The Issue The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“FHFC”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact FHFC and Affordable Housing Tax Credits FHFC is a public corporation that finances affordable housing in Florida by allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. See § 420.504(1), Fla. Stat. (providing that FHFC is “an entrepreneurial public corporation organized to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing and related facilities in this state.”); § 420.5099(2), Fla. Stat. (providing that “[t]he corporation shall adopt allocation procedures that will ensure the maximum use of available tax credits in order to encourage development of low-income housing in the state, taking into consideration the timeliness of the application, the location of the proposed housing project, the relative need in the area for low-income housing and the availability of such housing, the economic feasibility of the project, and the ability of the applicant to proceed to completion of the project in the calendar year for which the credit is sought.”). The tax credits allocated by FHFC encourage investment in affordable housing and are awarded through competitive solicitations to developers of qualifying rental housing. Tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150. In contrast, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Not surprisingly, the demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. A successful applicant/developer normally sells the tax credits in order to raise capital for a housing development. That results in the developer being less reliant on debt financing. In exchange for the tax credits, a successful applicant/developer must offer affordable rents and covenant to keep those rents at affordable levels for 30 to 50 years. The Selection Process FHFC awards tax credits through competitive solicitations, and that process is commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications (“RFA”). Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.009(2) provides that unsuccessful applicants for tax credits “may only protest the results of the competitive solicitation process pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 120.57(3), F.S., and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.” For purposes of section 120.57(3), an RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67.60.009(4), F.A.C. FHFC issued RFA 2015-111 on October 23, 2015, and responses from applicants were due on December 4, 2015. Through RFA 2015-111, FHFC seeks to award up to $5,901,631 of tax credits to qualified applicants that commit to preserve existing affordable multifamily housing developments for the demographic categories of “Families,” “the Elderly,” and “Persons with a Disability.” FHFC only considered an application eligible for funding from RFA 2015-111, if that particular application complied with certain content requirements. FHFC ranked all eligible applications pursuant to an “Application Sorting Order” set forth in RFA 2015-111. The first consideration was the applicants’ scores. Each application could potentially receive up to 23 points based on the developer’s experience and the proximity to services needed by the development’s tenants. Applicants demonstrating that their developments received funding from a U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Rural Development program known as RD 515 were entitled to a 3.0 point proximity score “boost.” That proximity score boost was important because RFA 2015-111 characterized counties as small, medium, or large. Applications associated with small counties had to achieve at least four proximity points to be considered eligible for funding. Applications associated with medium-sized counties and those associated with large counties had to achieve at least seven and 10.25 proximity points respectively in order to be considered eligible for funding. Because it is very common for several tax credit applicants in a particular RFA to receive identical scores, FHFC incorporated a series of “tie-breakers” into RFA 2015-111. The tie-breakers for RFA 2015-111, in order of applicability, were: First, by Age of Development, with developments built in 1985 or earlier receiving a preference over relatively newer developments. Second, if necessary, by a Rental Assistance (“RA”) preference. Applicants were to be assigned an RA level based on the percentage of units receiving rental assistance through either a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) or USDA Rural Development program. Applicants with an RA level of 1, 2, or 3 (meaning at least 75 percent of the units received rental assistance) were to receive a preference. Third, by a Concrete Construction Funding Preference, with developments incorporating certain specified concrete or masonry structural elements receiving the preference. Fourth, by a Per Unit Construction Funding Preference, with applicants proposing at least $32,500 in Actual Construction Costs per unit receiving the preference. Fifth, by a Leveraging Classification favoring applicants requiring a lower amount in housing credits per unit than other applicants. Generally, the least expensive 80 percent of eligible applicants were to receive a preference over the most expensive 20 percent. Sixth, by an Applicant’s specific RA level, with Level 1 applicants receiving the most preference and Level 6 the least. Seventh, by a Florida Job Creation Preference, which estimated the number of jobs created per $1 million of housing credit equity investment the developments were to receive based on formulas contained in the RFA. Applicants achieving a Job Creation score of at least 4.0 were to receive the preference. Eighth, by lottery number, with the lowest (smallest) lottery number receiving the preference. Rental assistance from the USDA or HUD is provided to existing developments in order to make up for shortfalls in monthly rent paid by tenants. For example, if an apartment’s base rent is $500 per month and the tenant’s income limits him or her to paying only $250 towards rent, then the USDA or HUD rental assistance pays the other $250 so that the total rent received by the development is $500. As evident from the tie-breakers incorporated into RFA 2015-111, the amount of rental assistance, or “RA Level,” played a prominent role in distinguishing between RFA 2015-111 applicants having identical scores. RFA 2015-111 required that applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter containing the following information: (a) the development’s name; (b) the development’s address; (c) the year the development was built; (d) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC;/3 (e) the total number of units that would receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development were to be funded; (f) all HUD or RD financing program(s) originally and/or currently associated with the existing development; and (g) confirmation that the development had not received financing from HUD or RD after 1995 when the rehabilitation was at least $10,000 per unit in any year. In order to determine an applicant’s RA Level Classification, RFA 2015-111 further stated that Part of the criteria for a proposed Development that qualifies as a Limited Development Area (LDA) Development to be eligible for funding is based on meeting a minimum RA Level, as outlined in Section Four A.7.c of the RFA. The total number of units that will receive rental assistance (i.e., PBRA and/or ACC), as stated in the Development Category qualification letter provided as Attachment 7, will be considered to be the proposed Development’s RA units and will be the basis of the Applicant’s RA Level Classification. The Corporation will divide the RA units by the total units stated by the Applicant at question 5.e. of Exhibit A, resulting in a Percentage of Total Units that are RA units. Using the Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart below, the Corporation will determine the RA Level associated with both the Percentage of Total Units and the RA units. The best rating of these two (2) levels will be assigned as the Application’s RA Level Classification. RFA 2015-111 then outlined a Rental Assistance Level Classification Chart to delineate between the RA Levels. That chart described six possible RA Levels, with one being developments that have the most units receiving rental assistance and six pertaining to developments with the fewest units receiving rental assistance. A development with at least 100 rental assistance units and greater than 50 percent of the total units receiving rental assistance was to receive an RA Level of 1. FHFC also utilized a “Funding Test” to assist in the selection of applications for funding. The Funding Test required that the amount of unawarded housing credits be enough to satisfy any remaining applicant’s funding request. In other words, FHFC prohibited partial funding. In addition, RFA 2015-111 applied a “County Award Tally” designed to prevent a disproportionate concentration of