form. She testified that the disclosure of Mr. Jackson’s name elsewhere in Ali Baba’s application does not change the analysis because Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to presume that an individual not named in the Principals Disclosure Form is a principal of the applicant. Ms. Button explained that before adopting the RFA process in which a number of solicitations are issued for various funding sources over the course of a year, Florida Housing used a single annual application called the “Universal Cycle.” She stated that Attachment 3 is a holdover from the Universal Cycle process, which did not require the filing of a Principals Disclosure Form. Florida Housing used Attachment 3 to verify an applicant’s status as a nonprofit entity for those projects that included funding goals for nonprofits. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing currently reviews Attachment 3 to ensure that entities designating themselves as nonprofits have included their supporting information. It is in no way interchangeable with the Principals Disclosure Form. Ms. Button also noted that the list of Ali Baba’s Board of Directors included in Attachment 3 was dated March 26, 2020. The application deadline was March 30, 2020. Ms. Button testified that, even if Florida Housing were inclined to allow Attachment 3 to supplement the Principals Disclosure Form, the time difference between the two documents would render Attachment 3 unreliable as an indicator of Ali Baba’s principals as of the application deadline. Quail Roost pointed to another discrepancy in Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. As stated above, the name of the applicant entity is “675 Ali Baba, LLC.” The project manager of 675 Ali Baba, LLC, is “675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” However, Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form identified the manager as “Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” Ali Baba concedes that its manager was not accurately disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form. Dr. Logan testified that this was a mere typographical error and that to his knowledge no entity called “Ali Baba Manager, LLC,” existed. Ali Baba pointed to multiple other places in its application that correctly identified the manager as “675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing considers the misnaming of the management entity to be a material error for the same reason it finds the omission of an individual principal to be a material error: Florida Housing cannot perform due diligence checks on the entity if it is not correctly identified. Ms. Button acknowledged that Florida Housing has treated typographical or grammatical errors as minor irregularities in the past; however, this was not a minor irregularity because the failure to correctly name the manager affected Florida Housing’s ability to investigate the entity for financial arrears or debarment. As in the case of Mr. Jackson, the fact that 675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC, was correctly identified elsewhere in Ali Baba’s application did not affect the analysis. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing does not, and cannot, under its rules and the principles of competitive bidding, look beyond the Principals Disclosure Form to determine the identities of the applicant’s principals. SCATTERED SITES As an eligibility requirement in the RFA, applicants were required to provide information regarding the location of their proposed developments. Section Four A.5.d.(1) of the RFA required that a Development Location Point (“DLP”) be stated for the latitude/longitude coordinates in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. The DLP identified by Ali Baba is not in dispute in this proceeding. Section Four A.5.d.(2) of the RFA stated that if the proposed development consists of Scattered Sites, i.e, non-contiguous parcels,2 then in addition to the DLP information, the applicant must “provide the latitude and longitude coordinates of one point located anywhere on the Scattered Site” for each Scattered Site. As with the DLP, the coordinates for the Scattered Sites were required to be stated in decimal degrees and rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. In its application, Ali Baba proposed a development that included three Scattered Sites. Ali Baba provided the following latitude and longitude coordinates for those sites: A) 25.901060, -80.251883; B) 25.901267, -80.251473; and C) 25.901884, -80.253365. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing takes the coordinates in the application at face value and does not verify whether the coordinates provided for the Scattered Sites are actually on the proposed sites. During discovery in this proceeding, Quail Roost established that, due to a mapping error, Ali Baba’s identified coordinates for the three Scattered Sites were not located on the Scattered Sites, but approximately 35, 73, and 75 feet off the Scattered Sites, respectively. As an eligibility item, the RFA included a mandatory distance requirement. In Miami-Dade County, the distance between the DLP and the coordinates provided for any Scattered Sites must be at least 0.5 miles from the closest development that is identified as serving the same demographic as that proposed by the applicant. Ms. Button testified that the mandatory distance requirement ensures that Florida Housing does not fund developments in close proximity to other 2 A detailed definition of “Scattered Sites” is set forth in rule 67-48.002(106). recently funded developments serving the same demographic, thus avoiding issues with leasing and occupancy rates for new developments. To confirm distances from other developments, the RFA instructs applicants to use Florida Housing’s Development Proximity List, dated August 16, 2019 (“Proximity List”). The Proximity List contains information on recently funded developments, including latitude and longitude coordinates, addresses, and whether the demographic of the development is classified as Family, Elderly, Non-ALF, ALF, or Workforce Housing. Florida Housing uses the DLP and Scattered Sites coordinates provided by successful applicants to develop the Proximity List for the next funding cycle of applications. The developments receiving funding in this RFA will be added to the Proximity List for prospective applicants in the 2020-2021 funding cycle to evaluate for the mandatory distance requirement. Florida Housing has created a draft Proximity List for the next funding cycle that includes the coordinates provided in the Ali Baba application. The draft Proximity List puts future applicants on notice of applications that are in litigation, including the Ali Baba application. In its application, Ali Baba selected the Workforce Housing demographic. According to the Proximity List, the closest Workforce Housing development is approximately 5 miles from Ali Baba’s proposed development. Ali Baba argues that its inaccurate Scattered Sites coordinates should be considered a minor irregularity because the distances from the sites are less than 100 feet and did not change the finding that the Ali Baba development would not be located within 0.5 miles of the closest Workforce Housing development funded by Florida Housing. Ali Baba argues that because the draft Proximity List provides notice that its application is subject to litigation, no reasonable prospective applicant would rely on Ali Baba’s coordinates. Ali Baba notes that Florida Housing retains the authority to revise the coordinates on the draft Proximity List. Ali Baba contends that the purpose of the mandatory distance requirement is to measure proximity to the nearest development and that it is undisputed that Ali Baba’s proposed development is more than 0.5 miles away from the nearest Workforce Housing development funded by Florida Housing. Ali Baba urges that the minimal error as to the Scattered Sites coordinates in its application should be deemed a minor irregularity that conferred no competitive advantage on Ali Baba. Ms. Button testified that the error in Ali Baba’s coordinates for its Scattered Sites is a material deviation that renders the Ali Baba application ineligible for funding. The fact that the next closest Workforce Housing development was over 5 miles away does not make Ali Baba’s error a waivable minor irregularity because the coordinates provided did not meet the requirements of the RFA. Ms. Button testified that Scattered Sites coordinates are an eligibility item and Ali Baba’s error thus renders its application ineligible for funding. Absent litigation, Florida Housing would have no way of knowing that an applicant’s Scattered Sites coordinates were not accurate. Florida Housing takes the coordinates at face value and does not take measurements or have surveyors confirm the information. Instead, it relies on the application and the fact that the applicant certifies that the information in the application is true and correct. Ms. Button testified that inaccurate coordinates can affect a prospective applicant’s decision on whether to apply for funding because applicants rely on the coordinates in the Proximity List to determine whether or not they can meet the mandatory distance requirement. Florida Housing reasonably concludes that an applicant bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the information submitted in its application. The fact that litigation has in this case provided a correction to Ali Baba’s erroneous Scattered Sites coordinates does not transform Ali Baba’s failure to comply with an eligibility item into a minor irregularity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to 2020-208 finding that Ali Baba is ineligible for funding and awarding funding to Quail Roost, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Housing's proposed action to deem Madison Landing eligible for an award of housing tax credit funds, as contemplated under Request for Applications 2020-202 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties ("the 2020 RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules or policies, or the 2020 RFA specifications. The standard of proof is whether Florida Housing's proposed action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, whose address is 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and for the purposes of these proceedings, an agency of the State of Florida. Madison Landing is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $1,950,000 in competitive housing credits in in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-021C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. Madison Park is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,881,960 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-004C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. WRDG is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,375,000 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-025C, was deemed eligible and was preliminarily selected for funding by Florida Housing. Florida Housing administers various affordable housing programs, including the Housing Credit Program, pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC" or "the Code") and section 420.5099, under which Florida Housing is designated as the Housing Credit agency for the State of Florida within the meaning of Section 42(h)(7)(A) of the IRC, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60. Florida Housing has established, by rule, a competitive solicitation process known as the Request for Applications ("RFA") to assess the relative merits of proposed developments, pursuant to chapters 67-48 and 67-60. An 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. While there are numerous references to Florida Housing's rules throughout the RFA, RFAs themselves are not adopted or incorporated by rule. Florida Housing issues many RFAs each year. Although an issued RFA may be similar to these issued in previous years, each RFA is unique. The RFA process begins when Florida Housing requests the Florida Housing Board of Directors ("the Board") to approve Florida Housing's plan for allocating its resources through the various RFAs. If the plan is approved by the Board, Florida Housing begins working on each individual RFA. Florida Housing posts draft documents to its website for public review, such as a draft of the RFA, and holds a workshop in which the RFA is discussed in detail, highlighting language that changed from the previous year. The public is given the opportunity to ask questions and submit written comments for further suggestions and/or additional edits prior to the RFA's issuance. Marisa Button, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, credibly and persuasively testified that Questions and Answers are provided as guidance, but do not provide new requirements to override the terms of an RFA. In the event of an inconsistency between Questions and Answers and another form of guidance for applicants, Florida Housing has maintained the position that the least restrictive guidance controls. Rule 67-60.006 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he failure of an Applicant to supply required information in connection with any competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter shall be grounds for a determination of non-responsiveness with respect to its Application." By applying, each Applicant certifies that: Proposed Developments funded under this RFA will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, inclusive of all Exhibits, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C. and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. On August 26, 2020, Florida Housing issued the 2020 RFA, proposing to provide an estimated $18,669,520 of Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. Modifications to the 2020 RFA were made on September 11 and October 12, 2020. The Application Deadline for the 2020 RFA was October 20, 2020. On or about October 20, 2020, 35 applications were submitted in response to the 2020 RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Board. The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible and one application ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the 2020 RFA, eight applications were recommended for funding. In accordance with the funding selection process set forth in the 2020 RFA, one application was selected from each of Duval, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange counties; two applications were selected from Broward County; and one application (WRDG) was selected from any of these counties. On December 4, 2020, the Board approved these recommendations. On December 17, 2020, Madison Landing timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0146BID. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and MHP FL II, LLC. On January 13, 2021, Madison Landing dismissed all of its allegations against MHP FL II, LLC. On December 17, 2020, Madison Park timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0147BID. An amended petition was filed on January 13, 2021. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and Madison Landing. On January 26, 2021, all parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Findings of Fact in which WRDG conceded that its application should have been found ineligible. WRDG is ineligible for funding under the 2020 RFA. With WRDG ineligible for funding, Madison Landing would be selected for funding in place of WRDG. If both WRDG and Madison Landing were found to be ineligible for funding, Madison Park would be selected for funding in place of WRDG and Madison Landing. No other Applicant selected for funding will be impacted regardless of the outcome of this case. No challenges were made to the terms of the 2020 RFA. Madison Landing's application includes an executed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form, which provides, "The Applicant, the Developer and all Principals are in good standing among all other state agencies and have not been prohibited from applying for funding." The phrase "good standing among all other state agencies" is not defined; and no evidence was presented as to the definitive meaning of the phrase. No evidence was presented that Madison Landing's Principals are not in good standing with any state agency or have been prohibited from applying for funding. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.a. provides that Applicants must disclose the name of the Applicant entity and provide evidence that it is legally formed: (2) The Applicant must be a legally formed entity [i.e., limited partnership, limited liability company, etc.] qualified to do business in the state of Florida as of the Application Deadline. Include, as Attachment 2 to Exhibit A, evidence from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, that the Applicant satisfies the foregoing requirements. Such evidence may be in the form of a certificate of status or other reasonably reliable information or documentation issued, published or made available by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Rule 67-48.002(9) (6/23/2020), defines "Applicant" as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a 'legal entity' means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.c. provides that Applicants must disclose Principals of both the Applicant and Developer entities. The 2020 RFA provides in pertinent part: c. Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer (5 points) (1) Eligibility Requirements To meet the submission requirements, upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 05-2019) ("Principals Disclosure Form") as outlined in Section Three above. Prior versions of the Principal Disclosure Form will not be accepted. To meet eligibility requirements, the Principals Disclosure Form must identify, pursuant to Subsections 67-48.002(94), 67-48.0075(8) and 67- 48.0075(9), F.A.C., the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. For Housing Credits, the investor limited partner of an Applicant limited partnership or the investor member of an Applicant limited liability company must be identified on the Principal Disclosure Form. Rule 67-48.002(94) defines "Principal" as follows: (94) "Principal" means: For a corporation, each officer, director, executive director, and shareholder of the corporation. For a limited partnership, each general partner, and each limited partner of the limited partnership. For a limited liability company, each manager and each member of the limited liability company. For a trust, each trustee of the trust and all beneficiaries of majority age (i.e., 18 years of age) as of the Application Deadline. Page 10 of 22. For a Public Housing Authority, each officer, director, commissioner, and executive director of the Authority. The requirement to provide evidence that the Applicant is a legally formed entity, as well as the requirement to provide a Principals for Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form, are identified as "Eligibility Items." Section Five A.1. of the 2020 RFA states that "only Applications that meet all of the following Eligibility Items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection." Madison Landing submitted Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form(s) with its application. Both forms were approved during the Advance Review Process. On the Principals of the Applicant form, Madison Landing II, LLC, was identified as the Applicant entity. The Principals of the Applicant entity were identified as Patrick E. Law, Manager; Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, Non-Investor Member; and Patrick E. Law, Investor Member. Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, filed Articles of Organization for Florida Limited Liability Company with the Florida Division of Corporations on January 5, 2021, with an effective date of December 31, 2020. The 2020 RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline; however, there is no explicit requirement in the 2020 RFA that each Principal of the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline. Ms. Button testified that her initial view was that the failure of Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, to incorporate by the application deadline should render the application ineligible. However, upon further research, she changed her position, believing that Florida Housing was precedentially bound by a previous final order, which found that an application was eligible under similar legal and factual circumstances. The previous case, on which Florida Housing relied, was decided before Florida Housing adopted the current RFA procedures for awarding funding. Ms. Button testified, however, that while some of the processes followed during the Universal Cycle, in place at that time, were different than the RFA process, the requirements for disclosure of Principals were essentially the same. Florida Housing allows interested parties to submit written questions to be answered by Florida Housing staff for each RFA that is issued. The Question-Answer period is referenced specifically within each RFA. The following Question and Answer are posted on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-111: Question 12: Do the entities listed on the Principal Disclosure Form have to be active as of the stamped "Approved" date or as of the Application Deadline? Answer: As of the Application Deadline. The Applicant may upload a Principals Disclosure Form stamped "Approved" during the Advance Review Process provided (a) it is still correct as of the Application Deadline, (b) it was approved for the type of funding being requested (i.e., Housing Credits or Non-Housing Credits) The same Question and Answer above are on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-110; RFA 2018-112; and RFA 2018-113. The same Question and Answer, however, do not appear in Questions and Answers for the 2020 RFA at issue in this case. Although Questions and Answers from past RFAs remain on the Florida Housing website, they are discrete to the specific RFA for which they were issued. Rule 67-48.002(9) (7/2018) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporations programs. For purposes of rules 67-48.0105. 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a legal entity means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company with a management and ownership structure that consists exclusively of all natural persons by the third principal disclosure level. For Applicants seeking Housing Credits, the Housing Credits Syndicator/Housing Credit investor need only be disclosed at the first principal level and no other disclosure is required. The terms "first principal disclosure level" and "third principal disclosure level" have the meanings attributed to them in the definition of "Principal." Rule 67-48.002(9) (11/2011) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legally formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a request for proposal for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67-48031, F.A.C., Applicants also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, did not demonstrate that it was a legally- formed entity as of the Application Deadline, and therefore, Madison Landing's Principal Disclosure Form did not satisfy the 2020 RFA's requirements. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's application should be deemed ineligible for funding as a result. Based on the weight of the credible evidence and the language of the 2020 RFA and the governing law, the undersigned finds that Florida Housing did not contravene the 2020 RFA, or any other applicable authority, through the process by which it determined that Madison Landing's application was eligible for the award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: (1) finding the application of WRDG ineligible for funding; (2) finding the application of Madison Landing eligible for funding; and (3) dismissing the protest of Madison Park. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2021. J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-231 Tallahassee, Florida 32312
The Issue The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: THE PARTIES Berkeley is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,500,000 in CDBG Development funding; $2,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $844,699 in non-competitive housing credits. The Berkeley Application, assigned number 2020-017D, was preliminarily deemed ineligible for consideration for funding. Brisas is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $5,000,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,674,839 in non-competitive housing credits. The Brisas Application, assigned number 2020-056D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Northside is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,300,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,588,014 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (“MMRB”). The Northside Application, assigned number 2020-024D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Beacon Place is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,925,500 in CDBG Development funding; $4,320,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,764,203 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in MMRB. The Beacon Place Application, assigned number 2020-045DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bella Vista is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $8,000,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,450,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $609,629 in non-competitive housing credits; and $13,000,000 in MMRB. The Bella Vista Application, assigned number 2020-038DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Solaris is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,420,000 in CDBG Development funding; $4,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $937,232 in non-competitive housing credits. The Solaris Application, assigned number 2020-039D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Metro Grande is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,175,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,041,930 in non-competitive housing credits. The Metro Grande Application, assigned number 2020-041D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Sierra Bay is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,650,000 in CDBG Development funding; $3,300,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,074,173 in non-competitive housing credits; and $16,000,000 in MMRB. The Sierra Bay Application, assigned number 2020-040DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bembridge is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,800,000 in CDBG Development funding; $564,122 in non-competitive housing credits; and $10,100,000 in MMRB. The Bembridge Application, assigned number 2020-046DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. East Pointe is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $4,680,000 in CDBG Development funding and $690,979 in non-competitive housing credits. The East Pointe Application, assigned number 2020-053D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and, for purposes of these consolidated cases, is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is tasked with distributing a portion of the CDBG-DR funding allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), pursuant to the State of Florida Action Plan for Disaster Recovery. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS AND RFA 2019-102 Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits and other named funding by section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process. Rule 67-60.009(1) provides that parties wishing to protest any aspect of a Florida Housing competitive solicitation must do so pursuant to section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a request for applications. Rule 67-60.009(4) provides that a request for application is considered a “request for proposal” for purposes of section 120.57(3)(f). The RFA was issued on July 30, 2019, with responses due on August 27, 2019. The RFA was modified four times and the application deadline was extended to September 24, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms and specifications of the RFA. Section Five of the RFA included a list of 48 “eligibility items” that an applicant was required to satisfy to be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. Applications that met the eligibility standards would then be awarded points for satisfying RFA criteria, with the highest scoring applications being selected for funding. No total point items are in dispute. Proximity Point items are contested as to the Beacon Place, East Pointe, and Bembridge Applications. Applicants could select whether they would be evaluated as Priority I, II, or III applications. All of the parties to these consolidated cases identified themselves as Priority I applications. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award an estimated $76,000,000 of CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding to areas impacted by Hurricane Irma, and in areas that experienced a population influx because of migration from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricane Irma. Florida Housing will award up to $66,000,000 for CDBG Development funding and an additional $10,000,000 for CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Applicants were not required to request CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Forty-four applications were submitted in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible for funding. The Review Committee found 8 applications ineligible, including that of Berkeley. Two applications were withdrawn. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On December 13, 2019, the Board met and accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee. The Board preliminarily awarded funding to 12 applications, including those of Sierra Bay, Solaris, Metro Grande, East Pointe, and Bembridge. Petitioners Berkeley, Brisas, Northside, Beacon Place, and Bella Vista timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. THE BERKELEY APPLICATION As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to identify an Authorized Principal Representative. According to the RFA, the Authorized Principal Representative: must be a natural person Principal of the Applicant listed on the Principal Disclosure Form; must have signature authority to bind the Applicant entity; (c) must sign the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form submitted in this Application; (d) must sign the Site Control Certification form submitted in this Application; and (e) if funded, will be the recipient of all future documentation that requires a signature. As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to submit an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. As an eligibility item, the RFA also required applicants to submit a Site Control Certification form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. In section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A of the RFA, the applicant is directed to enter the contact information of its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley entered the name, organization, and contact information for Jennie D. Lagmay as its Authorized Principal Representative, in response to section 3.e.(1). The name of Jennie D. Lagmay was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form required by the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form and the Site Control Certification form were executed by Jonathan L. Wolf, not Jennie D. Lagmay, the designated Authorized Principal Representative. On both forms, Mr. Wolf is identified as “Manager of Berkeley Landing GP, LLC; General Partner of Berkeley Landing, Ltd.” Jonathan L. Wolf is listed on the Principal Disclosure Form. Aside from section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, Jennie D. Lagmay’s name is not found in the Berkeley Application. Florida Housing determined that the Berkeley Application was ineligible for an award of funding for three reasons: 1) the Authorized Principal Representative listed was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form; 2) the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative; and 3) the Site Control Certification was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Two other applications for this RFA were found ineligible for identical reasons: Thornton Place, Application No. 2020-020D; and Berkshire Square, Application No. 2020-034D. In these, as in the Berkeley Application, Jennie D. Lagmay was named as the Authorized Principal Representative in section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, but Jonathan L. Wolf executed the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form and the Site Control Certification form as the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley concedes it made an error in placing the name of Ms. Lagmay in section 3.e.(1), but argues that this constituted a minor irregularity that should have been waived by Florida Housing. Berkeley contends that the entirety of its Application makes plain that Jonathan D. Wolf is in fact its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley argues that Florida Housing should waive the minor irregularity and determine that the Berkeley Application is eligible for funding. Berkeley points out that only two members of the Review Committee, Rachel Grice and Heather Strickland, scored the portions of the Berkeley Application that led to the ineligibility recommendation. Ms. Grice determined that the Authorized Principal Representative listed in the Berkeley Application was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form. Ms. Strickland determined that neither the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form nor the Site Control Certification form was executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Neither Ms. Grice nor Ms. Strickland conducted a minor irregularity analysis for the Berkeley Application. Rule 67-60.008, titled “Right to Waive Minor Irregularities,” provides as follows: Minor irregularities are those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Berkeley contends that because a minor irregularity analysis was not conducted by the Review Committee members, the Board was deprived of a necessary explanation for the preliminary recommendations of Ms. Grice and Ms. Strickland. Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations, agreed that the Review Committee members did not perform a minor irregularity analysis but testified that none was required given the nature of the discrepancy in the Berkeley Application. Ms. Button performed a minor irregularity analysis as Florida Housing’s corporate representative in this proceeding and concluded that the error could not be waived or corrected without providing an unfair competitive advantage to Berkeley. Ms. Button testified that the fact that the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms could not be considered a minor irregularity because the application demonstrated conflicting and contradictory information, creating uncertainty as to the applicant’s intentions. She stated that Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of the application. Ms. Button stated that Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to decide what the applicant intended when the information provided in the application is contradictory. Berkeley points to the fact that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form, signed by Mr. Wolf, includes the following language: “The undersigned is authorized to bind the Applicant entity to this certification and warranty of truthfulness and completeness of the Application.” Berkeley argues that it should have been clear to Florida Housing that Mr. Wolf is the person authorized to bind the company and that the inclusion of Ms. Lagmay’s name in section 3.e.(1) was in the nature of a typographical error. Florida Housing points out that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form also includes the following language below the signature line: “NOTE: Provide this form as Attachment 1 to the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Florida Housing notes that the Site Control Certification form includes similar language: “This form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Berkeley contends that Florida Housing was well aware that Jonathan L. Wolf has been the named Authorized Principal Representative on multiple applications filed under the umbrella of Wendover Housing Partners, the general developer behind Berkeley. In at least one of those previous applications, Ms. Lagmay, an employee of Wendover Housing Partners, was identified as the “contact person.” Ms. Button responded that Review Committee members are specifically prohibited from using personal knowledge of a general development entity in a specific application submitted by a single purpose entity. She further testified that if Florida Housing employees were to use their personal knowledge of an experienced developer to waive errors in a specific application, applicants who had not previously submitted applications would be at a competitive disadvantage. Ms. Button testified that Berkeley was established as a single purpose entity in accordance with the RFA’s requirements. She testified that she has known general developers to structure these single purpose entities in different ways, depending on the requirements of an RFA. An applicant might designate an employee, such as Ms. Lagmay, as a principal to give her experience as a developer. Again, Ms. Button emphasized that Florida Housing is not in a position to decide what the applicant “really meant” when there is a discrepancy in the information provided. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing has determined in prior RFAs that an applicant was ineligible because the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms. Florida Housing rightly concluded that there are only two possible ways to interpret the Berkeley Application. If Ms. Lagmay was the Authorized Principal Representative, then the application is nonresponsive because she was not listed on the Principal Disclosure form and she did not sign the required certification forms. If Ms. Lagmay was not the Authorized Principal Representative, the application is nonresponsive because no Authorized Principal Representative was identified. There is no way to tell from the four corners of the application which of these alternatives is the correct one. Florida Housing cannot step in and cure the defect in the application by making its own educated guess as to the intended identity of the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of ineligibility was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA, or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE SIERRA BAY APPLICATION The parties stipulated to the facts regarding the Sierra Bay Application, which are incorporated into this Recommended Order. Florida Housing deemed the Sierra Bay Application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Sierra Bay for funding. In order to demonstrate site control, the RFA required execution of the Site Control Certification form. Site control documentation had to be included in the application. One way to demonstrate site control was to include an “eligible contract.” The RFA required that certain conditions be met in order to be considered an “eligible contract.” One of those requirements was that the contract “must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance.” Sierra Bay acknowledged that the site control documentation included within its application did not meet the “eligible contract” requirement because it failed to include language regarding specific performance as a remedy for the seller’s default. Sierra Bay agreed that the omission of the specific performance language was not a minor irregularity and that Sierra Bay’s Application is ineligible for funding under the terms of the RFA. THE SOLARIS APPLICATION The RFA specified that a Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must hold 100 percent ownership in the land of any qualifying Priority I application. The RFA defined “Community Land Trust” as: A 501(c)(3) which acquires or develops parcels of land for the primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease which retains a preemptive option to purchase any such structural improvement at a price determined by a formula designed to ensure the improvement remains affordable in perpetuity. The RFA provided that if a Community Land Trust is the Land Owner, the Community Land Trust must provide the following documentation as Attachment 2 to the application to demonstrate that it qualifies as a Community Land Trust: The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier and that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is to provide or preserve affordable housing; and The Community Land Trust must provide a list that meets one of the following criteria to demonstrate experience of the Community Land Trust with owning property: (i) at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns; or (ii) one parcel of land that the Community Land Trust owns, consisting of a number of units that equals or exceeds at least 25 percent of the units in the proposed Development. The RFA required that the proposed development must be affordable in perpetuity. For purposes of the RFA, “perpetuity” means 99 years or more. Solaris identified Residential Options of Florida, Inc. (“Residential Options”), as the Community Land Trust owner in its Priority 1 Application. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included the Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Original Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on July 30, 2014. The purpose of the corporation as stated in the Original Articles was as follows: Said corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Amended Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on September 20, 2019. The Amended Articles retained the boilerplate statement of purpose of the Original Articles, but added the following paragraph: This shall include the purpose of empowering individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to successfully obtain and maintain affordable and inclusive housing of their choice and to provide affordable housing and preserve the affordability of housing for low- income or moderate income people, including people with disabilities, in perpetuity. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included the Articles of Incorporation of ROOF Housing Trust, Inc. (“ROOF Housing Trust”) filed with the Division of Corporations on July 17, 2017. The purpose of the corporation as stated in these Articles includes the following: “to acquire land to be held in perpetuity for the primary purpose of providing affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities.” Finally, Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included Articles of Merger, which were filed with the Division of Corporations on September 10, 2019. The Articles of Merger indicated that the Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust had merged, with Residential Options standing as the surviving corporation. The petitioners contesting the Solaris Application raise several issues. The first issue is whether the RFA requires only that the entity named as the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether the entity had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. The Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application, Residential Options, existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. The second issue is whether the June 28, 2018, date applies only to the existence of the Community Land Trust or whether the RFA requires that the Community Land Trust have been in existence and have had a stated purpose to provide or preserve affordable housing and have met the ownership experience criteria as of June 28, 2018. It is questionable whether Solaris would be eligible for funding if the RFA required the latter, because Residential Options did not have a stated purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing prior to its merger with ROOF Housing Trust, at least no such purpose as could be gleaned from the four corners of the Solaris Application. The third issue is whether the RFA’s definition of “Community Land Trust” requires the qualifying entity to have existing ground leases at the time of the application. Florida Housing and Solaris concede that Residential Options did not have operative ground leases at the time Solaris submitted its application. Hurricane Irma struck Puerto Rico and Florida in September 2017. Ms. Button testified that in creating this RFA, Florida Housing wanted to weed out opportunistic community land trusts created only for the purpose of obtaining this funding. Florida Housing initially proposed an RFA requirement that the community land trust have existed as of September 2017, but discovered through workshops with interested parties that the early date would exclude legitimate Community Land Trusts that had been established in response to the storm. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s intent was to make this RFA as inclusive as practicable. Florida Housing therefore selected June 28, 2018, as a date that would exclude opportunists without penalizing the genuine responders to the natural disaster. Both Florida Housing and Solaris point to the text of the RFA requirement to demonstrate that the date of June 28, 2018, should be read to apply only to whether the Community Land Trust existed as of that date. Solaris argues that the RFA states three independent criteria for eligibility: 1) that the Community Land Trust “has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier”; 2) that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is1 to provide or preserve affordable housing; and 3) the Community Land Trust must demonstrate its property ownership experience, one means of doing which is to name at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the first criterion by providing its Articles of Incorporation showing it has existed since July 30, 2014. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the second criterion by providing its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, which stated the purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the third criterion by identifying two properties in Immokalee, Independence Place, and Liberty Place as parcels that it currently owns. Florida Housing thus reached the conclusion that Residential Options met the definition of a Community Land Trust in the RFA as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing argues that, according to the definition in the RFA, a Community Land Trust must be a 501(c)(3) corporation, which Residential Options clearly is. It must acquire or develop parcels of land, which it has done. Finally, it must have the “primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s interpretation of the RFA’s Community Land Trust definition was that if Residential Options had the primary purpose of providing affordable housing in perpetuity through the use of long term ground leases, the definition has been met even if Residential Options had not actually entered into any ground leases at the 1 Both Florida Housing and Solaris emphasize that the second criterion is stated in the present tense, which suggests that it does not intend a backward look to June 28, 2018. time it submitted its application. This is not the only way to read the RFA’s definition, but it is not an unreasonable reading, particularly in light of Florida Housing’s stated intent to make the RFA as inclusive as possible in terms of the participation of legitimate community land trusts. Sheryl Soukup, the Executive Director of Residential Options, testified via deposition. Ms. Soukup testified that in 2017, Residential Options realized there was a need for housing for people with disabilities and decided to become a nonprofit housing developer of properties that would be kept affordable in perpetuity. To that end, ROOF Housing Trust was created to act as the community land trust for the properties developed by Residential Options. The two companies had identical Boards of Directors and Ms. Soukup served as Executive Director of both entities. In its application to the IRS for 501(c)(3) status, ROOF Housing Trust included the following: The organization does not own any property yet. ROOF Housing Trust intends to own vacant land, single family homes, and multi-family units. Some of the units will be provided as rental units. ROOF Housing Trust will sell some of the houses for homeownership, while retaining the land on which they are located. The land will be leased to homeowners at a nominal fee to make the purchase price affordable, using the community land trust model. Ground leases and warranty deeds not been developed yet [sic], but will be based on the sample documents provided by the Florida Community Land Trust Institute.