funded developments in any one county. As a result, all other applicants from other counties had to receive an award before a second application from a particular county could be funded. After ranking of the eligible applicants, RFA 2015-111 set forth an order of funding selection based on county size, demographic category, and the receipt of RD 515 financing. The Order was: One RD 515 Development (in any demographic category) in a medium or small county; One Non-RD 515 Development in the Family Demographic Category (in any size county); The highest ranked Non-RD 515 application or applications with the demographic of Elderly or Persons with a Disability; and If funding remains after all eligible Non- RD 515 applicants are funded, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Elderly demographic (or, if none, then the highest ranked RD 515 applicant in the Family demographic). Draft versions of every RFA are posted on-line in order for stakeholders to provide FHFC with their comments. In addition, every RFA goes through at least one workshop prior to being finalized. FHFC often makes changes to RFAs based on stakeholder comments. No challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. A review committee consisting of FHFC staff members reviewed and scored all 24 applications associated with RFA 2015-111. During this process, FHFC staff determined that none of the RD-515 applicants satisfied all of the threshold eligibility requirements. On June 24, 2016, FHFC’s Board of Directors announced its intention to award funding to five applicants, subject to those applicants successfully completing the credit underwriting process. Pineda Village in Brevard County was the only successful applicant in the Non-RD 515 Family Demographic. The four remaining successful applicants were in the Non-RD 515 Elderly or Persons with Disability Demographic: Three Round Tower in Miami-Dade County; Cathedral Towers in Duval County; Isles of Pahokee in Palm Beach County; and Lummus Park in Miami- Dade County. The randomly-assigned lottery number tie-breaker played a role for the successful Non-RD 515 applicants with Three Round Tower having lottery number one, Cathedral Towers having lottery number nine, and Isles of Pahokee having lottery number 18. While Lummus Park had a lottery number of 12, the County Award Tally prevented it from being selected earlier because Three Round Tower had already been selected for funding in Miami-Dade County. However, after the first four applicants were funded, only $526,880 of credits remained, and Lummus Park was the only eligible applicant with a request small enough to be fully funded. All Petitioners timely filed Notices of Protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The Challenge by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns Woodcliff is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 34-unit development for elderly residents in Lake County.4/ Colonial is seeking an award of tax credits in order to acquire and preserve a 30-unit development for low-income families in Lake County.5/ St. Johns is seeking an award of tax credits to acquire and preserve a 48-unit development for elderly residents in Putnam County.6/ FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns to be ineligible because of a failure to demonstrate the existence or availability of a particular source of financing relied upon in their applications. Specifically, FHFC determined that the availability of USDA RD 515 financial assistance was not properly documented. For applicants claiming the existence of RD 515 financing, RFA 2015-111 stated: If the proposed Development will be assisted with funding under the United States Department of Agriculture RD 515 Program and/or RD 538 Program, the following information must be provided: Indicate the applicable RD Program(s) at question 11.b.(2) of Exhibit A. For a proposed Development that is assisted with funding from RD 515 and to qualify for the RD 515 Proximity Point Boost (outlined in Section Four A.6.b.(1)(b) of the RFA), the Applicant must: Include the funding amount at the USDA RD Financing line item on the Development Funding Pro Forma (Construction/Rehab Analysis and/or Permanent Analysis); and Provide a letter from RD, dated within six (6) months of the Application Deadline, as Attachment 17 to Exhibit A, which includes the following information for the proposed Preservation Development: Name of existing development; Name of proposed Development; Current RD 515 Loan balance; Acknowledgment that the property is applying for Housing Credits; and Acknowledgment that the property will remain in the USDA RD 515 loan portfolio. (emphasis added). FHFC was counting on the letter mentioned directly above to function as proof that: (a) there was RD 515 financing in place when the letter was issued; and that (b) the RD 515 financing would still be in place as of the application deadline for RFA 2015-111. FHFC deemed Woodcliff, Colonial and St. Johns ineligible because their RD letters were not dated within six months of the December 4, 2015, deadline for RFA 2015-111 applications. The Woodcliff letter was dated May 15, 2015, the Colonial letter was dated May 15, 2015, and the St. Johns letter was dated May 5, 2015. FHCA had previously issued RFA 2015-104, which also proposed to award Housing Credit Financing for the Preservation of Existing Affordable Multifamily Housing Developments. The deadline for RFA 2015-104 was June 23, 2015, and Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns applied using the same USDA letter that they used in their RFA 2015-111 applications. Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns argued during the final hearing that FHFC should have accepted their letters because: (a) they gained no competitive advantage by using letters that were more than six months old; (b) waiving the six- month “shelf life” requirement would enable FHFC to satisfy one of its stated goals for RFA 2015-111, i.e., funding of an RD 515 development; and (c) other forms of financing (such as equity investment) have no “freshness” or “shelf life” requirement. However, it is undisputed that no party (including Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns) challenged any of the terms, conditions, or requirements of RFA 2015-111. In addition, Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Programs) testified that there must be a point at which FHFC must ensure the viability of the information submitted by applicants. If the information is “too old,” then it may no longer be relevant to the current application process. Under the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for FHFC to utilize a six-month shelf life for USDA letters.7/ Furthermore, Mr. Reecy testified that excusing Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns’ noncompliance could lead to FHFC excusing all deviations from all other date requirements in future RFAs. In other words, applicants could essentially rewrite those portions of the RFA, and that would be an unreasonable result. Excusing the noncompliance of Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns could lead to a “slippery slope” in which any shelf- life requirement has no meaning. The letters utilized by Woodcliff, Colonial, and St. Johns were slightly more than six months old. But, exactly when would a letter become too old to satisfy the “shelf life” requirement? If three weeks can be excused today, will four weeks be excused next year? St. Elizabeth’s and Marian Towers’ Challenge St. Elizabeth is seeking low-income housing tax credit financing in order to acquire and preserve a 151-unit development for elderly residents in Broward County, Florida. Marian Towers is an applicant for RFA 2015-111 funding seeking low-income housing tax credits to acquire and preserve a 220-unit development for elderly residents in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The same developer is associated with the St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers projects. In its scoring and ranking process, FHFC assigned St. Elizabeth an RA Level of two. RFA 2015-111 requires that Applicants demonstrate RA Levels by providing a letter from HUD or the USDA with specific information. That information is then used to establish an RA Level for the proposed development. As noted above, the RFA requires the letter to contain several pieces of information, including: (a) the total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC; and (b) the total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed development is funded. RFA 2015-111 provided that a development with at least 100 rental units would receive an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth included with its application a letter from HUD’s Miami field office stating in pertinent part that: Total number of units that currently receive PBRA and/or ACC: 99 units. Total number of units that will receive PBRA and/or ACC if the proposed Development is funded: 100 units*. The asterisk in the preceding paragraph directed readers