[2] Ms. Soukup described ROOF Housing Trust as “a vehicle by which Residential Options of Florida could act as a community land trust…. [I]t was always the intention of Residential Options of Florida to develop and put into 2 The ROOF Housing Trust 501(c)(3) application was not a part of the Solaris Application. It was included as an exhibit to Ms. Soukup’s deposition. a community land trust property so that it would remain affordable in perpetuity for use by people of intellectual and development [sic] disabilities.” Residential Options acquired the aforementioned Independence Place and Liberty Place properties but never conveyed ownership to ROOF Housing Trust. Residential Options acted as a de facto community land trust. No ground leases have yet been entered into because the properties are at present rented directly by Residential Options to persons with developmental disabilities. Ms. Soukup testified that at the time ROOF Housing Trust was created, the Board of Residential Options was undecided whether to create a separate entity to act as a community land trust or to incorporate that function into the existing entity. The decision to incorporate ROOF Housing Trust was based on the Board’s intuition that a separate corporation would “allow us the most flexibility in the future.” In any event, Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were functionally the same entity. Ms. Soukup testified that plans to merge the two companies emerged from a situation in which Collier County refused to allow Residential Options to convey its two properties to ROOF Housing Trust. The Board that controlled both companies decided that there was no point in maintaining separate legal entities if ROOF Housing Trust could not perform its main function. As noted above, Articles of Merger were filed on September 10, 2019. Northside points to minutes from Residential Options’s Board meetings in August and September 2019, as indicating that the Board itself did not believe that Residential Options was a community land trust prior to the merger with ROOF Housing Trust. Northside contends that the September 2019 merger was initiated and completed mainly because Residential Options had been approached about serving as the Community Land Trust for the applications of Solaris and Sierra Bay in this RFA. Northside points to the “frenzied activity” by Residential Options to create an entity meeting the definition of Community Land Trust in the days just before the September 24, 2019, application deadline. Northside argues that Residential Options is the very kind of opportunistic community land trust that the June 28, 2018, date of creation was intended to weed out. Northside’s argument is not persuasive of itself, but it does point the way to an ultimate finding as to the Solaris Application. Both Florida Housing and Solaris gave great emphasis to Ms. Soukup’s testimony to refute the suggestion that Residential Options acted opportunistically. Ms. Soukup was a credible witness. Her explanation of the process by which Residential Options first created then merged with ROOF Housing Trust dispelled any suggestion that Residential Options was a community land trust created solely to cash in on this RFA. The problem is that Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee when it evaluated the Solaris Application. The only information about Residential Options that the Review Committee possessed was Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application. The dates of the merger documents and Amended Articles certainly give some credence to the suspicions voiced by Northside. However, the undersigned is less persuaded by the implications as to the intentions of Residential Options than by the contradictions between Florida Housing’s statements of intent and its reading of the RFA in relation to the Solaris Application. The decision to find the Solaris Application eligible for funding founders on the first issue stated above: whether the RFA requires only that the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether it had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. Ms. Button testified that the June 28, 2018, date was settled upon as a way of including community land trusts created in the wake of Hurricane Irma, while excluding those created to cash in on this RFA. During cross- examination by counsel for Northside, Ms. Button broadened her statement to say that Florida Housing’s intention was to exclude entities that had not been involved in affordable housing at all prior to June 28, 2018. Nonetheless, the RFA language is limited to Community Land Trusts. The RFA states: “The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating that it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier…” The Solaris Application shows that Residential Options existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. Residential Options did not become a Community Land Trust until it completed its merger with ROOF Housing Trust and filed the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019. Ms. Button’s statement of intent is accepted as consistent with the plain language of the RFA: the date of June 28, 2018, excludes Community Land Trusts created subsequently. It is inconsistent for Florida Housing to also read the RFA language to say that the qualifying entity need not have existed as a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018. It would be arbitrary for Florida Housing to set a date for the creation of Community Land Trusts then turn around and find that the date does not apply to this particular Community Land Trust. Ms. Soukup’s testimony was that Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were effectively a single entity and that Residential Options was in fact operating as a community land trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger. However, Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee, which was limited to one means of ascertaining whether an entity was a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018: the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. Residential Options’s Original Articles included no language demonstrating that it was a Community Land Trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger with ROOF Housing Trust and the filing of the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019.3 As set forth in the discussion of the Berkley Application above, Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of an application. It was contrary to the provisions of the RFA for Florida Housing to find that Residential Options’s mere existence as a legal entity prior to June 28, 2018, satisfied the requirement that the Community Land Trust must demonstrate that it existed prior to June 28, 2018. Ms. Button’s own testimony demonstrated that Florida Housing intended to exclude Community Land Trusts created after June 28, 2018. ROOF Housing Trust existed as a Community Land Trust in 2017, but ROOF Housing Trust was not the Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application. Ms. Soukup’s explanation of the circumstances showed that Residential Options was well intentioned in its actions, but her explanation was not a part of the Solaris Application that was before Florida Housing’s Review Committee. THE METRO GRANDE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Metro Grande Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, the Metro Grande Application was preliminarily selected for funding. Petitioner Brisas contends that the Metro Grande Application should have been found ineligible for failure to include mandatory site control documentation. Metro Grande submitted a Priority I application that was not seeking Land Acquisition Program funding. The site control requirements for such applicants are as follows: 3 This finding also disposes of Solaris’s arguments regarding the legal effect of corporate mergers. The RFA provided one simple way of demonstrating whether an entity was a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing’s Review Committee could not be expected to delve into the complexities of corporate mergers to answer this uncomplicated question. The Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must already own the land as the sole grantee and, if funded, the land must be affordable into Perpetuity.[4] Applicants must demonstrate site control as of Application Deadline by providing the properly executed Site Control Certification form (Form Rev. 08-18). Attached to the form must be the following documents: A Deed or Certificate of Title. The deed or certificate of title (in the event the property was acquired through foreclosure) must be recorded in the applicable county and show the Land Owner as the sole Grantee. There are no restrictions on when the land was acquired; and A lease between the Land Owner and the Applicant entity. The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline. Metro Grande did not include a deed or certificate of title in its application. In fact, no deed or certificate of title for the Metro Grande site exists. Miami-Dade County owns the Metro Grande site. Miami-Dade County acquired ownership of the Metro Grande site by eminent domain. The eminent domain process culminated in the entry of four Final Judgments for individual parcels which collectively compose the Metro Grande site. The Final Judgments were not attached to Metro Grande’s Application. There was no requirement in the RFA that Metro Grande include these Final Judgments in its application. The Final Judgments were produced during discovery in this proceeding. In its application, Metro Grande included a Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement Form executed by Maurice L. Kemp, as the Deputy Mayor of Miami-Dade County, stating that the county holds or will hold 100 percent ownership of the land where Metro Grande’s proposed 4 The RFA defined “Perpetuity” as “at least 99 years from the loan closing.” development is located. Additionally, in its application, Metro Grande stated that Miami-Dade County owned the property. The RFA expressly states that Florida Housing “will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation.” Florida Housing reserves the right to rescind an award to any applicant whose site control documents are shown to be insufficient during the credit underwriting process. Thus, the fact that no deed or certificate of title was included with Metro Grande’s site control documents was not considered by Florida Housing during the scoring process. Ms. Button testified that while this was an error in the application, it should be waived as a minor irregularity. The purpose of the documentation requirements was to demonstrate ownership and control of the applicant’s proposed site. There was no question or ambiguity as to the fact that Miami- Dade County owned the Metro Grande site. Florida Housing was not required to resort to information extraneous to the Metro Grande Application to confirm ownership of the site. The Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement form, executed by the Deputy Mayor as the Authorized Land Owner Representative, confirmed ownership of the parcels. Metro Grande’s failure to include a deed or certificate of title, therefore, created no confusion as to who owned the property or whether Miami-Dade County had the authority to lease the property to the applicant. There was no evidence presented that the failure to include a deed or certificate of title resulted in the omission of any material information or provided a competitive advantage over other applicants. Brisas contends that the RFA was clear as to the documents that must be included to satisfy the site control requirements. Metro Grande failed to provide those documents or even an explanation why those documents were not provided. Florida Housing ignored the fact that no deed or certificate of title was provided, instead relying on information found elsewhere in the application. It is found that Metro Grande failed to comply with an eligibility item of the RFA, but that Florida Housing was correct to waive that failure as a minor irregularity that provided Metro Grande no competitive advantage, created no uncertainty as to whether the requirements of the RFA were met, and did not adversely affect the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Brisas has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEACON PLACE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Beacon Place Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Beacon Place was not preliminarily selected for funding. The RFA provides that an application may earn proximity points based on the distance between its Development Location Point and the selected Transit or Community Service. Proximity points are used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference. Beacon Place is a Large County Application that is not eligible for the “Public Housing Authority Proximity Point Boost.” As such, the Beacon Place Application was required to achieve a minimum Transit Point score of 2 to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must also achieve a total Proximity Point score of 10.5 in order to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must achieve a total Proximity Point score of 12.5 or more in order to receive the RFA’s Proximity Funding Preference. Based on the information in its Application, Beacon Place received a Total Proximity Point score of 18 and was deemed eligible for funding and for the Proximity Point Funding Preference. The Beacon Place Application listed a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as its Transit Service. Applying the Transit Service Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 6 Proximity Points for its Transit Service. The Beacon Place Application listed a Grocery Store, a Pharmacy, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart in order to obtain Proximity Points for Community Services. Using the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 4 Proximity Points for each service listed, for a total of 12 Proximity Points for Community Services. Beacon Place has stipulated, however, that the Public School listed in its application does not meet the definition of “Public School” in the RFA and Beacon Place should not receive the 4 Proximity Points for listing a public school. The RFA defines a “Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop” as: [a] fixed location at which passengers may access public transportation via bus. The Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one bus that travels at some point during the route in either a lane or corridor that is exclusively used by buses, and the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one route that has scheduled stops at the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop at least every 20 minutes during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year- round basis. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. The Beacon Place Application included Metrobus Route 38 (“Route 38”) as a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. Route 38 has scheduled stops at the location identified in the Beacon Place Application at the following times during the period of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. Monday through Friday: 7:01, 7:36, 7:56, 8:11, 8:26, 8:41, and 8:56. Brisas and Northside contend that Route 38 does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop because there is a gap of more than 20 minutes between the 7:01 a.m. bus and the 7:36 a.m. bus. Applicants are not required to include bus schedules in the application. Florida Housing does not attempt to determine whether an identified stop meets the RFA definitions during the scoring process. During discovery in this litigation, Florida Housing changed its position and now agrees that Route 38 does not satisfy the definition. Nonetheless, the standard of review set forth in section 120.57(3) is applicable to Florida Housing’s initial eligibility determination, not its revised position. All parties stipulated that Route 38 meets the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. If the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not also meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Beacon Place would not be entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and would be ineligible for funding. Beacon Place cannot contest the fact that there is a 35 minute gap between the 7:01 and the 7:36 buses. Beacon Place has attempted to salvage its situation by comparing the language used in the RFA definition of a Public Bus Stop with that used in the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevant part as [a] fixed location at which passengers may access one or two routes of public transportation via buses. The Public Bus Stop must service at least one bus route with scheduled stops at least hourly during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm and 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year round basis…. Florida Housing has interpreted the “hourly” requirement of the Public Bus Stop definition to mean that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and at least once between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Beacon Place suggests that Florida Housing should interpret the “every 20 minutes” requirement for a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop similarly, so that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 7:20 a.m., once between 7:20 a.m. and 7:40 a.m., and once between 7:40 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Florida Housing has rejected this interpretation, however, noting that the language in the two definitions is explicitly different. Ms. Button testified that if Florida Housing had intended these two distinct definitions to be interpreted similarly, it could easily have worded them differently. It could have required a Public Bus Stop to have stops “at least every 60 minutes,” rather than “hourly.” It could have required a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop to have “three stops per hour” rather than “every 20 minutes.” Ms. Button observed that the purpose of the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop definition is to award points for serving the potential residents with frequent and regular stops. The idea was to be sure residents had access to the bus during the hours when most people are going to and from work. Florida Housing’s interpretation of “every 20 minutes” is consonant with the plain language of the phrase and reasonably serves the purpose of the definition. Florida Housing also rejected the idea that the failure of the identified stop to meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop in the RFA should be waived as a minor irregularity. Ms. Button testified that allowing one applicant to get points for a stop that did not meet the definition would give it a competitive advantage over other applicants, including some potential applicants who did not apply because they could not satisfy the terms of the definition. Because the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop, Beacon Place is not entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and is thus ineligible for funding. Brisas and Northside have demonstrated that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility for Beacon Place was contrary to the specifications of the RFA. Florida Housing’s original recommendation would have been contrary to the terms of the RFA. THE EAST POINTE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the East Pointe Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, East Pointe was preliminarily selected for funding. Bella Vista challenged Florida Housing’s action alleging that the Medical Facility selected by East Pointe did not meet the definition found in the RFA. East Pointe proposed a Development in Lee County, a Medium County according to the terms of the RFA. Applicants from Medium Counties are not required to attain a minimum number of Transit Service Points to be considered eligible for funding. However, such applicants must achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. The East Pointe Application identified three Public Bus Stops and was awarded 5.5 Proximity Points based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart in Exhibit C to the RFA. However, East Pointe has stipulated that Public Bus Stop 1 listed in its application does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Stop because it does not have the required scheduled stops. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, East Pointe should receive a total of 3.0 Proximity Points for Transit Services for Public Bus Stops 2 and 3. East Pointe listed a Grocery Store, a Medical Facility, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart. Based on the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C to the RFA, East Pointe received 1 Proximity Point for its Grocery Store, 4 Proximity Points for its Medical Facility, and 3 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 8 Proximity Points for Community Services. East Pointe listed Lee Memorial Health System at 3511 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida, as its Medical Facility. The RFA defines “Medical Facility” as follows: A medically licensed facility that (i) employs or has under contractual obligation at least one physician licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, F.S. available to treat patients by walk-in or by appointment; and (ii) provides general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person. Facilities that specialize in treating specific classes of medical conditions or specific classes of patients, including emergency rooms affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals and clinics affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals, will not be accepted. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. If East Pointe’s selected Medical Facility does not meet the definition of “Medical Facility” in the RFA, East Pointe will lose 4 Proximity Points, reducing its total Proximity Points to 7. The East Pointe Application would still be eligible but would not receive the Proximity Funding Preference and, therefore, would fall out of the funding range of the RFA. Bella Vista alleged that East Pointe should not have received Proximity Points for a Medical Facility because the Lee Community Healthcare location specified in its application “only serves adults and therefore only treats a specific group of patients.” Lee Community HealthCare operates nine locations in Lee County, including the “Dunbar” location that East Pointe named in its application. Lee Community Healthcare’s own promotional materials label the Dunbar location as “adults only.” Robert Johns, Executive Director for Lee Community Healthcare, testified by deposition. Mr. Johns testified that as of the RFA application date of September 24, 2019, the Dunbar office provided services primarily to adults 19 years of age or over, by walk-in or by appointment. A parent who walked into the Dunbar office with a sick or injured child could obtain treatment for that child. A parent seeking medical services for his or her child by appointment would be referred to a Lee Community HealthCare office that provided pediatric services. Mr. Johns testified that the Dunbar office would provide general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person who presented at the facility, including children. Children would not be seen by appointment at the Dunbar facility, but they would be treated on a walk-in basis. The RFA requires a Medical Facility to treat patients “by walk-in or by appointment.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing reads this requirement in the disjunctive. A Medical Facility is not required to see any and all patients by walk-in and to see any and all patients by appointment. Florida Housing finds it sufficient for the Medical Facility to see some or all patients by walk-in or by appointment. Ms. Button opined that the Dunbar office met the definition of a Medical Facility because it treated adults by walk-in or appointment and treated children on a walk-in basis. Florida Housing’s reading is consistent with the literal language of the RFA definition. While it would obviously be preferable for the Dunbar facility to see pediatric patients by appointment, the fact that it sees them on a walk-in basis satisfies the letter of the RFA provision. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEMBRIDGE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Bembridge Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Bembridge was preliminarily selected for funding. Bembridge proposed a development in Collier County, a Medium County in RFA terms. As an applicant from a Medium County, Bembridge was required to achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. Medium County applicants are allowed, but not required, to claim both Transit Service points and Community Service points. As to Community Services, the RFA provides that an applicant may receive a “maximum 4 Points for each service, up to 3 services.” The RFA goes on to state: Applicants may provide the location information and distances for three of the following four Community Services on which to base the Application’s Community Services Score.[5] The Community Service Scoring Charts, which reflect the methodology for calculating the points awarded based on the distances, are outlined in Exhibit C. In its Application, Bembridge listed four, not three, Community Services. Bembridge was one of six Applicants that mistakenly submitted four Community Services instead of three. The Review Committee scorer reviewing Community Services in the applications stated on her scoring sheet: “After removing points for the service with the least amount of points, all still met the eligibility requirement.” 5 The four listed Community Services were Grocery Store, Public School, Medical Facility, and Pharmacy. Florida Housing interpreted the RFA as not specifically prohibiting an applicant from listing four Community Services, but as providing that the applicant could receive points for no more than three of them. As to the six applicants who submitted four Community Services, Florida Housing awarded points only for the three Community Services that were nearest the proposed development.6 Bembridge received 3 Proximity points for its Grocery Store, 3.5 Proximity Points for its Pharmacy, and 4 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 10.5 Proximity Points for Community Services. Thus, as originally scored, Bembridge met the Proximity Funding Preference. Florida Housing did not score the Medical Facility listed by Bembridge, which was the farthest Community Service from the proposed development. Ms. Button testified that this fourth Community Service was treated as surplus information, and because it did not conflict with any other information in the application or cause uncertainty about any other information, it was simply not considered. Ms. Button likened this situation to prior RFAs in which applicants included pharmacies as Community Services even though they were not eligible in proposed family developments. Florida Housing disregarded the information as to pharmacies as surplus information. It did not consider disqualifying the applicants for providing extraneous information. Ms. Button also made it clear that if one of the three Community Services nearest the proposed development was found ineligible for some reason, the fourth Community Service submitted by the applicant would not be considered. The fourth Community Service was in all instances to be disregarded as surplusage in evaluating the application. 6 When queried as to whether the fourth Community Service was removed because it was worth the fewest points, as the reviewer’s notes stated, or because it was farthest away from the proposed development, Ms. Button replied that the distinction made no difference because the service that is farthest away is invariably the one that receives the fewest points. Florida Housing did not consider disqualifying Bembridge and the other five Applicants that mistakenly listed an extra Community Service in their applications. Ms. Button stated, “They provided in all of them, Bembridge and the others that were listed in this, they did provide three Community Services. And so I don’t think it is reasonable to throw out those applications for providing a fourth that we would just not consider nor give benefit to for those point values.” Bella Vista contends that Florida Housing should have rejected the Bembridge application rather than award points for the three nearest Community Services. Ms. Button testified that this was not a reasonable approach if only because there was nothing in the RFA stating that an application would be rejected if it identified more Community Services than were required. Ms. Button also noted that this was one of the first RFAs to allow applicants to select among four Community Services. She believed the novelty of this three-out-of-four selection process led to six applications incorrectly listing four Community Services. She implied that the Community Services language would have to be tweaked in future RFAs to prevent a recurrence of this situation, but she did not believe it fair to disqualify these six applicants for their harmless error. The Review Committee scorer did not perform a minor irregularity analysis relating to the fourth Community Service provided by Bembridge and the other applicants. Ms. Button opined that the addition of an extra Community Service amounts to no more than a minor irregularity because it provided no competitive advantage to the applicant and created no uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the RFA have been met. The RFA allows up to six proximity points for Transit Services. It specifically provides: Up to three Public Bus Stops may be selected with a maximum of 2 points awarded for each one. Each Public Bus Stop must meet the definition of Public Bus Stop as defined in Exhibit B, using at least one unique bus route. Up to two of the selected Public Bus Stops may be Sister Stops that serves the same route, as defined in Exhibit B. The RFA defines “Sister Stop” as: two bus stops that (i) individually, each meet the definition of Public Bus Stop, (ii) are separated by a street or intersection from each other, (iii) are within 0.2 miles of each other, (iv) serve at least one of the same bus routes, and (v) the buses travel in different directions. The Bembridge Application listed two Public Bus Stops, the definition of which is set forth at Finding of Fact 107 above. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, Bembridge received a total of 1.0 Proximity Point for Transit Services for its two Public Bus Stops. Numerous questions were asked at the hearing about whether Bembridge’s identified bus stops were “Sister Stops” as defined in the RFA, and the evidence on that point was not definitive. However, whether they are Sister Stops is irrelevant because each stop identified by Bembridge independently met the definition of “Public Bus Stop” in the RFA and was therefore eligible for Transit Proximity Points. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to RFA 2019-102 finding that: The Berkeley Application is ineligible for funding; The Sierra Bay Application is ineligible for funding; The Solaris Application is ineligible for funding; The Metro Grande Application is eligible for funding; The Beacon Place Application is ineligible for funding; The East Pointe Application is eligible for funding and entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference; and The Bembridge Application is eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether, with respect to each application filed, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) review and decision-making process in response to the Request for Applications 2020-201 (RFA) was contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the RFA.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing 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 (commonly referred to as “tax credits” or “housing credits”) was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These housing credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. The effect is to reduce the amount that the developer must otherwise borrow. Because the total debt is lower, the housing 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 housing credits. The demand for housing credits provided by the federal government exceeds supply. The Competitive Application Process Section 420.507(48) authorizes Florida Housing to allocate housing credits and other funding through requests for proposals or other competitive solicitations, and Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to prescribe the competitive solicitation process. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). Applicants for funding request, in their applications, a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally will sell the rights to the future stream of income housing 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 an applicant can receive depends on 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 areas of some counties. These are just examples of the factors considered, and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Housing credits are made available through a competitive application process that starts with the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is considered to be a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(4). The RFA in this case was issued on August 26, 2020, and responses were due November 5, 2020. The RFA was modified September 11, 2020, and October 12, 2020, but with no change with respect to the response deadline. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $15,275,810 of housing credits to proposed developments in medium-sized counties, and up to an estimated $1,453,730 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 84 applications in response to RFA 2020-201. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board). The Review Committee found 79 applications eligible and five applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 10 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. The federal government enacted the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CCA) in December 2020, and as a result, an additional $3,367,501 in housing credits became available for affordable housing for Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay Counties, which were impacted by Hurricane Sally. The staff at Florida Housing recommended using the CCA funding to award housing credits to additional highest-ranking eligible applications in qualified disaster areas, subject to the county award tally, regardless of the county size in RFA 2020-201 and developed a chart listing its CCA funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On January 22, 2021, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee and staff for RFA 2020-201. At approximately 2:50 p.m. that day, all of the applicants in RFA 2020-201 were provided notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration of funding, and that certain eligible applicants were preliminarily selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Notice was provided by posting on the Florida Housing website two spreadsheets: one listing the Board-approved scoring results in RFA 2020-201; and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the January 22, 2021, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 24 applicants, including The Villages, Pinnacle at Hammock Springs, and Rosemary Place. Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Proceedings. All Intervenors have been properly recognized as such. The terms of RFA 2020-201 were not challenged. RFA 2020-201 Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A summary of the eligibility items is listed in Section 5.A.1. of the RFA, beginning at page 71. Only applications that meet all of the eligibility requirements will be eligible for funding and considered for the funding selection. This challenge does not raise any issues with respect to the point totals awarded to the applicants. The RFA has four funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund five Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a of the RFA, with a preference that three of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(1) of the RFA to be considered submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113, and two of the Applications meet the criteria outlined in Section Four, A.11.b(2) of the RFA to be considered not submitted in RFA 2019-113. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.5.i of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund two Developments with a Demographic commitment of Family that select and qualify for the geographic Areas of Opportunity/ SADDA Goal outlined in Section Four A.10.a(1)(d) of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one Development that qualifies for the SunRail Goal outlined in Section Four, A.5.e.(5) of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process, outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal with one exception: If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, the SunRail Goal will also be considered met. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp.75). At page 76 of Joint Exhibit 1, the RFA also sets forth the sorting order to be used when selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal: The highest scoring applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Priority I Medium County Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order. This will then be repeated for Priority II Applications: First, counties of the Applications that (i) qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal in FRA 2019-113 and (ii) were invited to enter credit underwriting will receive lower preference than other Medium Counties competing for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. This affects the following counties: Brevard, Lee, Santa Rosa, Sarasota, and Volusia. The remaining counties will receive higher preference. Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. Next, the RFA sets forth the sorting order for selecting applications to meet the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. It then sets for the sorting order after selecting applications to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal (LGAO Designation) and Local Revitalization Initiative Goal. The RFA includes a funding test where a) small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding ($1,453,730) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount, and b) medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding ($15,275,810) available to fully fund the Eligible Housing Credit Request Amount. The RFA outlines a specific County Award Tally based on Priority Levels as follows: Priority I County Award Tally As each Priority I Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority I Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. Priority II County Award Tally As each Priority II Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Priority II Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Priority II Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. (Jt. Exh. 1, pp. 78-79) The RFA outlines the selection process at pages 79-81 as follows: Five Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal Applications that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not Awarded The first three Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were submitted in RFA 2019- 113 but not awarded, subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this preference is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this preference, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this preference is met. Applications that were not submitted in RFA 2019-113 The next Applications that will be considered for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Priority I Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal that were not submitted in 2019-113, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this Goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are not eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this Goal. One Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the Local Revitalization Initiative Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Two Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal The next two Applications select [sic] for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/ HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. Priority I Applications will continue to be selected until this goal is met. If there are no remaining eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until it is determined that there are no eligible unfunded Applications that can meet this goal. One Application that Qualifies for the SunRail Goal If an Application that was selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal described in a. above or Local Revitalization Initiative Goal described in b. above also qualifies for the SunRail Goal, this Goal will be considered met without selecting an additional Application. If none of the Applications selected to meet the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Goal or Local Revitalization also qualify for the SunRail Goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. If there are no eligible unfunded Priority I Applications that qualify for this Goal, then the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority II Application that qualifies for the SunRail Goal will be selected, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Small County Applications that (i) can meet the Small County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Small County Priority I Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Priority I Application can meet the Small County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded Small County Priority II Application can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test, no further Small County Applications will be selected, and the remaining Small County Funding will be added to the Medium County funding amount. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Priority I Medium County Applications that (i) can meet the Medium County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Medium County Priority I Applications. If Medium County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority I Applications can meet the Medium County Funding Test, then the process will continue using Priority II Applications until this Goal is met or until no unfunded eligible Medium County Priority II Applications can meet the Small County Funding Test. If Medium County Funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Application can meet the Medium County Funding Test, no further Applications will be selected and the remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. After the description of the sorting process, the RFA specifies: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or provisions outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 84 applications for RFA 2020-201 were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. The Fletcher Black Application During the scoring process, Florida Housing determined that the Fletcher Black application was eligible for funding, but ineligible for the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black was not selected for preliminary funding. If Fletcher Black’s application was eligible for the LGAO Designation, it would have been selected for funding. It would have been selected as the second of the three developments selected for the LGAO Priority I applications that qualified for the preference for those development applications submitted in RFA 2019-113, but not awarded as outlined on pages 69-70 of the RFA. Additionally, if Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, then The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs will be displaced from funding. In order to qualify for the LGAO Designation and Goal, applicants must “demonstrate a high level of Local Government interest in the project via an increased amount of Local Government contributions in the form of cash loans and/or cash grants.” The RFA outlines the types and amounts of contributions from Local Governments that will be accepted to meet the LGAO Designation. Fletcher Black’s proposed development is in Bay County. Therefore, Fletcher Black would be required to demonstrate a contribution of at least $340,000 to be considered for the LGAO Designation. The RFA at page 67 expressly limits the number of applications from the same government jurisdiction as follows: Limit on the number of Applications within the same jurisdiction A proposed Development may only qualify where a jurisdiction (i.e., the county or a municipality) has contributed cash loans and/or cash grants for any proposed Development applying for this RFA in an amount sufficient to qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. A Local Government can only contribute to one Application that qualifies for the Local Government Area of Opportunity Designation, regardless of how the contribution is characterized. Any single jurisdiction may not contribute cash loans and/or cash grants to more than one proposed Development applying for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation. If multiple Applications demonstrate Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding from the same jurisdiction and those Applications qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, then all such Applications will be deemed ineligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Designation, regardless of the amount of Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding or how the contribution is characterized. However, Local Governments may pool contributions to support one Application (i.e., the county and the city may provide contribution to the same Development and each Local Government will submit its own form as an Attachment to the Application). Page 68 of the RFA describes the requirements for demonstrating LGAO funding: In order to be eligible to be considered Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding, the cash loans and/or cash grants must be demonstrated via one or both of the Florida Housing Local Government Verification of Contribution Forms (Form Rev. 07-2019), called “Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan” form and/or the “Local Government Verification of Contribution -- Grant” form. The forms must meet the Non-Corporation Funding Proposal Requirements outlined in 10.b.(2)(a) above, the qualifying funding must be reflected as a source on the Development Cost Pro Forma, and the applicable form(s) must be provided as Attachment 16 to the Application. Applications are not required to reflect the value (difference between the face amount and the net present value of the payment streams) on any Local Government Verification Forms. Similarly, Section 10.b.