of St. Elizabeth’s HUD letter to a paragraph stating that: HUD is currently processing a request from the owner to increase the number of units subsidized under a HAP Contract to 100 by transferring budget authority for the one additional unit from another Catholic Housing Services Section 8 project under Section 8(bb) in accordance with Notice H-2015-03. Because of the foregoing statement from HUD, FHFC concluded that St. Elizabeth did not have 100 units receiving rental assistance as of the application deadline. Accordingly, FHFC used 99 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance when calculating St. Elizabeth’s RA Level, and that led to FHFC assigning an RA Level of two to St. Elizabeth’s application.8/ If St. Elizabeth had been deemed eligible and if FHFC had used 100 units as the total number of units that would receive rental assistance, then St. Elizabeth would have received an RA Level of one. Given the application sorting order and the selection process outlined in RFA 2015-111, St. Elizabeth (with a lottery number of six) would have been recommended for funding by FHFC, and that outcome would have resulted in Intervenors Isles of Pahokee and Lummus Park losing their funding. St. Elizabeth asserted during the final hearing that the 100th unit had obtained rental assistance financing since the application deadline on December 4, 2015. However, FHFC could only review, score, and calculate St. Elizabeth’s RA Level based on the information available as of the application deadline. While St. Elizabeth argues that the asterisk paragraph sets forth a “condition,” Kenneth Reecy (FHFC’s Director of Multifamily Housing) agreed during the final hearing that the asterisk paragraph was more akin to information that was not explicitly required by RFA 2015-111. FHFC did not use that additional information to declare St. Elizabeth’s application ineligible for funding. Despite being assigned an RA Level of two, St. Elizabeth’s application still could have been selected for funding because RFA 2015-111 merely established RA Level as a basis for breaking ties among competing applications. However, too many applicants for RFA 2015-111 had identical scores, and RFA 2015-111’s use of RA Level as a tiebreaker forced St. Elizabeth’s application out of the running. Under the circumstances, FHFC’s treatment of St. Elizabeth’s application was not clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. As noted above, tie- breakers are very important, because there is often very little to distinguish one application for tax credits from another. Given that there was a degree of uncertainty about whether St. Elizabeth’s would have 100 qualifying units, FHFC acted reasonably by assigning St. Elizabeth’s application an RA Level of two for this tie-breaker rather than an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers argue that other applications contained language that indicated a degree of uncertainty. Nevertheless, those other applications received an RA Level of one. For example, FHFC assigned an RA Level of one to Three Round and Haley Sofge even though their HUD letters stated that both developments would be “subject to a Subsidy Layering Review to be conducted by HUD.” Marian Towers argued that if FHFC does not accept HUD or RD letters containing conditional language about the number of units that will be subsidized, then FHFC should have assigned an RA Level of six to Three Round and Haley Sofge. If Three Round and Haley Sofge had been assigned an RA Level of six, then Marian Towers (with a lottery number of five) would have been recommended for funding. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers cited another instance in which an application received an RA Level of one, even though its application contained a letter from the RD program stating that “USDA Rural Development will consent to the transfer if all regulatory requirements are met.” (emphasis added). However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate that the language cited above applied only to those particular applications rather than to all applications for tax credits. For example, if all applications are subject to a subsidy layering review and compliance with all regulatory requirements, then inclusion of such language in a HUD letter (in and of itself) should not prevent an applicant from being assigned an RA Level of one. St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers also cited a HUD Letter used in another recent RFA by an applicant that received an RA Level of one. The HUD letter in question contained an asterisk followed by the following statement: “It is HUD’s understanding that two separate applications are being submitted – one for each tower comprising St. Andrew Towers. If funded, HUD will consider a request from the owner to bifurcate the St. Andrew Towers HAP contract in order to facilitate the separate financing of each tower.” However, St. Elizabeth and Marian Towers failed to demonstrate why the language quoted directly above should have resulted in the applicant in question being awarded an RA Level less than one. There is no indication that the total number of units receiving rental assistance would change.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order awarding funding to Three Round Tower A, LLC; Cathedral Towers, Ltd; Isles of Pahokee Phase II, LLC; SP Manor, LLC; and Pineda Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G.W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a portion of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a limited partnership and developer of affordable housing in Florida. The Petitioner is seeking to construct a 116-unit affordable housing family apartment complex ("Elmwood Terrace") in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner has standing to initiate and participate in this proceeding. The Respondent is a public corporation organized under Chapter 420, Florida Statutes (2010), to administer state programs that provide financial support to developers seeking to construct affordable housing. Such support is provided through a variety of mechanisms, including the use of federal tax credits. The federal tax credit program was created in 1986 to promote the construction and operation of privately-developed affordable housing. The tax credits relevant to this proceeding provide a dollar-for-dollar credit against federal tax liabilities for a period of ten years. The Respondent is the designated Florida agency responsible for distribution of the federal tax credits. The tax credits are awarded pursuant to a "Qualified Allocation Plan" (QAP) that must be annually approved by the Governor and adopted as an administrative rule by the Respondent. As a matter of course, developers receiving the federal tax credits sell them through syndicators for discounted cash. The sale of the tax credits generates debt-free cash equity for developers. Developers seeking financial support to build affordable housing units submit applications to the Respondent during an annual competitive process known as the "Universal Cycle." Every three years, the Respondent commissions a study (the "Shimberg Report"), which measures, within each Florida county, the number of "cost-burden" renters earning 60 percent or less of an area's median income (AMI) who pay more than 40 percent of their income in rent. The AMI is determined by the federal government. The cost-burden households are further classified into four groups: families, the elderly, farm workers, and commercial fishermen. The Shimberg Report also assesses needs related to homeless people in the state. Developers seeking to obtain affordable housing financing are required to set aside a portion of the proposed units for income-limited residents. Access to affordable housing units is generally targeted towards persons receiving no more than 60 percent of the AMI. The Universal Cycle process allows the Respondent to target specific housing deficiencies in terms of geographic availability and population demographics and to preserve the stock of existing affordable housing. During the Universal Cycle process, the Respondent identifies areas where additional affordable housing is unnecessary, to discourage additional development in weak markets and to encourage development in those locations where there is a lack of access to affordable housing. The Respondent classifies areas where there is little need for additional affordable housing as "Location A" areas. Each application filed during the Universal Cycle is evaluated, scored, and competitively ranked against other applications filed during the same Universal Cycle. After the Respondent completes the competitive ranking of the applications submitted in the Universal Cycle, the applicants are provided with an opportunity to review and comment on the evaluation and scoring of the proposals. Applicants may also cure defects in their own proposals. After the close of the review and comment period, the Respondent publishes a revised competitive ranking of the proposals. Developers may challenge the second ranking through an administrative hearing. After the second ranking process is final, developers achieving an acceptable score receive preliminary funding commitments and proceed into a "credit underwriting" evaluation process. The credit underwriting process is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. The Respondent selects an independent credit underwriter who reviews each proposal according to requirements set forth by administrative rule (the "Credit Underwriting Rule"). The cost of the credit underwriting review is paid by the developer. The credit underwriter considers all aspects of the proposed development, including financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning verification, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. The responsibility for the market study is assigned by the credit underwriter to an independent market analyst. The credit underwriter prepares a report for each applicant invited into the process. The reports are submitted to the Respondent's nine-member, statutorily-created Board of Directors (Board). The Board approves or denies each application for financial support. The Petitioner applied for funds for the Elmwood Terrace project during the 2007 Universal Cycle. The Petitioner's application received a perfect score, maximum points, and was allocated tax credits in the amount of $1,498,680. The Petitioner thereafter entered the credit underwriting process. The credit underwriting analysis was performed by Seltzer Management Group (SMG). SMG contracted with a market analyst, Vogt, Williams & Bowen Research, Inc. (VWB), to prepare the required market study. The affordable units at Elmwood Terrace were initially intended for persons receiving incomes no more than 60 percent of the AMI. The VWB research indicated that the Elmwood Terrace project would adversely affect the existing affordable housing developments, if the Elmwood Terrace units were available to the 60 percent AMI population. The existing affordable housing developments, also serving the 60 percent AMI population, included two developments that had participated in the Respondent's "Guarantee Fund" program, addressed elsewhere herein. VWB determined that the impact of the Elmwood Terrace project on the existing developments could be ameliorated were some of the Elmwood Terrace units targeted during "lease-up" to persons at income levels of not more than 50 percent of the AMI. The lease-up period is the time required for a new development to reach anticipated occupancy levels. The issue was the subject of discussions between the Petitioner, VWB, and SMG. To resolve the anticipated negative impact on the existing affordable housing developments, the Petitioner agreed to target the 50 percent AMI population. In September 2008, the credit underwriter issued his report and recommended that the Petitioner receive the previously-allocated tax credits. On September 22, 2008, the Respondent's Board accepted the credit underwriting report and followed the recommendation. In the fall of 2008, after the Petitioner received the tax credits, the nation's economic environment deteriorated considerably. As a result, the syndicator with whom the Petitioner had been working to sell the tax credits advised that the sale would not occur. The Petitioner was unable to locate an alternate purchaser for the tax credits. The Petitioner considered altering the target population of the project in an attempt to attract a buyer for the tax credits, and there were discussions with the Respondent about the option, but there was no credible evidence presented that such an alteration would have resulted in the sale of the Petitioner's tax credits. Lacking a buyer for the tax credits, the Petitioner was unable to convert the credits to cash, and they were of little value in providing funds for the project. The Petitioner was not alone in its predicament, and many other developers who received tax credits in the 2007 and 2008 Universal Cycles found themselves unable to generate cash through the sale of their tax credits. In early 2009, Congress adopted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PL 111-5), referred to herein as ARRA, which incorporated a broad range of economic stimulus activities. Included within the ARRA was the "Tax Credit Exchange Program" that provided for the return by the appropriate state agency of a portion of the unused tax credits in exchange for a cash distribution of 85 percent of the tax credit value. The State of Florida received $578,701,964 through the Tax Credit Exchange Program. The ARRA also provided additional funds to state housing finance agencies through a "Tax Credit Assistance Program" intended to "resume funding of affordable housing projects across the nation while stimulating job creation in the hard-hat construction industry." On July 31, 2009, the Respondent issued a Request for Proposals (RFP 2009-04) to facilitate the distribution of the ARRA funds. The Respondent issued the RFP because the 2009 QAP specifically required the Respondent to allocate the relevant federal funds by means of a "competitive request for proposal or competitive application process as approved by the board." The 2009 QAP was adopted as part of the 2009 Universal Cycle rules. Projects selected for funding through the RFP would be evaluated through the routine credit underwriting process. Participation in the RFP process was limited to developers who held an "active award" of tax credits as of February 17, 2009, and who were unable to close on the sale of the credits. The RFP included restrictions against proposals for development within areas designated as "Location A." Although the location of the Elmwood Terrace project had not been within an area designated as "Location A" during the 2007 Universal Cycle process, the Respondent had subsequently designated the area as "Location A" by the time of the 2009 Universal Cycle. The RFP also established occupancy standards for projects funded under the RFP that exceeded the standards established in the Universal Cycle instructions and an evaluation process separate from the Universal Cycle requirements. Although the restrictions in the RFP would have automatically precluded the Petitioner from being awarded funds, the Petitioner submitted a response to the RFP and then filed a successful challenge to the RFP specifications (DOAH Case No. 09-4682BID). In a Recommended Order issued on November 12, 2009, the Administrative law Judge presiding over the RFP challenge determined that certain provisions of the RFP, including the automatic rejection of Location A projects, the increased occupancy standards, and the RFP evaluation criteria, were invalid. The Respondent adopted the Recommended Order by a Final Order issued on December 4, 2009, and invited the Petitioner into the credit underwriting process by a letter dated December 9, 2009. The credit underwriter assigned to analyze the Petitioner's project was SMG, the same credit underwriter that performed the original analysis of the Petitioner's project during the 2007 Universal Cycle. SMG retained Meridian Appraisal Group, Inc. (Meridian), to prepare the required market study. The Respondent was not consulted regarding the SMG decision to retain Meridian for the market analysis. The decision to retain Meridian for the market analysis was entirely that of SMG. The Respondent did not direct SMG or Meridian in any manner regarding the assessment or evaluation of any negative impact of the proposed project on existing affordable housing developments. Meridian completed the market study and forwarded it to SMG on January 26, 2010. The Meridian market analysis included a review of the relevant data as well as consideration of the actual economic conditions experienced in Lee County, Florida, including the extremely poor performance of the existing housing stock, as well as significant job losses and considerable unemployment. The Meridian market analysis determined that the Elmwood Terrace development would have a negative impact on two existing affordable housing apartment developments that were underwritten by the Respondent through a Guarantee Fund created at Section 420.5092, Florida Statutes, by the Florida Legislature in 1992. The existing Guarantee Fund properties referenced in the SMG recommendation are "Bernwood Trace" and "Westwood," both family-oriented apartment developments within five miles of the Elmwood Terrace location. The Guarantee Fund essentially obligates the Respondent to satisfy mortgage debt with the proceeds of Florida's documentary stamp taxes, if an affordable housing development is unable to generate sufficient revenue to service the debt. Because the Guarantee Fund program essentially serves to underwrite the repayment of mortgage debt for a "guaranteed" affordable housing development, the program increases the availability, and lowers the cost, of credit for developers. The Guarantee Fund program has participated in the financing of more than 100 projects, most of