(2)(a) of the RFA specifies that, Note: Eligible Local Government financial commitments (i.e., grants and loans) can be considered a source of financing without meeting the requirements above if the Applicant provides a properly completed and executed Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Form 0702019) and/or the Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan Form (Form 07-2019). Fletcher Black submitted a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Grant Form (Grant Form) from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000. Fletcher Black’s Grant Form was executed by Greg Bridnicki, as the Mayor of Panama City and “Approved as to Form and Correctness” by Nevin Zimmerman, City Attorney. Fletcher Black’s request for funding from Panama City was placed on the agenda for the City of Panama City City Commission’s August 25, 2020, meeting, and approved by the City Commission, which authorized Mr. Bridnicki to sign the Grant Form. Fletcher Black had obtained a similar LGAO Form in the previous year using the same established process. Fletcher Black did not submit any documentation in the RFA Application regarding the process used to gain approval of the grant. However, no party identified any requirement in the RFA that such a description must be included in the Application. Fletcher Black cannot be faulted for not supplying something that is not required. Another Applicant, Panama Manor App. No. 2021-074C, submitted a Grant Form from the City of Panama City in the amount of $340,000 executed by Michael Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s title is listed as the Director of Community Development/CRA/CDBG/SHIP. During the scoring process, Florida Housing’s scorer found that since both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor submitted documentation for the LGAO Designation from the same jurisdiction, the City of Panama City, according to the terms of the RFA, both applications were deemed ineligible for the LGAO Designation. The Grant Form submitted by both Fletcher Black and Panama Manor contains the following instruction regarding who is authorized to sign the form on behalf of the local government: This certification must be signed by the chief appointed official (staff) responsible for such approvals, Mayor, City Manager, County Manager/ Administrator/ Coordinator, Chairperson of the City Council/Commission or Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners. … One of the authorized persons named above may sign this form for certification of state, federal or Local Government funds initially obtained or derived from a Local Government that is directly administered by an intermediary such as a housing finance authority, a community reinvestment corporation, or a state-certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Other signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed. To be considered for points, the amount of the contribution stated on this form must be a precise dollar amount and cannot include words such as estimated, up to, maximum, not to exceed, etc. Michael Johnson was not authorized by the City of Panama City to sign the Grant Form. Greg Bridnicki, as Mayor of Panama City, is an authorized signatory. Panama Manor’s request was not submitted to the City Commission for approval. Because the Grant Form was improperly signed, Panama Manor should not, by the terms of the RFA, receive credit for the LGAO Designation. Had Panama Manor’s application received the LGAO Designation, it would not have been selected for funding because its lottery number was too high. Michael Johnson is the Director of Community Development for the City of Panama City. While he is an employee for the City of Panama City, he also performs duties for Bay County through an interlocal agreement between the city and the county. The Grant Form submitted for Panama Manor stated on its face that it was signed on behalf of the City of Panama City, but Mr. Johnson testified that the form was supposed to reflect that it was for Bay County. Mr. Johnson testified that over the last 17 years, he has executed approximately 40 forms for applications for funding from Florida Housing. He acknowledged that there are multiple types of forms that may need signatures from city or county officials to complete a Florida Housing application, such as zoning forms and infrastructure-verification forms, as well as local government contribution forms. Since Florida Housing changed its process to use RFAs in 2013, Mr. Johnson could not recall if he signed the Grant Forms or whether the city manager did. He could not confirm signing a single Grant Form for either the city or the county since 2013. Mr. Johnson believed that he had the authority to sign Grant Forms on behalf of both the city and the county. Mark McQueen, the City of Panama City city manager and Mr. Johnson’s boss, does not share his belief. According to Mr. McQueen, whose testimony is credited, Panama City committed only to the Fletcher Black property, took no official action with respect to Panama Manor’s application, and Mr. Johnson was not authorized to sign the Grant Form committing funds on behalf of the City. When Mr. Johnson realized that the Panama Manor Grant Form stated that it was signed on behalf of Panama City as opposed to Bay County, he called the legal department for Florida Housing to explain the error. He testified that he spoke with several people at Florida Housing, including Jean Salmonson, David Weston, and someone in the multi-family development section. Mr. Johnson was not sure of the dates when these telephone calls were made, but it appears that the telephone calls were after the submission of the applications but before the posting of funding selections. Marissa Button is Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs. She testified that Florida Housing is aware of the contention that the form submitted by Panama Manor was signed in error and should have reflected that it was signed on behalf of Bay County. She was also aware that according to Mr. McQueen, Mr. Johnson did not have the authority to sign a Grant Form on behalf of the City of Panama City. She stated: Q. How does that information impact Florida Housing’s scoring decision? A. This --at this juncture it does not impact Florida Housing’s scoring determination as to the Panama Manor or Fletcher Black being designated as LGAO goal. … We take the requirement of the RFA specifically references the – the submission of what – when there’s a submission of multiple applications from the same jurisdiction, and so we, Florida Housing, consider that as of – as of the application deadline what this applicant has submitted is a form executed on behalf of the City of Panama City. To change the designation, which I understand from Mr. Johnson’s testimony it was a mistake, he intended to issue on behalf of Bay County and reflect that, we interpret that to be a – an improper amendment or modification to the application after the application submission. So we do not consider it to change the scoring designation of the – of either the Panama Manor application or the resulting consequence to the Fletcher Black application. * * * Q. Now, Fletcher Black may argue that it’s unfair to treat its application as ineligible for the LGAO designation and goals when the Fletcher Black [application] did not contain an error. What would your response be to that? A. You know, my response is, we score the application in accordance with the terms of the RFA. The applications are responsible for all parts of that – that RFA with regard to their application submission. It’s clear in this RFA that there would be a consequence if other applications were submitted from the same jurisdiction for an LGAO designation. And, unfortunately, that’s the mistake that happened, but the fairness – it is a fair process because we are – we are administering the RFA as it has been, you know – as the terms exist to the public and to the fellow applications that came in for funding. So, I – I do believe it’s unfortunate that that consequence impacts their application; however, it is – it is fair because that’s the consequence if it happens. (T-39-40, 45-46). Panama Manor’s application did not demonstrate local government funding because the Grant Form was not signed by someone with authority to do so. The RFA specifically states that “[o]ther signatories are not acceptable. The Applicant will not receive credit for this contribution if the certification is improperly signed.” Where forms signed by local government officials are challenged, Ms. Button indicated that Florida Housing has in the past relied upon or deferred to local government officials to address the propriety of the forms signed. The issue usually arises with forms related to zoning or other facets encompassed in the Ability to Proceed forms. Here, the credible testimony of local officials is that the Grant Form for Panama Manor was intended to reflect a funding commitment from Bay County and the signator on Panama Manor’s Grant Form was not authorized to sign on behalf of the City of Panama City. It would be contrary to competition if Panama Manor were allowed to amend its application to correct the Grant Form. It is appropriate to disregard Panama Manor’s Grant Form, given the inaccuracies contained therein. If Panama Manor’s application is not selected for the LGAO Designation because of its failure to demonstrate that the City of Panama City is providing local support for Panama Manor’s project, then there is only one application with a valid Grant Form from the City of Panama City, and that is Fletcher Black. Ms. Button testified that it would provide a competitive advantage to Fletcher Black if Fletcher Black were considered for the LGAO Designation. However, she stated that applicants are responsible for all parts of their application submission. Fletcher Black did not make an error in its application and is not requesting that it be amended in any way. It is asking that the application be considered as submitted, just as other applications are considered. Florida Housing’s decision to find Fletcher Black ineligible for the LGAO Designation is clearly erroneous, in light of the clear demonstration that Panama Manor did not demonstrate a local funding commitment from the City of Panama City, and Fletcher Black is the only entity that did so. The Rosemary Place Application Florida Housing deemed the Rosemary Place application to be eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Rosemary Place for funding. One of the requirements for eligibility under the RFA is that applicants demonstrate Site Control by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Site Control Certification form (Site Control Form). For the Site Control Form to be considered complete, the applicant must attach documentation demonstrating that it is a party to an eligible contract or lease or is the owner of the subject property. Applicants can demonstrate Site Control by providing documentation that meets the requirements in the RFA for an eligible contract, deed or certificate of title, or a lease. The RFA specifies at pages 39-40 that an eligible contract must meet the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021; It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant: and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The RFA notifies applicants that Florida Housing’s review of the Site Control documents is limited. At page 40, the RFA states: Note: The Corporation will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, the Corporation will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. The Corporation has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. The RFA also requires that, for the purpose of demonstrating Site Control, “documentation must include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” A “scattered site” is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(106) as “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. …” Rosemary Place submitted a properly completed and executed Site Control Form which was accepted by Florida Housing during its review, scoring, and ranking process. As an attachment to its Site Control Form, Rosemary Place attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement (Rosemary Place Agreement) between Kyle McDorman as the Seller and RM FL XX Prime, LLC (the applicant entity for Rosemary Place) as the Purchaser. The Rosemary Place Agreement has a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021, and states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. The Rosemary Place Application identified the address of the proposed development as “690’ N of intsctn of 331-Bus & Azalea Dr on W side of 331- Bus; within city limits of Freeport, FL (Walton County).” (J-16, page 5). The Development Location Point, consisting of latitude and longitude coordinates was correctly identified, and the Rosemary Place Application stated that the proposed development did not consist of scattered sites. Exhibit A of the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement identifies the property as follows: That Thirteen (13.0) Acres situated in the City of Freeport, FL (Distrct 2); Section 10, Township 1S, Range 19, and which is part of Walton County, FL Parcel 10-1S-19-23000-009-0020 which is further described in the land records of Walton County, FL as 210FT SQ FT IN THE SE/C OF THE W1/2 OF THE NE1/4 OF SW1/4 IN SEC 10-1S-19W, 204-184, 1204-279, 2660- 2976, 3084-4417 and which is recorded in that Warranty Deed from Grantor Aaron M and Rachel N Sloan Elkins to Grantee Kyle J. McDorman which Warranty Deed is recorded in the land records of Walton County, FL at Book 3084 and Page Number 4417. The Property is further described and identified as the shaded area denoted with an X in the image below. Based on the Walton County Property Appraiser map, the shaded area denoted with an X is contained within Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000, which is owned by the Seller, Kyle McDorman, as opposed to Parcel No. 10- 1S-19-23000-009-0020. Timshell contends that the shaded area denoted with an X overlaps parcels outside of Parcel No. 10-1S-19-23000-009-0000. Timshell contends that the submitted Site Control documentation submitted by Rosemary Place is not consistent with the requirements of the RFA because of the uncertainty of the property that is actually being purchased and where the proposed Development site is actually located. Timshell also contends that the Rosemary Place Purchase and Sale Agreement, as written and submitted to Florida Housing, denotes scattered sites which were not disclosed by Rosemary Place in its application. Rosemary Place contends, and Florida Housing agrees, that the shaded area denoted with an X on Exhibit A to the Rosemary Place Agreement sufficiently identifies the property being purchased through the agreement as the Development site. Moreover, the visual depiction of the property is consistent with the written description of the development location in the Rosemary Place Application at J-16, page 5. The Rosemary Place Application does not depict scattered sites. Even assuming that the parcel number included in Exhibit A were part of the purchase reflected in the Sale and Purchase Agreement, an eligible contract may involve the purchase of multiple properties or a larger parcel of property than will be developed. What is most important is that the documents show where the development will be located, which Rosemary Place’s application demonstrates, and that the applicant will have control over the location. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing did not consider the Rosemary Place Application to be proposing a scattered sites development. Rosemary Place affirmatively stated that it was not proposing a scattered sites development; did not list coordinates for scattered sites; and did not identify the location of scattered sites on other forms required by the RFA. Exhibit A to the Purchase and Sale Agreement contains typographical errors in the written description of the property being sold. Stewart Rutledge, who prepared the Purchase and Sale Agreement, testified credibly that parcel numbers are listed on the Walton County Property Appraiser website, and that to see a particular parcel description, the user clicks on the parcel number he or she wants to see. When preparing the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Mr. Rutledge mistakenly clicked on the parcel number immediately above the parcel number he wanted, and he did not notice the error. The parcel number reflected in the Purchase and Sale Agreement references another parcel owned by the seller, Kyle McDorman. Florida Housing considered the typographical error within Exhibit A that results in the listing of the wrong parcel number and property description to be a waivable minor irregularity because the error did not result in the omission of any material information; did not create uncertainty that a term of the RFA was met; and did not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. The same could be said for other typographical error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, such as capitalizing the word “property” when it should not have been. Ms. Button also noted that the RFA does not require applicants to submit a land survey of the proposed development site with its application. The RFA states that Florida Housing reserves the right to waive minor irregularities. A minor irregularity is defined in rule 67-60.008 as: those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Timshell presented the testimony of Stephen Rutan, a professional land surveyor. Mr. Rutan believed that, based on the property description in the Purchase and Sale Agreement, the proposed development site overlapped with another parcel not owned by the seller. Mr. Rutan did not perform a professional land survey and admitted that the boundary lines in his informational Exhibit (Timshell Exhibit 4) were not completely accurate. Given that the measurements that Mr. Rutan provided were estimates and not the result of a survey, and the testimony by Mr. Rutledge that the parcel identification was the result of a clerical error, Mr. Rutan’s testimony is given little weight, and does not demonstrate that the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement included in Rosemary Place’s application created any real uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met. Florida Housing’s determination that the error in Rosemary Place’s application was a waivable minor irregularity is not clearly erroneous. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove Florida Housing determined that the Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove Applications were eligible for funding but ineligible for the “submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 Preference.” Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove were not selected for preliminary funding. Within the LGAO Designation and Goal, the RFA contained preferences for funding. One of those preferences was for developments that were submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113 (the 2019-113 Preference). In order to qualify for the 2019-113 Preference, an Applicant must meet the following requirements: The question at 11.b.(1) of Exhibit A must reflect confirmation that the Development was submitted but not awarded in RFA 2019-113; The Application in RFA 2019-113 must have provided a Local Government Verification of Contribution – Loan or Grant form demonstrating the minimum Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Amount outlined in RFA 2019-113; The Development Location Point and latitude and longitude coordinates for all scattered sites stated at question 5. of Exhibit A for the proposed Development must be located on the same site(s) as the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. These coordinates do not need to be identical to the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113. All entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical; and The Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 was not invited to enter credit underwriting. Florida Housing scored Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove as qualifying for all requirements of the 2019-113 Preference except for the requirement that “[a]ll entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form submitted for the proposed Development and the Application submitted in RFA 2019-113 must be identical.” (Identical Principals Requirement). The Principals disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form for Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove in RFA 2019- 113 were identical to the Principals disclosed in the applications submitted for RFA 2020-201. The plain language of the RFA only requires that the “entities that are Principals for the Applicant and Developer(s) be identical.” The plain language of the RFA does not require that the Applicant and Developer entities be identical to those listed in the 2019-113 application. Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove met the requirements for the 2019-113 preference. However, even though Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, they would not be selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. The Villages Florida Housing determined that The Villages Application is eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, The Villages has been preliminarily selected for funding. During scoring, Florida Housing reviewed the Villages’ Zoning Form and determined that it met the requirements of the RFA to demonstrate appropriate zoning. Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove alleged in their Petitions that The Villages failed to demonstrate Ability to Proceed and appropriate zoning as required by the terms of the RFA. Prior to hearing, Madison Oaks West, Madison Oaks East, and Madison Grove withdrew their challenge to The Villages’ eligibility for funding. However, should Florida Housing determine, as recommended, that Panama Manor’s Grant Form did not demonstrate a funding commitment from Panama City, then Fletcher Black would receive funding as opposed to The Villages and Pinnacle at Hammock Springs.
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 as to Case No. 21-0515BID, finding that Fletcher Black is eligible for the LGAO Designation, and awarding funding to Fletcher Black, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting; that with respect to Case Nos. 21-0516BID, 21-0517BID, and 21-0518BID, finding that Madison Oaks East, Madison Oaks West, and Madison Grove are eligible for the 2019-113 Preference, but are not selected for funding; and with respect to Case No. 21-0520BID, finding that the decision to award funding to Rosemary Place was not clearly erroneous, and the error in its application was a minor waivable irregularity. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits to Wisdom Village Crossing, LP (Wisdom Village), and Oakland Preserve, LLC (Oakland Preserve), is contrary to governing statutes, Respondent's rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Overview 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 Statutes, 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 developers in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. 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 developers sell the tax credits to raise equity capital for their projects. 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. 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 affordable housing. Because the tax credits can be used for ten years by the investors that provide the equity, 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. The Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized by law to allocate tax credits and other funding by means of requests for proposal or other forms of competitive solicitation. Pursuant to that authority, Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the tax credit program. Chapter 67-60 was newly enacted on August 20, 2013, replacing prior procedures used by Florida Housing for allocating tax credits. The bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3) are adopted as part of the process for allocating tax credits, except that no bond is required. See Fla. Admin Code R. 67-60.009. Tax credits are made available annually. Florida Housing begins the competitive application process through the issuance of Requests for Applications.4/ The RFA that started the competitive application process being considered here was issued September 19, 2013, with responses/applications due November 12, 2013. According to the RFA, Florida Housing 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, Florida Housing 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. Applications were scored using a 27-point scale based on criteria in the RFA, as set out in the RFA: 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 that 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. The way this process works in reality is that the developers know that they must first submit an application that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors.5/ Developers also strive to submit projects structured to receive the maximum of 27 points, with 22 points available for the proposed development's proximity to transit and community services. The tiebreakers are determined strictly by the luck of the draw. At the time each application is filed, it is randomly assigned a lottery number used to break the ties. The role of the lottery numbers is demonstrated by the following facts: 119 applications were filed in response to the RFA; all but six received the maximum score of 27 points. Seventy of the 119 applications were deemed eligible. Of those 70, 69 received the maximum score of 27 points. As such, the lottery numbers are a big factor in deciding the winners and, concomitantly, the challengers here are applicants with lottery numbers outside the funding range that are trying to displace those with lower lottery numbers. All applicant-parties in this case were deemed eligible and received the maximum 27 points as a result of Florida Housing's initial review and scoring. Therefore, the two Broward projects selected for funding were Oakland Preserve and Wisdom Village, based on their lower lottery numbers of 12 and 20, respectively. Heritage drew lottery number 26 and HTG drew lottery number 48. Florida Housing's rules provide that the selection of applicants for funding does not end the competition. Instead, Florida Administrative Code 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. An applicant might fail in this de novo review in the credit underwriting phase and never receive funding, even though it was "awarded" tax-credit funding as a result of a proceeding such as this one. 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 the Application, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. Therefore, if one or more applicants nominally "awarded" funding in the eligibility and scoring phase fail credit underwriting, the next applicant(s) in the queue of eligible applicants may still be granted funding. As such, these applicants are substantially affected by the order established for the queue before credit underwriting, just as they may be substantially affected by decisions resulting from the de novo credit underwriting review. In this consolidated proceeding, the objective of the applicants not selected for funding was to displace any and all applicants in more favorable positions. Thus, Petitioner Heritage sought to challenge the scoring of both the Oakland Preserve and Wisdom Village applications; and Petitioner HTG sought to challenge the scoring of the Oakland Preserve, Wisdom Village, and Heritage applications. The specific issues raised as to the three challenged applications will be discussed in turn below. OAKLAND PRESERVE HTG and Heritage sought to prove that the scoring of Oakland Preserve's application was erroneous in only one respect: they contend that Oakland Preserve was not entitled to any points for the proximity of its proposed development to a "medical facility" because the location used by Oakland Preserve does not meet the RFA's definition of "medical facility." Without those proximity points, Oakland Preserve's application would have fallen below the threshold number of proximity points needed to be deemed eligible for funding. The RFA defined "medical facility" as follows: For purposes of proximity points, a Medical Facility means a medically licensed facility that (i) employs or has under contractual obligation at least one physician licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, F.S. available to treat patients by walk-in or by appointment; and (ii) provides general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person. Facilities that specialize in treating specific classes of medical conditions or specific classes of patients, including emergency rooms affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals and clinics affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals, will not be accepted.[6/] To qualify for these proximity points, Oakland Preserve's application included the required surveyor certification form (provided as part of the RFA) attesting to the proximity of the development site (measured from Oakland Preserve's DLP) to Dr. Edie Durand’s medical office practice. Florida Housing accepted the information and awarded Oakland Preserve points for the proximity of its development to Dr. Durand's office. Florida Housing conducted no independent investigation into whether Dr. Durand's office practice qualified as a "medical facility" within the meaning of the RFA. That is hardly surprising given the fact that Florida Housing personnel were also reviewing 118 other applications in addition to carrying out their other duties unrelated to the RFA. HTG and Heritage contend that Dr. Durand's office practice does not meet the definition of "medical facility," because Dr. Durand restricts her practice to treating only adults and geriatric patients, and does not treat persons under age 18. Neither HTG nor Heritage raised any other issue in their formal written protests regarding whether Dr. Durand's office practice qualifies as a "medical facility."7/ It is undisputed that Dr. Durand qualifies as a matter of credentials to satisfy the professional provider requirement imposed by the medical facility definition, in that she is a physician licensed to practice osteopathic medicine, pursuant to chapter 459, Florida Statutes. It is also undisputed that, if Dr. Durand's medical office practice otherwise qualifies as a "medical facility," it would meet the RFA's temporal requirement that the service must be in existence and available for use by the general public as of the application filing deadline. Dr. Durand's medical office practice has been open and operational since 2003. To prove that Dr. Durand does not treat "any person," but rather, restricts her practice to only adults and geriatric patients, Petitioners offered the testimony of a private investigator retained by Heritage for the purpose of developing proof that Dr. Durand does not treat patients under age 18. However, the investigator's report offered nothing but hearsay evidence, including the investigator's recounting of what he contends was said during brief discussions with Dr. Durand's receptionist/medical assistant and with Dr. Durand at her office. The private investigator set out to prove a certain point, consistent with his client's objective. Accordingly, his report focused on indicators suggesting that Dr. Durand markets to adults and geriatric patients, and her marketing highlights certain specialty treatments that might be popular with these age groups, such as anti-aging treatment. Dr. Durand has business cards that focus on these areas. On the other hand, the front of Dr. Durand's office has a large sign with her name printed on the top line, below which are the words "Family Medicine." Dr. Durand's office also has a large sign painted on the side of the building to advertise her medical office practice, indicating in bullet points the type of treatment she offers there. The very first bullet point is "Family Medicine." The investigator ignored these indicators that ran contrary to his objective. The investigator discussed certain information in brochures used by Dr. Durand, but did not mention that these brochures highlight a picture of Dr. Durand in a white physician's coat, on which her name and "Family Medicine" are prominently embroidered. The investigator also did not mention that the brochures display a picture of the front of Dr. Durand's office, with a large sign across the front of the building identifying the office for "Dr. Edie Durand, D.O." (on the top line), "Family Medicine" (immediately below her name). The picture of Dr. Durand in her embroidered "Family Medicine" physician's coat is also portrayed on the home page of Dr. Durand's website. The home page also advertises "Family Doctor," with a picture of a doctor examining a young girl. HTG also sought to collect evidence that Dr. Durand does not treat minors, but like the investigator's report, HTG came up with only hearsay evidence. Matthew Rieger, president and CEO of Housing Trust Group, testified that "we" (i.e., someone from his company) sent an email inquiry to Dr. Durand. The subject reference of this email was: "Children." The body of the email asked Dr. Durand whether she provided general medical treatment to physically sick or injured children (parroting part of the RFA definition, except that the word "person" was changed to "children"). Dr. Durand responded negatively to the question (at 9:30 p.m.), stating that she specializes in adults and geriatrics, and "only treat[s] 18 year old and up." In her deposition testimony, Dr. Durand acknowledged that she sent this email, but explained that at that late hour when she was trying to read and respond quickly to many email inquiries, she understood this inquiry on the subject of "children" to be asking whether she was a pediatrician who only treated children.8/ Dr. Durand testified that she is available to provide general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person, and does so, at her office location. Although there is some conflicting evidence, the greater weight of the non-hearsay evidence establishes that Dr. Durand does, in fact, offer general medical treatment to persons under the age of 18; she does not restrict her practice to only patients who are 18 or older. While Dr. Durand acknowledged that she treats many more adults and geriatric patients than minors, Dr. Durand remains available to treat minors, and does in fact treat small numbers of patients under the age of 18. Significantly, Dr. Durand has never turned away a child who was brought to her office for treatment, nor has she ever declined to make an appointment to treat a child upon request of someone calling the office for such an appointment. No evidence to the contrary was offered; Dr. Durand's unrebutted testimony is accepted.9/ Dr. Durand explained that one reason she does not treat greater numbers of patients under the age of 18 is that parents tend to steer those patients to pediatricians instead of family practitioners. Dr. Durand testified that the pediatrician who trained her in pediatrics when she was a resident at Broward General Hospital has his well-established office practice across the street from Dr. Durand's office. Dr. Durand does not actively compete for this patient population, except to the extent that she advertises her specialty in family medicine. Dr. Durand is well-qualified to treat patients of all ages, having done her residency in family practice at Broward General Hospital, and thereafter attaining board certification in osteopathic family medicine, which she maintains through many hours of continuing medical education in family medicine. Indeed, as plainly as on the signs on both the front and the side of Dr. Durand's office building, Dr. Durand's dossier collected by the private investigator is replete with references to Dr. Durand's specialty in family practice and family medicine. The investigator's singular objective kept him from asking about Dr. Durand's family medicine practice. HTG and Heritage failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Durand's medical office location does not qualify as a "medical facility" as defined in the RFA. WISDOM VILLAGE Challenge to Public School Proximity Points HTG and Heritage also joined in challenging the award of proximity points to Wisdom Village for its location near a public school, Northside Elementary School. Petitioners' argument is that the surveyor certification measured the distance from the "wrong" door instead of from the “right” door at Northside. Taking a pass/fail approach, neither HTG nor Heritage address whether the distance discrepancy between the so-called "wrong" and "right" doors is significant or material. Pursuant to the RFA, in expressing the location of community services, such as a public school, the surveyor certification form must identify the latitude and longitude coordinates that "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." There are two doors on the front of the Northside Elementary School building facing Northeast 11th Street, one on the east (east door) and the other to the west (west door). Wisdom Village's surveyor certification form identified the latitude and longitude coordinates of a point on the doorway threshold of the west door. The east door is less prominent than the west door chosen by Wisdom Village. The name of the school is engraved in large letters above the west door. Next to the walkway from the sidewalk to the west door, there is a large marquee sign for school announcements. When photos in evidence were taken, the sign reported an upcoming early release day and the dates when the school would close for spring break. In contrast, the school name does not appear above the east door, nor is there a marquee sign next to the walkway leading to that door. Physically, both doors provide direct access to the school building, in that they open to inner hallways in the main school building where classes are held. As a matter of function and usage, both doors provide restricted access to the school building. There is an outer fence around the entire school building, with gates to the walkways to both east and west doors. Both gates are opened in the mornings before school, and both gates are closed and locked in the evenings when the custodial staff leaves campus. As of the beginning of the current school year on August 20, 2013, the school district adopted a security restriction, requiring all Broward County public schools to designate a single exterior door as the door to which visitors to the school must enter. Visitors are not allowed free access to the school building. Instead, guards at the door direct the visitors to the office where they must sign in and explain the reason for their visit. Parents are not allowed to enter the school building to walk their children to classes or pick them up from their classes. Thus, in a sense, security measures dictate that there is no such thing as "direct access" to public schools by the general public. The west door used to measure proximity in the Wisdom Village application does not serve as the designated entry point for the school. Instead, as of the current school year, the east door was designated as the single entrance to the school building. The west door is used as an exit. The unrebutted evidence established that the two doorways on the front of the school building are very close together. Both doors are shown in a single picture in evidence, which also shows the street with parallel parking spaces in front of the school. Based on this picture, the distance between the two doors appears to be the length of approximately four parking spaces. Witnesses who have been to the school site estimated the distance between the two doors to be 50 feet, 100 feet, 120 feet, or 200 feet. It is reasonable to estimate the distance between the two doors as approximately 100 feet. Wisdom Village's surveyor certification form stated that the distance between the public school (measured from the west door) and the Wisdom Village development was .57 miles. Florida Housing accepted the surveyor certification and Wisdom Village received three proximity points, the number of points awarded when the proximity of this service to a development is between one-half mile and one mile. Wisdom Village would have received the same number of proximity points had it used the east door that is now designated as the entrance, instead of the west door that is now designated as an exit. Thus, even if it could be said that Wisdom Village selected the "wrong" door to measure proximity, the choice of door was immaterial to the point award, conferring no competitive advantage on Wisdom Village. Wisdom Village's doorway selection to measure proximity of its proposed development to the public school was reasonable. Physically, the west door does provide direct access to the general public to the building in which the community service is provided. The door certainly has the appearance of being the main entrance to the building, and at times in the past, the door has functioned as an entrance. The school's current designations of the functions of the east and west doors could change again. The evidence at the hearing, not considered by Florida Housing, confirmed the correctness of Florida Housing's award of three proximity points to Wisdom Village for the proximity of its development to Northside Elementary School, either because the choice of the west door was appropriate to comply with the RFA, or because the choice of the west door instead of the east door was, at worst, a waivable minor irregularity. Challenge to sufficiency of site control documentation HTG, but not Heritage, challenged the sufficiency of Wisdom Village's demonstration of site control. To demonstrate site control, the RFA requires at Section Four A.7. that an applicant must provide a copy of an eligible contract, deed, or lease. The RFA specifications for the first option, an eligible contract, are as follows: Eligible Contract - For purposes of the RFA, an eligible contract is one that has a term that does not expire before a date that is six (6) months after the Application Deadline or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than six (6) months after the Application Deadline; specifically states that the buyer's remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and 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. . . . Wisdom Village's application included the following documents as evidence of site control: a contract for the sale and purchase of the development site; an addendum to that contract; a second addendum to that contract; and an assignment of the contract from the original named buyer to the entity that was the applicant. HTG contends that the contract does not qualify as an "eligible contract" because it was not properly executed on behalf of a seller with an ownership interest in the property. The property in question was owned at one time by Benjamin and Jean Bollinger, as joint tenants. Benjamin and Jean Bollinger were husband and wife. In 1992, Benjamin Bollinger died. In 2010, Jean Bollinger died. Benjamin and Jean Bollinger's two sons are James Bollinger and Bruce Bollinger. The two sons are co-personal representatives of the estates of both Benjamin Bollinger and Jean Bollinger. They are also co-trustees of the Jean Bollinger family trust. HTG does not dispute the authority of James and Bruce Bollinger to act in these representative capacities to enter into a contract to sell real property on behalf of the estates of either or both of their deceased parents, or on behalf of the trust; instead, HTG questions whether James and Bruce Bollinger properly did so. The land in question twice had been the subject of past contracts for sale to developers applying for tax credit funding for low-income rental property. Bill Schneider was the liaison in dealing with the Bollinger family. Those prior contracts were not consummated because the applications did not obtain tax- credit funding. Mr. Schneider approached James and Bruce Bollinger in preparation for the Wisdom Village application and they expressed their continued interest in selling the property. The Vacant Land Contract for sale and purchase of the property appears to be clear as to all essential terms. However, the contract is messy, and arguably somewhat ambiguous, with respect to naming the seller and having the named seller properly sign the contract in the proper capacity. On the first page, typed into the form contract in the blank for "seller" is the following: "Bruce A. Bollinger and James B. Bollinger, PR's of Benjamin A. Bollinger, deceased and Jean Rupp Bollinger." A line was then drawn through "Jean Rupp Bollinger," next to which the word "DECEASED" was handwritten and initialed by JBB and BAB. At the bottom of the first and all subsequent pages of the contract, space was provided for the "buyer" and "seller" to place their initials, to acknowledge receipt of a copy of that contract page. Each page is initialed by JBB and BAB in the spaces provided for "seller." On the signature page of the contract, Bill Schneider signed the contract as executive director of Home Start, LLC, the buyer. For the seller, Bruce A. Bollinger's signature appears above the following typed name: "Bruce A. Bollinger Personal Rep. of Benjamin A. Bollinger, Deceased"; then James B. Bollinger's signature appears above the following typed name: "James B. Bollinger Personal Rep. of Benjamin A. Bollinger, Deceased." A third "seller" signature line was provided, above the typed name "Jean Rupp Bollinger." Instead of any full signatures in the line above this typed name, an "X" was drawn through the typed name, next to which the word "DECEASED" was handwritten and initialed by JBB and BAB. The first addendum to the contract was executed at the same time of the original contract, and the manner of identifying the seller and executing on behalf of the seller was the same as in the original contract. Roughly six months later, two additional documents were executed: an assignment of the buyer's interest in the contract from Home Start, LLC, to the applicant, Wisdom Village; and a second addendum to the contract. Both documents clearly refer back to the original contract to sell and purchase the real property in question. The second addendum to the contract identifies the "seller" in the original contract as follows: This is an Addendum to that certain purchase and sale contract by and between BRUCE A. BOLLINGER AND JAMES B. BOLLINGER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN A. BOLLINGER, DECEASED AND JEAN RUPP BOLLINGER, DECEASED, "Seller" . . . . The second addendum was executed by the "seller," with two signature lines provided. On the first signature line for the seller, Bruce A. Bollinger's signature appears above the following typed name: "Bruce A. Bollinger, PR of Benjamin A. Bollinger, Deceased and Jean Rupp Bollinger, Deceased." On the second signature line for the seller, James B. Bollinger's signature appears above the following typed name: "James B. Bollinger, PR of Benjamin A. Bollinger, Deceased and Jean Rupp Bollinger, Deceased." Similarly, the assignment document was "accepted by seller," with the signatures of Bruce and James appearing above the same typed names as in the second addendum. HTG contends that the failure to properly or clearly identify the seller and to sign in the proper representative capacity on behalf of the estate of Jean Rupp Bollinger, instead of or in addition to the estate of Benjamin Bollinger, is fatal to the original contract, and that the clarifying descriptions in the subsequent documents could not cure the fatal flaw in the original contract. Florida Housing, however, considered the documents as a whole, and as such, found that they were sufficiently clear to identify the seller and the capacity in which the documents were executed. James Bollinger testified at the final hearing to confirm that he was the one who drew the lines through his mother's name on the original contract and wrote DECEASED, and that he thought the manner in which he did so, initialed by his brother and himself, was sufficient to express that he and his brother were acting as sellers of the property in their capacity as the personal representatives on behalf of both of their deceased parents. To the extent that was not entirely clear, he testified that they tried to make it clearer in the second addendum and assignment documents. The contract to sell and purchase the Wisdom Village development site has been partially executed, in that two nonrefundable payments totaling $50,000 were made by the buyer to, and accepted by, James and Bruce Bollinger, as personal representatives on behalf of their deceased parents. It is unnecessary, and beyond the scope of the undersigned's jurisdiction, to make a determination as to how the title to the real property in question was held at the time of the original vacant land contract filed with the Wisdom Village application. HTG suggests that the property in question was owned outright by Jean Bollinger's estate, having passed to her upon Benjamin Bollinger's death as an incident of joint tenancy. HTG also raised the possibility that the property was owned by the trust, but the evidence was to the contrary. For purposes of this proceeding, it is sufficient to observe that James and Bruce Bollinger, as the co-personal representatives of both parents' estates (and as co-trustees of the family trust), were the two persons who were authorized to act on behalf of either or both parents' estates, and that they did so, in entering into and accepting part of the benefits of a contract to sell the property on behalf of either or both of their deceased parents. A preponderance of the evidence does not support HTG's position that the original contract was fatally flawed. Instead, the document itself provided written evidence of the identity of the "seller" and the execution by the two Bollinger sons in their representative capacities on behalf of their deceased parents. Moreover, parol evidence clarifies any arguable ambiguity, as does clarification in the subsequent documents that specifically refer back to the original contract. HTG also argues that Florida Housing’s acceptance of Wisdom Village’s site control documents is inconsistent with its rejection of other applicants’ site control documentation where the buyer was not the same entity as the applicant. HTG offered no documentation to prove that the circumstances were similar; the description of these other instances does not sound similar, in that apparently those other applications did not meet the requirement in the RFA’s “eligible contract” definition that “the buyer MUST be the Applicant”--the only part of the definition that screams its importance in all caps. Challenge to financing proposal documentation HTG contends that Wisdom Village's financing proposal documentation should have been rejected, because the applicant only "acknowledged" and did not "accept" the financing terms. The RFA in Section Four A.9.d.