which closed between 1999 and 2002. Since 2005, the Respondent has not approved any additional Guarantee Fund participation in any affordable housing developments. The Respondent's total risk exposure through the Guarantee Fund is approximately 750 million dollars. Prior to October 2008, no claims were made against the Guarantee Fund. Since November 2008, there have been eight claims filed against the Guarantee Fund. Affordable housing financing includes restrictions that mandate the inclusion of a specific number of affordable housing units. Such restrictions are eliminated through foreclosure proceedings, and, accordingly, access to affordable housing units can be reduced if a development fails. Presuming that the eight claims pending against the Guarantee Fund eventually proceeded through foreclosure, as many as 2,300 residential units could be deducted from the stock of affordable housing. When there is a claim on the Guarantee Fund, the Respondent has to assume payment of the mortgage debt. The claims are paid from the Guarantee Fund capital, which is detrimental to the Respondent's risk-to-capital ratio. The risk-to-capital ratio is presently four to one. The maximum risk-to-capital ratio acceptable to rating agencies is five to one. The eight claims against the Guarantee Fund have ranged between ten and 18 million dollars each. The Respondent's bond rating has declined because of the eight claims. A continued decline in the Respondent's bond rating could result in documentary stamp tax receipts being used for payment of Guarantee Fund claims and directed away from the Respondent's programs that are intended to support the creation of affordable housing. In an effort to prevent additional claims against the Guarantee Fund, the Respondent has created the "Subordinate Mortgage Initiative" to provide assistance in the form of two- year loans to troubled Guarantee Fund properties. When preparing the 2010 market study, Meridian did not review the VWB market analysis performed as part of the 2007 application. Although the Petitioner has asserted that Meridian should have reviewed the 2007 VWB analysis, there is no evidence that Meridian's decision to conduct an independent market study without reference to the prior market review was inappropriate. On February 8, 2010, SMG issued a recommendation that the Petitioner's funding request be denied "because of the proposed development's potential financial impacts on developments in the area previously funded by Florida Housing and an anticipated negative impact to the two Guarantee Fund properties located within five miles of the proposed development." There is no evidence that the Meridian analysis was inadequate or improperly completed. There is no evidence that the SMG's reliance on the Meridian analysis was inappropriate. For purposes of this Order, the Meridian analysis and the SMG credit underwriting report have been accepted. Elmwood Terrace, a newer development with newer amenities, would compete for residents with the Bernwood Trace and Westwood developments. The financing for Bernwood Trace and Westwood was premised on projections that the affordable housing units would be leased to the 60 percent AMI population; however, the developments have been unable to maintain full occupancy levels, even though a number of units in the two properties are leased at reduced rates based on 50 percent AMI income levels. A rent reduction implemented by an existing development, whether based on economic conditions or resulting from competition, constitutes a negative impact on the development. There is no credible evidence that the occupancy rates are attributable to any difficulty in management of the two developments. It is reasonable to conclude that the leasing issues are related to economic conditions present in Lee County, Florida. In January 2010, VWB conducted an alternative market analysis. The VWB analysis was not provided to SMG or to the Respondent at any time during the credit underwriting process. Based on the 2010 VWB analysis, the Petitioner asserted that economic conditions in Lee County, Florida, have improved since the first credit underwriting report was completed in 2008 and that the improvement is expected to continue. There is no noteworthy evidence that economic conditions have improved or will significantly improve in the Lee County, Florida, market in the predictable future, and the VWB analysis is rejected. The Petitioner offered to mitigate any negative impact on the Guarantee Fund properties by committing affordable units to 50 percent AMI income levels. Given the existing economic and rental market conditions in Lee County, Florida, the evidence fails to establish that the offer would actually alleviate the negative impact on the affected Guarantee Fund developments. The 2010 VWB analysis states that there is substantial unmet demand for housing at 50 percent AMI and that there will be no impact on the Guarantee Fund units if the Elmwood Terrace units were set aside for such individuals. There is no credible evidence that there is a substantial and relevant unmet affordable housing demand in Lee County, Florida. The VWB analysis is rejected. Following the completion of each annual Universal Cycle process, the Respondent actively solicits feedback from developers and the public and then amends the Universal Cycle requirements to address the issues raised, as well as to reflect existing affordable housing needs and general concerns of the Board. The amendments are applicable for the following Universal Cycle. In 2009, the Respondent amended subsection (10) of the Credit Underwriting Rule as part of the annual revisions to the Universal Cycle process. The relevant amendment (referred to by the parties as the "Impact Rule") added this directive to the credit underwriter: The Credit Underwriter must review and determine whether there will be a negative impact to Guarantee Fund Developments within the primary market area or five miles of the proposed development, whichever is greater. The amendment was prompted by the Respondent's experience in the fall of 2008 when considering two separate applications for affordable housing financing. The potential negative impact of a proposed development on an existing Guarantee Fund property was central to the Board's consideration of one application, and the Board ultimately denied the application. In the second case, the Board granted the application, despite the potential negative impact on a competing development that was not underwritten by the Guarantee Fund. The intent of the language was to advise developers that the existence of Guarantee Fund properties within the competitive market area would be part of the credit underwriting evaluation and the Board's consideration. Notwithstanding the language added to the rule, the credit underwriter is charged with reviewing the need for additional affordable housing. Even in absence of the added language, consideration of any negative impact to competing developments based on inadequate need for additional affordable housing would be appropriate. In rendering the 2010 credit underwriting report on Elmwood Terrace, the credit underwriter complied with the directive. Prior to determining that the Petitioner's funding application should be denied, the Respondent's Board was clearly aware of the Petitioner's application, the credit underwriting report and market analysis, and the economic conditions in Lee County, Florida. There is no credible evidence of any need for additional affordable housing in Lee County, Florida. There is no credible evidence that the Lee County, Florida, market can sustain the addition of the units proposed by the Petitioner without adversely affecting the financial feasibility of the existing Guarantee Fund developments. The Board was aware that the Elmwood Terrace development could attract residents from the nearby Guarantee Fund properties and that local economic conditions threatened the financial viability of the properties. Given current economic conditions, approval of the application at issue in this proceeding would reasonably be expected to result in a negative impact to existing affordable housing developments. The protection of Guarantee Fund developments is necessary to safeguard the resources used to support the creation and availability of affordable housing in the state.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits in Miami-Dade County through Request for Applications 2013-003 to HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd., is contrary to governing statutes, the corporation’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Overview FHFC is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, FHFC is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to housing developers in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Developers then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the debt is lower, a tax credit property can offer lower, more affordable rents. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of 10 years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in the affordable housing. These are tax credits and not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15 percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150. However, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Developers that are awarded tax credits can use them directly. However, most sell them to raise equity capital for their projects.2/ Developers sell these credits for up-front cash. A developer typically sets up a limited partnership or limited liability company to own the apartment complex. The developer maintains a small interest but is responsible for building the project and managing (or arranging for the management) of the project. The investors have the largest ownership interest but are typically passive investors with regard to development and management.3/ Because the tax credits can be used by the investors that provide the equity for 10 years, they are very valuable. When sold to the investors, they provide equity which reduces the debt associated with the project. With lower debt, the affordable housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rent. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply. FHFC has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule chapter 67-60, to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 was newly enacted on August 20, 2013. It replaced prior procedures used by FHFC for the competitive process for allocating tax credits. FHFC has now adopted the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, as its process for allocating tax credits.4/ The Competitive Application Process Tax credits are made available annually. FHFC begins the competitive application process through the issuance of a Request for Applications.5/ In this case, that document is Request for Applications 2013-003. A copy of the RFA, including its Questions & Answers, is Joint Exhibit 1. The RFA was issued September 19, 2013 and responses were due November 12, 2013. According to the RFA, FHFC expected to award up to approximately $10,052,825 in tax credits for qualified affordable housing projects in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Knowing that there would be far more applications than available credits, FHFC established an order for funding in the three counties: The Applications will be considered for funding in the following funding order: first the highest scoring eligible Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Broward County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Palm Beach County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test and then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Broward County regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this last Broward County Application, the Application will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. No further Applications will be considered for funding and any remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. RFA at page 36. Applications were scored using a 27-point scale based on criteria in the RFA. RFA at page 37. This process was described in the RFA as follows: The highest scoring Applications will be determined by first sorting all eligible Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated first by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.c.(1)(a) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.9.e. of the RFA, (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications to [sic] do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application’s Leveraging Classification (applying the multipliers outlined in Exhibit C below and having the Classification of A be the top priority), then by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Preference which is outlined in Exhibit C below (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), and then by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. RFA at page 36 (emphasis added). The way this process works in reality is that the developers know that they must first submit a project that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors.6/ Developers also strive to submit projects structured to receive all 27 points. The tiebreaker is then the luck-of-the-draw. At the time each application is filed, it is randomly assigned a lottery number7/ used to break the ties. The role of the lottery numbers is demonstrated by the following facts. One hundred and nineteen applications were filed in response to the RFA. All but six received the maximum score of 27 points. Seventy of the 119 were deemed eligible. Of those 70, 69 received the maximum score of 27 points. A copy of the RFA Sorting Order is Joint Exhibit 2.8/ As such, the lottery numbers are a big factor in deciding the winners and, concomitantly, the challengers are (1) the projects with high lottery numbers that were deemed ineligible; and (2) those with lottery numbers outside the funding range that are trying to displace those with lower lottery numbers. A copy of the final Review Committee Recommendations is Joint Exhibit 3. This document shows the developers selected, the county and the lottery number. The two Miami-Dade projects selected for funding are: HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC d/b/a Wagner Creek - lottery number 3 Allapattah Trace Apartments, Ltd. - lottery number 6 The Petitioners/Intervenors in these consolidated proceedings are: Town Center Phase Two, LLC - lottery number 7 Pinnacle Rio, LLC - lottery number 9 APC Four Forty Four, Ltd. - deemed ineligible and with a lottery number of 10 The protests here center upon whether various applicants were correctly deemed eligible or ineligible. Applications are competitively reviewed, and so determinations as to one applicant affect other applicants’ positions. Each application, and the allegations against it, will be considered in turn. HTG’s Application APC argues that HTG should be found ineligible for allocation of tax credits because HTG failed to disclose its principals and those of its developer, as required by the RFA. The RFA at Section Four A.2.d. provides, in part, that each applicant will submit an application that identifies: d. Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer. All Applicants must provide a list, as Attachment 3 to Exhibit A, identifying the Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer, as follows: * * * (2) For a Limited Liability Company, provide a list identifying the following: (i) the Principals of the Applicant as of the Application Deadline and (ii) the Principals for each Developer as of the Application Deadline. This list must include warrant holders and/or option holders of the proposed Development. * * * This eligibility requirement may be met by providing a copy of the list of Principals that was reviewed and approved by the Corporation during the advance-review process. To assist the Applicant in compiling the listing, the Corporation has included additional information at Item 3 of Exhibit C. RFA at page 5. The RFA goes on to provide in Exhibit C 3.: 3. Principal Disclosures for Applicants and Each Developer The Corporation is providing the following charts and examples to assist the Applicant in providing the required list identifying the Principals for the Applicant and for each Developer. The term Principals is defined in Section 67-48.002, F.A.C. a. Charts: (1) For the Applicant: * * * (b) If the Applicant is a Limited Liability Company: Identify All Managers and Identify All Members and For each Manager that is a Limited Partnership: For each Manager that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Manager that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder and For each Member that is a Limited Partnership: For each Member that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Member that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder For any Manager and/or Member that is a natural person (i.e., Samuel S. Smith), no further disclosure is required. RFA at page 61. The RFA at Section Three F.3. Provides: 3. Requirements. Proposed Developments funded with Housing Credits will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the credit underwriting and HC Program requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. RFA at page 3. The term “principal” is defined by rule 67-48.002(89)9/, as follows: (89) “Principal” means: (a) Any general partner of an Applicant or Developer, any limited partner of an Applicant or Developer, any manager or member of an Applicant or Developer, any officer, director or shareholder of an Applicant or Developer, * * * (c) Any officer, director, shareholder, manager, member, general partner or limited partner of any manager or member of an Applicant or Developer, and . . . . HTG received an “advance review” approval of its designation of principals on October 8, 2013. HTG submitted this stamped and approved list of principals with its application. Applicant HTG is a limited liability company, as is its developer, HTG