(1) addresses the requirements for financing proposal documentation, providing in pertinent part: Financing proposal documentation, regardless of whether the documentation is in the form of a commitment, proposal, term sheet, or letter of intent, must meet the following criteria. . . . (a) Each financing proposal shall contain: * * * (iv) Signature of all parties, including acceptance by the Applicant. (emphasis added). Wisdom Village submitted a letter from JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (Chase) as part of its financing proposal documentation. HTG contends that the following portion of the Chase letter, appearing below the signature on behalf of Chase, does not satisfy the RFA requirement for acceptance by the applicant: Borrower's "acceptance" of this preliminary outline of terms to satisfy the requirements of Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall not create a binding or enforceable agreement between Borrower and JPMorgan Chase. For the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Florida Housing Finance Corporation, the proposed Borrower has countersigned this preliminary outline of terms to evidence acceptance thereof, this 21st day of October , 2013. Acknowledged By Wisdom Village Crossing, LP By: Wisdom Village Crossing, LLC, General Partner By: Turnstone Development Corporation, Member/Manager _/S/ William Schneider, Executive Director HTG contends that the above language shows that Wisdom Village only "acknowledged" the financing terms in the Chase letter, and did not accept them. However, the language in the document is clear that the signature on behalf of Wisdom Village stands to "evidence acceptance thereof." Mr. Schneider testified that he signed the letter, and he hand-wrote the day and month on which he signed the letter "to evidence acceptance" of the terms on behalf of Wisdom Village. The additional typed words "Acknowledged by" appearing below the language specifying that the borrower's signature stands to evidence acceptance of the financing terms does not change or in any way undermine that acceptance language. Florida Housing reasonably accepted Wisdom Village's financing proposal documentation as meeting the RFA's requirement that the applicant accept the outlined financing terms. HERITAGE Although Heritage was not selected for funding, its application has a priority position over HTG's application. Both applicants will remain in line, even if the Florida Housing initial decision is confirmed, because the applicants selected for funding might fall out during the credit underwriting process. Thus, with the hope of improving its position in line, HTG challenged several aspects of the Heritage application. Challenge to DLP as outside development site HTG sought to prove that Heritage's DLP, identified in its surveyor certification form and used to measure proximity from the development site to various services, is not within the boundaries of the Heritage development site according to the legal description attached to the contract to purchase the site submitted in Heritage's application. The RFA explicitly requires that the DLP selected by the applicant must be on the development site. The instructions for identifying the DLP in the surveyor certification form require the surveyor to provide coordinates for the applicant's DLP, expressed in degrees, minutes, and seconds. The degrees and minutes must be expressed in whole numbers, and the seconds must be "truncated" after one decimal place. The word "truncated" is not defined in the RFA. John Pulice, the expert surveyor witness for Heritage, testified that "truncated" is not a term of art in the field of surveying. Donna West, HTG's expert surveyor, equivocated on this point; she testified first that the term has a specific connotation in her field. However, she later testified that it is not a term normally used in the surveying field. The evidence was not persuasive that "truncated" is a term of art with a particular meaning in the field of surveying. Ms. West testified that she understood the "truncated" instruction to mean that only the first digit to the right of the decimal point should be put on the form, and any additional digits to the right of that one digit were to be dropped. Both experts agreed that expressing latitude and longitude coordinates to one-tenth of a second does not define a specific point on the ground; instead, a range of possible points is defined, within an area measuring roughly ten feet by nine feet. Ms. West applied her interpretation of the "truncated" instruction to locate the DLP identified by the coordinates in Heritage's surveyor certification form. She then compared that "point," or area, to the legal description for the development site submitted by Heritage in its application. The result was that she identified an area of roughly ten feet by nine feet that was entirely outside of the Heritage development site. The closest points to the Heritage development site were approximately eight-tenths of one foot--less than ten inches-- outside the development site boundaries. However, the Heritage surveyors who located the DLP and completed the surveyor certification form did not apply the same interpretation of "truncated" used by Ms. West. The unrebutted testimony by Mr. Pulice was that the actual point selected as the DLP was the southwest corner of the development site. The full coordinates for that point are: latitude 26 degrees, 14 minutes, 06.66 seconds north; longitude 80 degrees, 7 minutes, 28.100 seconds west. The DLP coordinates in Heritage's surveyor certification form were: latitude 26 degrees, 14 minutes, 06.7 seconds north; longitude 80 degrees, 07 minutes, and 28.1 seconds west. As Mr. Pulice explained, the DLP coordinates in Heritage's surveyor certification form "truncated" the seconds after one decimal place by shortening the number of digits to the right of the decimal place to one digit rounded to the nearest value, instead of just lopping off the additional digits. The truncated presentation affected the latitude only, for which the seconds were expressed as 06.7 seconds instead of the actual 06.66 seconds. If Heritage's surveyors had interpreted "truncated" the way Ms. West did, the truncated latitude seconds would have been expressed as 06.6 instead of 06.7. By shortening the actual seconds to the required number of digits and rounding the last digit, Heritage's surveyor certification form showed a more accurate number: 06.7 is closer than 06.6 to expressing the actual latitude seconds of 06.66. Mr. Pulice testified that in deciding to shorten the seconds by rounding the first decimal place to the nearest digit, he considered the fact that a surveyor always tries to present information in the most accurate manner possible. Ms. West agreed that surveyors try to present information found in the field in the most accurate way possible. Mr. Pulice also considered an instruction on the surveyor certification form requiring that "horizontal positions shall be collected to meet sub-meter accuracy[.]" He viewed the "sub-meter accuracy" instruction as inconsistent with an interpretation of "truncated" that would result in seconds being shortened by just lopping off the extra digits instead of by rounding. The ordinary meanings of the word "truncated" found in regular dictionaries often favor Ms. West's interpretation; however, there is room for interpretation among the common dictionary definitions of "truncated." For example, one dictionary defines "truncated" as "made briefer or shorter, usually by removing a part." See American English Dictionary – Cambridge Dictionaries Online, http://www.dictionary.cambridge. org/dictionary/American-english/truncated. A similar definition of "truncated" is provided by the online MacMillan Dictionary: "made shorter, especially by having the end or top removed." See MacMillan Dictionary at http://www.macmillandictionary.com/ dictionary/american/truncated. Thus, "truncated" always means "made shorter." While "usually" one would truncate a number by simply lopping off the extra digits, truncated can sometimes mean "made shorter" by means other than simply removing the extra digits. In this particular context, a reasonable interpretation of "truncated" is that seconds should be truncated by shortening the number after one decimal place and rounding the last digit up or down, instead of just by lopping off the extra digits. This would provide the shorter number required by the surveyor certification form, while also improving the accuracy of the shortened coordinates expressed in the form. Given the undisputed evidence regarding the actual location of the DLP before truncation of the coordinates, HTG failed to prove that Heritage's DLP was not within the development site according to the legal description provided in the Heritage application. At most, HTG proved that the surveyor certification form identified an area as the DLP that would not be within the development site based on how Ms. West would have truncated the coordinates, which was not how Heritage's surveyors truncated the coordinates. Ms. West identified an area outside of the development site by assuming that the range of possibilities for the actual seconds in the latitude coordinates spanned from 06.70 seconds to 06.79 seconds. That was shown not to be an accurate assumption, because the actual seconds in the latitude coordinates were 06.66. In the absence of a clear meaning of "truncated" imposed by statute, rule, or RFA specifications that requires shortening by just lopping off extra digits instead of shortening by rounding, the interpretation used for Heritage's surveyor certification form was reasonable. The evidence offered at hearing, which was not considered by Florida Housing, confirmed the correctness of Florida Housing's initial decision to accept the DLP in Heritage's survey certification form, in that the DLP identified in that form in fact corresponds to a point within the boundaries of the legal description of the development site in Heritage's application, and the coordinates of that DLP were expressed in the certification form in a manner that was reasonable and consistent with the RFA requirements. Challenged proximity points for public bus transfer stop HTG also challenges the award of proximity points to Heritage for proximity to a public bus transfer stop, because the surveyor certification form contained an error in stating the distance between the bus station and the DLP. HTG did not dispute the appropriateness of the public bus transfer stop used by Heritage, nor did HTG dispute the accuracy of the coordinates provided for the bus stop's location. However, in stating the distance between the bus stop and the DLP, the surveyor made an error: the surveyor certification form stated that the distance was 0.04 miles, when, in fact, evidence at hearing established that the distance is actually .15 miles. Under the RFA, an applicant is entitled to six proximity points if its development is less than a quarter-mile (.25 miles) to a public bus transfer stop. A distance of .04 miles would yield six proximity points; a distance of .15 miles would also yield six proximity points. Thus, although there was a plain error in Heritage's surveyor certification form, just as plainly, that error is insignificant and immaterial. Whether the distance was as stated in the surveyor certification form or as corrected by the evidence at hearing, Heritage would have received the same number of proximity points. The slight error conferred no competitive advantage on Heritage; its application received no more points than it was entitled to by reason of the mistake. The evidence at hearing, not considered by Florida Housing, confirms the correctness of Florida Housing's proximity point award to Heritage with respect to the public bus transfer stop. The slight error in the surveyor certification form is a waivable minor irregularity. Challenge to site control documentation HTG challenged the sufficiency of Heritage's site control documentation, contending that the contract to purchase the development site submitted by Heritage contains an impermissible condition on the exercise of options to extend the contract's term. HTG argues that the contract does not meet the RFA's definition of "eligible contract" (quoted above in paragraph 51), which requires that the extension options must be "exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies[.]" The contract at issue established a closing date of March 21, 2014, but allowed the purchaser to extend the closing date by up to two 30-day extensions, by providing prior written notice of the purchaser's election to extend the closing date and payment of extension fees to an escrow agent by wire transfer, in the amount of $25,000 per 30-day extension. HTG argues that the provision specifying that the purchaser will give written notice that it is exercising the extension option, in addition to the requirement to send payment to an escrow agent by wire transfer, is an impermissible additional condition in violation of the RFA. Although the contract provides for the purchaser to give written notice that it is exercising the extension option, HTG did not prove that the extension option is "conditioned" on the notice in the sense that the failure to give timely or proper notice would defeat an extension option if the extension fee were timely and properly paid. Instead, the notice to the seller that the purchaser is exercising the extension option appears to mean nothing more than that the extension options are "exercisable by the purchaser." The notice serves the pragmatic function of informing the seller that the purchaser is exercising the extension option, in that payment of the extension fee itself must be by wire transfer to an escrow agent. In the past, before wire transfers became customary, these two parts would have been collapsed into a single step: a transmittal letter mailed by purchaser to seller explaining what the enclosed check is for. Florida Housing reviewed the extension option terms in Heritage's contract, and reasonably determined that the contract met the requirements in the RFA. Challenge to misnamed general partner HTG's final challenge is based on a typographical error in the Department of State, Division of Corporations' records that misnamed Heritage's general partner as "NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC" instead of "NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC." The Heritage application identifies Heritage's general partner as "NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC." The RFA’s Certification and Acknowledgement Form was executed on behalf of Heritage by Robert G. Hoskins, as managing member of NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC, general partner of Heritage. At the time of the application, the Department of State, Division of Corporations' records for Heritage contained a typographical error, identifying the name of Heritage's general partner as NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC. At hearing, although Heritage could not explain how the typographical error found its way into the Division of Corporations' records, Heritage proved that the general partner entity is and always has been NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC. The correct entity name was verifiable and verified by evidence linking up the "document number" uniquely assigned to NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC (L13000119322), as shown on that entity's electronic articles of organization, with the same document number corresponding to the misnamed "NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC" in the "general partner detail" section of the Division of Corporations' "detail by entity name" screen for Heritage. HTG argues that Heritage's application reflects the "wrong corporate entity" as its general partner, and that because Heritage did not identify its general partner as NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC, Florida Housing should have thrown out the application. However, HTG offered no evidence to prove that there were two entities, one named NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC, and the other named NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC. No evidence was presented to prove there ever was an entity in Florida named NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC. HTG offered no evidence to refute Heritage's compelling proof that the misnamed NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC, entity in the Division of Corporations’ records was one and the same as the correctly named NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC, based on the matching document number uniquely assigned to the entity NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC. HTG attempts to make much of the facts that Heritage did not discover the typographical error before it was called to its attention in this proceeding, and that Heritage corrected the typographical error by means of an amendment to the certificate of limited partnership. Mr. Hoskins testified convincingly that when the typographical error was called to his attention, he contacted the Division of Corporations to try to find out how the error came to be and how to correct it. He was unable to determine the source of the typographical error--whether it was a mistake on his part or on the part of the Division of Corporations. Regardless of how the typographical error occurred, he followed instructions to file an amendment to the certificate of limited partnership as the only way that the Division of Corporations could correct its records. Mr. Hoskins acted reasonably to follow the instructions and correct the typographical error. That he did so does not undermine the proof that regardless of how the typographical error became imbedded in the Division of Corporations' system, the "Pompany" entity was the same entity as the restored "Pompano" entity. HTG failed to prove its contention that Heritage's application reflected the "wrong corporate entity" as its general partner. The evidence proved a typographical error in the Division of Corporations' records. If it could be said that that error somehow is considered an error in Heritage's application, then it is, at worst, a minor, inconsequential error that is surely waivable. HTG failed to prove that this typographical error was a reason to throw out Heritage's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decisions: (1) to award funding for the Oakland Preserve and Wisdom Village proposed developments; (2) to award the maximum 27 points to Heritage's application, maintaining that application's priority position based on its lottery number of 26, over HTG's application, with the maximum 27 points and a lottery number of 48; and (3) dismissing the formal written protests of Heritage at Pompano Housing Partners, Ltd., and HTG Broward 3, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 10th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Riverside Village Partners, LTD. (Riverside or Petitioner), has, or had at the time of application, a present plan to convert its proposed development to any use other than affordable residential rental property; (2) whether Provincetown Village Partners, LTD. (Provincetown or Petitioner), has, or had at the time of application, a present plan to convert its proposed development to any use other than affordable residential rental property; (3) whether Riverside irrevocably committed to set aside units in its proposed development for a total of 50 years; and (4) whether Provincetown irrevocably committed to set aside units in its proposed development for a total of 50 years.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Provincetown Village Partners, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with its business address at 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, Florida 32751, and is in the business of providing affordable housing units. Petitioner, Riverside Village Partners, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with its business address at 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, Florida 32751, and is in the business of providing affordable housing units. Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Housing), is a public corporation that administers governmental programs relating to the financing and refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida pursuant to Section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2003). Florida Housing's Financing Mechanisms To encourage the development of affordable rental housing for low-income families, Florida Housing provides low-interest mortgage loans to developers of qualified multi-family housing projects. In exchange for an interest rate lower than conventional market rates, the developer agrees to "set-aside" a specific percentage of the rental units for low-income tenants. Through its Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (MMRB) program, Florida Housing funds these mortgage loans through the sale of tax-exempt and taxable bonds. Applicants then repay the loans from the revenues generated by their respective projects. Applicants who receive MMRB proceeds are required to execute a Land Use Restriction Agreement (LURA or Land Use Restriction Agreement), which is recorded in the official records of the county in which the applicant’s development is located. Through the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, Florida Housing funds low-interest mortgage loans to developers from various sources of state revenue, which are generally secured by second mortgages on the property. Applicants who receive SAIL proceeds are required to execute and record a LURA in the county records as with MMRB's Land Use Restriction Agreements. Florida Housing also distributes federal income tax credits for the development of affordable rental housing for low-income tenants; those tax credits are referred to as "housing credits." Generally, applicants who utilize tax-exempt bond financing for at least 50 percent of the cost of their development are entitled to receive an award of housing credits on a non-competitive basis. These non-competitive housing credits are received by the qualified applicant each year for ten consecutive years. Typically, applicants sell this future stream of housing credits at the initiation of the development process in order to generate a portion of the funds necessary for the construction of the development. The Application, Scoring, and Ranking Process Because Florida Housing’s available pool of tax-exempt bond financing and SAIL funds is limited, qualified projects must compete for this funding. To determine which proposed projects will put the available funds to best use, Florida Housing has established a competitive application process to assess the relative merits of proposed projects. Florida Housing’s competitive application process for MMRB and SAIL financing is included with other financing programs within a single application process (the 2003 Universal Application) governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapters 67-21 and 67-48. The 2003 Universal Application form and accompanying instructions are incorporated as Form "UA1016" by reference into Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-21 and 67-48 and by Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.002(97), and 67-48.002(111), respectively. For the 2003 Universal Application cycle, each applicant who completed and submitted Form UA1016 with attachments was given a preliminary score by Florida Housing. Following the issuance of preliminary scores, applicants are provided an opportunity to challenge the scoring of any competing application through the filing of a Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE). Florida Housing considers each NOPSE filed and provides each applicant with notice of any resulting change in their preliminary scores (the NOPSE scores). Following the issuance of NOPSE scores, Florida Housing provides an opportunity for applicants to submit additional materials to "cure" any items for which the applicant received less than the maximum score or for which the application may have been rejected for failure to achieve "threshold." There are certain portions of the application which cannot be cured; the list of noncurable items appears in Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.003(14) (for MMRB applicants) and 67-48.004(14) (for SAIL applicants). Following the cure period, applicants may again contest the scoring of a competing application by filing a Notice of Alleged Deficiencies (NOAD), identifying deficiencies arising from the submitted cure materials. After considering the submitted NOADs, Florida Housing provides notice to applicants of any resulting scoring changes. The resulting scores are known as "pre-appeal" scores. Applicants may appeal and challenge, via formal or informal hearings, Florida Housing’s scoring of any item for which the applicant received less than the maximum score or for any item that resulted in the rejection of the application for failure