Miami-Dade 5 Developer, LLC. In its submission of principals, HTG disclosed the names of the manager and member of the applicant and the manager and member of the developer, all of which were also LLCs. HTG also disclosed the names of the managers and members of these component LLCs. HTG did not disclose any officers of the applicant, the developer, or any of the component LLCs. Other documents submitted as part of the application indicate that Mr. Matthew Rieger is a Vice President of the applicant, HTG Miami-Dade 5, LLC, and that the component LLCs also have officers. APC contends that the rule’s definition of principal requires HTG to disclose not only the managers and members of the applicant and developer, and those of their component LLCs, but also the officers of any of these entities, if they also have officers. FHFC asserts that such disclosure is not required, arguing that the term “officer” as found in the rule’s definition of “principal” only applies to corporations. FHFC argues that there is no inconsistency between the rule and the charts of the RFA with respect to disclosure of principals. FHFC contends that the charts in the RFA, read in conjunction with the rule, indicate that officers must be disclosed only when the entity is a corporation, and that members and managers must be disclosed when the entity is a LLC. FHFC interprets rule 67-48.002(89) in a manner consistent with the charts. It does not interpret the rule to require that an LLC disclose its officers, even if it has them, but only that an LLC disclose its managers and members. Both Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Thorp testified to that effect. The examples provided in the RFA are also consistent with this interpretation. The rule certainly might have been drafted with more precision to expressly indicate that a principal is any officer, director, or shareholder if the entity is a corporation; any manager or member if the entity is an LLC; and any general partner or limited partner if the entity is a Limited Partnership. It cannot be said, however, that the Corporation’s interpretation of the RFA and its rule is impermissible. ATA’s Application Mr. Kenneth Reecy, Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that FHFC revised the “Universal Application Cycle” process that had been conducted in the past. Under the old universal cycle, most of the criteria were incorporated into the rule, and then there was a “cure” process that provided an opportunity to correct errors that didn’t necessarily have a bearing on whether a project was good enough to be funded. Under the newer process, several issues were moved out of the eligibility and scoring phase and into the credit underwriting phase.10/ Specifically relevant here, site plan issues and the availability of infrastructure, such as sewer service, were no longer examined as part of the eligibility and scoring phase set forth in the RFA. Mr. Reecy testified that these issues were complex and had been intentionally pushed to the “rigorous review” that takes place during the credit underwriting phase. In signing and submitting Exhibit A of the RFA, each applicant acknowledges and certifies that certain information will be provided to FHFC by various dates in the future. RFA at page 46. Section Four 10.b.(2)(b) provides in part that the following will be provided: Within 21 Calendar Days of the date of the invitation to enter credit underwriting: Certification of the status of site plan approval as of Application Deadline and certification that as of Application Deadline the site is appropriately zoned for the proposed Development, as outlined in Item 13 of Exhibit C of the RFA; Certification confirming the availability of the following for the entire Development site, including confirmation that these items were in place as of the Application Deadline: electricity, water, sewer service, and roads for the proposed Development, as outlined in Item 13 of Exhibit C of the RFA; Item 13 of Exhibit C goes on to provide: 13. Certification of Ability to Proceed: Within 21 Calendar Days of the date of the invitation to enter credit underwriting, the following information must be provided to the Corporation: a. Submission of the completed and executed 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan approval for Multifamily Developments form. * * * c. Evidence from the Local Government or service provider, as applicable, of the availability of infrastructure as of Application Deadline, as follows: * * * Sewer: Submission of the completed and executed 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure — Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form or a letter from the service provider which is dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline, is Development specific, and specifically states that sewer service is available to the proposed Development as of the Application Deadline. The 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments Form (Site Plan Approval Form) and the 2013 Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure — Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank Form (Certification of Sewer Capacity Form) are incorporated by reference in the RFA. The Site Plan Approval Form requires (in the case of Miami-Dade County which does not have a preliminary or conceptual site plan approval process) that the local government confirm that the site plan was reviewed as of the application deadline. Pinnacle and APC assert that the site plan that ATA submitted to the City of Miami for review included a strip of land that is not legally owned by the current owner and will not be conveyed to ATA under the Purchase and Sale Agreement. As a result, they contend, the site plan review which was required on or before the application deadline did not occur. Pinnacle argues that ATA’s certification in its application was incorrect, that this was a mandatory requirement that was not met, and that it will be impossible for ATA to provide the Site Plan Approval Form in credit underwriting. TC similarly maintains that ATA could not “acknowledge and certify” as part of its application that it would later certify that it had “ability to proceed” because the RFA (at Section Four 10.b.(2)(b) quoted above) requires that “sewer service” be “in place” for ATA’s proposed development as of the application deadline. TC also asserts that the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form explicitly states (and that any service provider letter must, too) that no moratorium is applicable to a proposed development. ATA did not submit a Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. Miami-Dade County will not complete such forms. The “letter of availability” option was created to accommodate Miami-Dade County. The November 12, 2013, letter from Miami-Dade Water and Sewer regarding ATA’s development does not state that there is no applicable moratorium in effect. In fact, the letter affirmatively acknowledges that flow to the gravity system already connected to the property cannot be increased because there is a moratorium in effect as to the pumping station serving the abutting gravity sewer basin. The letter from the County states that, if the pumping station is still in Moratorium Status “at the time this project is ready for construction,” that a private pump station is acceptable. It is logical to conclude that this means sewer service would be available at that time and that sewer service was similarly available at the time of application deadline. The letter, therefore, implies, but does not specifically state, that “sewer service is available to the proposed development as of the application deadline.” The moratorium in effect at the application deadline was not a “general” moratorium. It applied only to the pump station serving the abutting gravity sewer basin, but it was applicable to the proposed development and precluded any increase in the flow to the gravity system connected to the property. A moratorium pertaining to sewer service applicable to ATA’s proposed development was in effect at the time that ATA’s application was submitted. Sewer capacity was otherwise available for the proposed development through use of a private pump station. ATA asserts, first, that ATA has not yet filed certification of ability to proceed or the required forms or letter, that it is not to do so until after it is invited to enter credit underwriting, that FHFC has consequently yet to make a determination as to ATA’s ability to proceed, and that therefore any issues as to site plan or sewer service are not yet ripe for consideration. As to the site plan, ATA further maintains that even if it had been required to provide evidence of ability to proceed as part of its application, the site plan submitted to the City of Miami did not represent that the alley was part of the ATA site. ATA, therefore, asserts that the site plan that was reviewed was the correct one, and that its application certification was correct. The plan of the site of ATA’s development project