to meet "threshold." Upon the conclusion of the informal hearings, and of formal hearings where appropriate, Florida Housing issues the final scores and ranking of applicants. Applicants are then awarded tentative MMRB and/or SAIL funding in order of rank; Florida Housing issues final orders allocating the tentative funding and inviting successful applicants in the credit underwriting process. If an applicant who requests a formal hearing ultimately obtains a final order that modifies its score and threshold determinations so that its application would have been in the funding range had the final order been entered prior to the date the final rankings were presented to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board), that applicant’s requested funding will be provided from the next available funding or allocation. The 2003 Application Process On or about April 8, 2003, Riverside, Provincetown, and others submitted applications for MMRB and SAIL financing in the 2003 Universal Application cycle. Riverside requested $3,205,000 in tax-exempt MMRB funding and $1.6 million in SAIL funding to help finance its proposed development, a 34-unit development in Pinellas County, Florida. In its application, Riverside committed to lease all or most of these units to house families earning 60 percent or less of the area median income (AMI). However, depending on which Florida Housing funding source(s) Riverside’s application was deemed eligible to receive, it would commit to lease at least 17 percent of the units to families earning 50 percent or less of AMI, or would commit to lease only a total of 85 percent of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. Provincetown requested $4.5 million in tax-exempt MMRB funding and $2.0 million in SAIL funding to help finance its proposed development, a 50-unit development in Gadsden County, Florida. In its application, Provincetown committed to lease all or most of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. However, depending on which Florida Housing program(s) Provincetown’s application was deemed eligible to receive, it would commit to lease at least 11 percent of the units to families earning 50 percent or less of AMI, or would commit to lease only a total of 85 percent of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. Florida Housing evaluated all applications and notified applicants of their preliminary scores on or before May 12, 2003. Applicants were then given an opportunity to file NOPSEs on or before May 20, 2003. After considering all NOPSEs, Florida Housing notified applicants by overnight mail on or about June 9, 2003, of any resulting changes in the scoring of their applications. Applicants were then allowed to submit, on or before June 19, 2003, cure materials to correct any alleged deficiencies in their applications previously identified by Florida Housing. Applicants were also allowed to file NOADs on competing applications on or before June 27, 2003. After considering the submitted NOADs, Florida Housing issued notice to Provincetown, Riverside, and others of their adjusted scores on or about July 21, 2003. Commitment to Affordability Period Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006, entitled "Development Requirements," lists certain minimum requirements that a development shall meet or that an applicant shall be able to certify that such requirements shall be met. One of these requirements is "The Applicant shall have no present plan to convert the Development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property." Part III.E.3 of the Application provides a line for an applicant to commit to an "affordability period" for its application. This subsection of the application form reads in its entirety: 3. Affordability Period for MMRB, SAIL, HOME, and HC Application: Applicant irrevocably commits to set aside units in the proposed Development for a total of years. Both Provincetown and Riverside filled in the number "50" on the blank line in this subsection of their respective applications. An applicant’s score on its application is determined in part by the length of its affordability period commitment. An applicant who commits to an affordability period commitment of 50 or more years received 5 points; 45 to 49 years, 4 points; 40 to 44 years, 3 points; 35 to 39 years, 2 points; 31 to 34 years, 1 point; and 30 years or less, 0 points. Scoring of Provincetown and Riverside Applications In its preliminary scoring of the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing awarded each applicant the full 5 points on Part III.E.3 of his or her application for the 50-year affordability period commitment. Also, in the preliminary scoring of the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing did not find any threshold failure regarding an alleged present plan to convert the development to a use other than affordable residential rental property. In its preliminary scoring of the Provincetown application, Florida Housing identified an alleged threshold failure related to the validity of the contract for purchase of the site of the proposed development. A subsequent cure submitted by Provincetown regarding the contract for purchase of the site has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer takes the position that the Provincetown application fails threshold for any reason related to site control. In its preliminary scoring of the Riverside application, Florida Housing identified a threshold failure related to documentation of the status of site plan approval, or plat approval, for the proposed development. A subsequent cure submitted by Riverside regarding the status of site plan approval has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer takes the position that the Riverside application fails threshold for any reason related to site plan approval, or plat approval. During the scoring process, Florida Housing received NOPSEs on both the Provincetown and Riverside applications, which asserted that these applicants were proposing transactions that were not financially feasible and would not pass subsequent credit underwriting requirements. The NOPSEs also alleged that the Riverside and Provincetown applications were for townhouses designed with an intent to eventually convert to home ownership in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6). According to that rule, the applicant shall have no present plan to convert the development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property. After reviewing these NOPSEs, but before issuing revised NOPSE scores, Florida Housing determined that it was inappropriate to apply subsequent credit underwriting requirements during the scoring of these applications, and therefore, disagreed with the allegations of the NOPSEs on those grounds. Accordingly, Florida Housing's scoring summaries for Riverside and Provincetown issued, after receipt of the NOPSEs, raised no issues concerning financial feasibility, and it was not placed at issue in this proceeding. Following the filing of NOPSEs, Florida Housing released NOPSE scores for all applicants, including Riverside and Provincetown. The NOPSE scores are reflected on a NOPSE Scoring Summary dated June 9, 2003. For both Provincetown and Riverside, the NOPSE Scoring Summary contained the following statement regarding alleged threshold failure, identifying two separate reasons for the alleged threshold failure: The proposed Development does not satisfy the minimum Development requirements stated in Rule 67-21.006, F.A.C. The Development is not a multifamily residential rental property comprised of buildings or structures each containing four or more dwelling units. Further, the Applicant has a present plan to convert the Development to a use other than as an affordable residential rental property. The first threshold failure noted in the preceding paragraph relates to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(2), which requires that there be four or more residential units per building for projects financed with MMRB. A subsequent cure regarding the design of the proposed developments has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer contends that these applications, as cured, exhibit a threshold failure related to the number of residential units per building. The second threshold failure noted in the NOPSE Scoring Summary and quoted in paragraph 30 above, relates to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6), which requires that applicants "shall have no present plan to convert the Development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property." In response to the NOPSE Scoring Summaries, both Provincetown and Riverside submitted cures to their respective applications. In the cures, Provincetown and Riverside presented their explanations of how they believed their applications, as submitted, demonstrated a 50-year affordability period commitment and included these applicants’ contentions that they had no present plan to convert the developments to a use other than affordable residential rental property. For Provincetown, an issue had also been raised by a NOPSE concerning whether the Provincetown application was entitled to certain "tie-breaker" points for the distance from the proposed development to a public transportation stop. The points awardable to Provincetown for tie-breaker purposes are not in dispute, and Provincetown, if its application is otherwise deemed to meet threshold requirements, would be entitled to 5.0 of a possible 7.5 tie-breaker points. If Riverside's application were deemed to meet threshold requirements and if the 5 points for the affordability period commitment were restored, Riverside would have been within the funding range for applicants within the 2003 Universal Application cycle at the time the Board took final action on the ranking of applications on October 9, 2003. If Provincetown's application were deemed to meet threshold requirements and if the five points for the affordability period commitment were restored, Provincetown would have been within the funding range for applicants within the 2003 Universal Application cycle at the time the Board took final action on the ranking of applications on October 9, 2003. The Sciarrino Letter and Cures After reviewing the NOPSEs filed against the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing received a letter dated June 2, 2003 (Sciarrino letter or letter), from Michael Sciarrino, president of the CED Companies, addressed to Orlando Cabrera, executive director of Florida Housing, with a copy to Kerey Carpenter, deputy development officer of Florida Housing. Michael Sciarrino is a manager of the sole general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 Y, LLC., a Florida limited liability company) of Provincetown. Mr. Sciarrino is also a Class B limited partner of the sole member of the general partner (CED Capital Holdings XVI, LTD., a Florida limited partnership). Michael Sciarrino is a manager of the sole general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 K, LLC., a Florida limited liability company) of Riverside. Mr. Sciarrino is also a Class B limited partner of the sole member of the general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 XVI, LTD., a Florida limited partnership). As manager of the sole general partner of Provincetown and Riverside, Mr. Sciarrino had supervisory authority and editorial control over the processing and preparation of the Provincetown and Riverside applications. The Sciarrino letter was drafted, in part, to respond to the allegations of the NOPSEs filed against Provincetown and Riverside applications and specifically addressed those issues pertaining to Provincetown and Riverside applications. Also, while the letter does not mention Petitioners by name, the description and location of the properties, as detailed in the letter, clearly refer to these applicants. The Sciarrino letter evinces a present plan on the part of Petitioners to convert the proposed developments to a use other than that of affordable residential rental housing. First, the letter describes in detail the economic motivations for the subsequent sale of the units of the proposed development within the 50-year extended affordability period stating that the "residual value potential" of such an arrangement "is the single biggest economic reason for our desire to develop these communities." Next, the letter describes in detail the means by which Petitioners would be relieved of the commitment to a 50-year affordability period as stated in their applications, that is, by seeking a waiver from Board after the 15-year period of tax credit recapture exposure had expired. Third, the letter plainly states that Petitioners had intended to request such relief from the 50-year affordability period in the future. Petitioners' present plan to convert the proposed developments for sale to homeowners during the 50-year extended affordability period is further evident by the fact that the concept of such a conversion existed prior to and at the time the applications were filed. Moreover, the Provincetown and Riverside developments were specially selected to test the concept. On or about June 19, 2003, Petitioners filed cures with Florida Housing addressing the issues raised in the NOPSEs. While the cures presented argument in favor of their respective applications and reiterated Petitioners' commitment to the 50-year extended affordability period for each proposed development, they did not deny that it was their intention to seek relief from this period in the future. Following review of the Sciarrino letter and the cures submitted by Petitioners, Florida Housing rejected both the Provincetown and Riverside applications for failing to meet the mandatory development requirement set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6). The applications also had five points deducted from their scores on the grounds that, under the circumstances, their commitment to an affordability period could not be determined.
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 that upholds the scoring of the applications of Riverside Village Partners, LTD., and Provincetown Village Partners, LTD.; that rejects the applications of Riverside Village Partners, LTD., and Provincetown Village Partners, LTD.; and that denies the relief requested in the Petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Orlando J. Cabrera, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wellington H. Meffert, II, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created under Florida law to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Florida Housing administers a competitive solicitation process to implement the provisions of the housing credit program, under which developers apply and compete for funding for projects in response to RFAs developed by Florida Housing. The RFA in this case was specifically targeted to provide affordable housing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The RFA introduction provides: 2 As this Recommended Order of Dismissal is based upon a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of the three Petitions filed by the Petitioners in this consolidate case are accepted as true, and the Findings of Fact are derived from the four corners of those Petitions, see Madison Highlands. LLC v. Florida Housing Finance Corp., 220 So. 3d 467, 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), and facts that are not otherwise in dispute. This Request for Applications (RFA) is open to Applicants proposing the development of affordable, multifamily housing located in Miami- Dade County. Under this RFA, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (the Corporation) expects to have up to an estimated $7,195,917 of Housing Credits available for award to proposed Developments located in Miami-Dade County. After Florida Housing announced its preliminary funding award decisions for RFA 2019-112 for Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County, each of the Petitioners filed Petitions challenging the decisions. Petitioners do not allege that Florida Housing improperly scored or evaluated the applications selected for funding, nor do they contend that Petitioners' applications should be funded. Instead, Petitioners allege that the evaluation was fundamentally unfair and seeks to have the entire RFA rescinded based on alleged improprieties of one responding entity and its affiliates. Petitioners claim that the evaluation process was fundamentally unfair is based entirely on allegations that several entities associated with Housing Trust Group, LLC (HTG), combined to submit 15 Priority I applications in contravention of the limitation in the RFA on the number of Priority I applications that could be submitted. Even assuming Petitioners' assertions are correct, there is no scenario in which Petitioners can reach the funding range for this RFA. In order to break ties for those applicants that achieve the maximum number of points and meet the mandatory eligibility requirements, the RFA sets forth a series of tie-breakers to determine which applications will be awarded funding. The instant RFA included specific goals to fund certain types of developments and sets forth sorting order tie-breakers to distinguish between applicants. The relevant RFA provisions are as follows: Goals The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) proposed Development that (a) selected the Demographic Commitment of Family at questions 2.a. of Exhibit A and (b) qualifies for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/SADDA Goal as outlined in Section Four A. 11. a. The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) proposed Development that selected the Demographic Commitment of Elderly (Non-ALF) at question 2.a. of Exhibit A. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal. Applicant Sorting Order All eligible Priority I Applications will be ranked by sorting the Applications as follows, followed by Priority II Applications. First, from highest score to lowest score; Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.lO.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.(b)(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Applicant's Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Applicant's eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and And finally, by lotterv number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. This RFA was similar to previous RFAs issued by Florida Housing, but included some new provisions limiting the number of Priority I applications that could be submitted. Specifically, the RFA provided: Priority Designation of Applications Applicants may submit no more than three (3) Priority I Applications. There is no limit to the number of Priority II Applications that can be submitted; however, no Principal can be a Principal, as defined in Rule Chapter 67- 48.002(94), F.A.C., of more than three ( 3) Priority 1 Applications. For purposes of scoring, Florida Housing will rely on the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Rev. 05-2019) outlined below in order to determine if a Principal is a Principal on more than three (3) Priority 1 Applications. If during scoring it is determined that a Principal is disclosed as a Principal on more than three (3) Priority I Applications, all such Priority I Applications will be deemed Priority II. If it is later determined that a Principal, as defined in Rule Chapter 67-48.002(94), F.A.C., was not disclosed as a Principal and the undisclosed Principal causes the maximum set forth above to be exceeded, the award(s) for the affected Application(s) will be rescinded and all Principals of the affected Applications may be subject to material misrepresentation, even if Applications were not selected for funding, were deemed ineligible, or were withdrawn. The Petitioners all timely submitted applications in response to the RFA. Lottery numbers were assigned by Florida Housing, at random, to all applications shortly after the applications were received and before any scoring began. Lottery numbers were assigned to the applications without regard to whether the application was a Priority I or Priority II. The RFA did not limit the number of Priority II Applications that could be submitted. Review of the applications to determine if a principal was a principal on more than three Priority 1 Applications occurred during the scoring process, well after lottery numbers were assigned. The leveraging line, which would have divided the Priority I Applications into Group A and Group B, was established after the eligibility determinations were made. All applications were included in Group A. There were no Group B applications. Thus, all applications were treated equally with respect to this preference. The applications were ultimately ranked according to lottery number and funding goal. . If Florida Housing had determined that an entity or entities submitted more than three Priority I Applications with related principals, the relief set forth in the RFA was to move those applications to Priority II. Florida Housing did not affirmatively conclude that any of the 15 challenged applications included undisclosed principals so as to cause a violation of the maximum number of Priority I Applications that could be submitted. All of the applications that were deemed eligible for funding, including the Priority II Applications, scored equally, and met all of the funding preferences. After the applications were evaluated by the Review Committee appointed by Florida Housing, the scores were finalized and preliminary award recommendations were presented and approved by Florida Housing's Board. Consistent with the procedures set forth in the RFA, Florida Housing staff reviewed the Principal Disclosure Forms to determine the number of Priority I Applications that had been filed by each applicant. This review did not result in a determination that any applicant had exceeded the allowable number of Priority I Applications that included the same principal. One of the HTG Applications (Orchid Pointe, App. No. 2020-148C) was initially selected to satisfy the Elderly Development goal. Subsequently, three applications, including Slate Miami, that had initially been deemed ineligible due to financial arrearages were later determined to be in full compliance and, thus, eligible as of the close of business on January 8, 2020. The Review Committee reconvened on January 21, 2020, to reinstate those three applications. Slate Miami was then recommended for funding. The Review Committee ultimately recommended to the Board the following applications for funding: Harbour Springs (App. No. 2020-101C), which met the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/SADDA Goal; Slate Miami (App. No. 2020-122C), which met the Elderly (non-ALF) Goal; and Naranja Lakes (App. No. 2020-117C), which was the next highest-ranked eligible Priority I Application. The Board approved the Committee's recommendations at its meeting on January 23, 2020, and approved the preliminary selection of Harbour Springs, Slate Miami, and Naranja Lakes for funding. The applications selected for funding held Lottery numbers 1 (Harbour Springs), 2 (Naranja Lakes), and 4 (Slate Miami). Petitioners' lottery numbers were 16 (Quail Roost), 59 (Sierra Meadows) and 24 (Ambar Trail). The three applications selected for funding have no affiliation or association with HTG, or any of the entities that may have filed applications in contravention of the limitation in the RFA for Priority I applications. The applications alleged in the Petitions as being affiliated with HTG received a wide range of lottery numbers in the random selection, including numbers: 3, 6, 14, 19, 30, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 49, 52 through 54, and 58. If Petitioners prevailed in demonstrating an improper principal relationship between the HTG applications, the relief specified in the RFA (the specifications of which were not challenged) would have been the conversion of the offending HTG applications to Priority II applications. The relief would not have been the removal of those applications from the pool of applications, nor would it have affected the assignment of lottery numbers to any of the applicants, including HTG. The Petitions do not allege any error in scoring or ineligibility with respect to the three applications preliminarily approved for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioners lack standing and dismissing the Petitions with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Tana D. Storey, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 (32302) Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
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)