indicates that the site is bifurcated by a private alley, which is not dedicated as a street, avenue, or boulevard. The legal description of the development project, as submitted to the Department of Planning and Zoning of the City of Miami, included lots 2 through 7 and lots 19 and 20. It did not include the strip of land that lies between these lots (lots 2 through 7 lie to the West of the alley and lots 19 and 20 lie to the East of it.) As to sewer availability, ATA asserts that the 2011 Universal Cycle and the RFA are significantly different. ATA maintains that while the former provided that the existence of a moratorium pertaining to sewer service meant that infrastructure was unavailable, this language was removed from the RFA. ATA contends that a letter of availability need not “mimic” the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form and that the RFA allows a development to certify sewer availability by other means when a moratorium is in effect. Mr. Reecy testified that FHFC takes the certified application at face value, regardless of what other information the Corporation might have at hand. As to the site plan, he testified that even had site plan approval been a part of the scoring process, FHFC would not have found ATA’s application ineligible on that ground. He testified that the alley would not be a problem unless it was a “road” or something similar. He testified that it also could have been a problem if the measurement point to measure the distance to nearby amenities was not on the property, but he was not aware that that was the case in ATA’s application. As for sewer service, Mr. Reecy testified that a letter from the service provider does not have to say “exactly” what is on the form, but stated that it does have to give “the relevant information” to let FHFC know if sewer is “possible.” He testified that the only guidance as to what constituted sewer “availability” was contained in the criteria found on the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. One of the four numbered requirements on the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form is that there are no moratoriums pertaining to sewer service that are applicable to the proposed development. Under the RFA, the Certification of Sewer Capacity Form could not be completed for a proposed development for which a moratorium pertaining to sewer service was in effect at the time the application was submitted. The form could not be certified by the service provider even if it was possible for such a development to obtain sewer service by other means. The text on the 2013 form is substantively identical to that on the form used during the 2011 Universal Cycle, that wording was specifically drafted to require that any moratorium on sewer infrastructure would be a disqualifying criterion, and the 2013 Certification of Sewer Capacity Form still has that effect. No challenge to the use of the form in the RFA was filed. Even though the language of the 2011 Universal Cycle which paralleled the text on the form does not appear in the RFA, that criterion remains as part of the RFA because of the incorporated Certification of Sewer Capacity Form. In any event, the site plan and sewer availability issues must await at least initial resolution by FHFC during the credit underwriting phase. The testimony of Mr. Reecy clearly indicated that FHFC interprets the RFA specifications and its rules to move consideration of site plan issues and infrastructure availability to the credit underwriting phase. It has not been shown that this is an impermissible interpretation. Town Center’s Application Pinnacle alleges that TC’s application fails to demonstrate site control, because the applicant, Town Center Phase Two, LLC, is not the buyer of the site it intends to develop. The RFA requires at Section Four A.7. that an applicant must provide a copy of a contract, deed, or lease to demonstrate site control: 7. Site Control: The Applicant must demonstrate site control by providing, as Attachment 7 to Exhibit A, the documentation required in Items a., b., and/or c., as indicated below. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites. a. Eligible Contract - For purposes of the RFA . . . the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer's rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided . . . . RFA at page 23. The Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property submitted as Attachment 7 to TC’s application is signed by Mr. Milo, who is identified as Vice President. The Buyer on the signature page is incorrectly listed as RUDG, LLC. No other assignment, intermediate contract, agreement, option, or conveyance was included with TC’s application to indicate that TC otherwise had site control of the property. The applicant entity, Town Center Phase Two, LLC, is correctly listed in the opening paragraph of the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property as the “Buyer.” RUDG, LLC, is the 99.99 percent Member of Town Center Phase Two, LLC, and is also the sole Member and Manager of Town Center Phase Two Manager, LLC, which is the .01 percent Managing Member of Town Center Phase Two, LLC. Mr. Milo is a Vice President of RUDG, LLC, a Vice President of Town Center Phase Two Manager, LLC, and a Vice President of the applicant, Town Center Phase Two, LLC. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.008, provides that the Corporation may waive minor irregularities in an otherwise valid application. The term “Minor Irregularity” is defined by rule 67- 60.002(6), as follows: (6) “Minor Irregularity” means a variation in a term or condition of an Application pursuant to this rule chapter that does not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants, and does not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Mr. Reecy testified that FHFC interpreted the rule to mean that if information requested by the RFA is reasonably available within the Application, even if it was not provided exactly in the place where it was requested, the failure to have it in the particular place it was requested is a minor irregularity. Although the information on the signature page of the Contract for Purchase and Sale of Real Property identifying the Buyer as RUDG, LLC, was a discrepancy in the application, the contract elsewhere identified Town Center Phase Two, LLC, as the Buyer, and Mr. Milo was, in fact, authorized to sign for the true Buyer. Ms. Amy Garmon’s deposition testimony indicated that because she was able to determine from other places in the application that the Buyer was the applicant, and that Mr. Milo was authorized to sign for the Buyer, she found this portion of TC’s application to be compliant, and she didn’t see that there was a “minor irregularity” that needed to be waived. However, it is determined that FHFC actually did finally determine that the error in identification constituted a minor irregularity that was waived, in accordance with Mr. Reecy’s testimony. Although it was Ms. Garmon who called attention to the irregularity, Mr. Reecy is in a position of higher authority within the FHFC and is better able to address the Corporation’s actions with respect to TC’s application. Pinnacle also asserts that TC’s finance documents fail, based upon the same signature issue. TC submitted equity proposals detailing its construction funding sources that were addressed to Mr. Milo and endorsed by him as “Vice President.” FHFC similarly concluded that Mr. Milo had authority to endorse the finance letters on behalf of TC. There is evidence to support FHFC’s findings that TC was the actual Buyer, that Mr. Milo had authority to sign the contract and the equity documents, and that the discrepancies in the documents were minor irregularities. Pinnacle’s Application The equity commitment letter from Wells Fargo Bank regarding Pinnacle’s development, as submitted to FHFC, contained only pages numbered one, two, and four of a four-page letter. It is clear that page three is actually missing and the letter was not simply incorrectly numbered, because of discontinuity in the text and in the numbering of portions of the letter. APC contends that Pinnacle’s application should have been deemed ineligible for award because of the missing page. Mr. Reecy testified that even though a page of Pinnacle’s equity commitment letter was missing, all of the RFA requirements were set forth in the remaining pages. He acknowledged that the missing page might have included unacceptable conditions for closing or information that was inconsistent with the other things in the application, but stated that FHFC determined that the missing page from Pinnacle’s equity letter was a minor irregularity. There is evidence to support FHFC’s finding that the missing page was a minor irregularity. APC’s Application The RFA provides at Section Four, A.3.c., at page 5: c. Experienced Developer(s) At least one Principal of the Developer entity, or if more than one Developer entity, at least one Principal of at least one of the Developer entities, must meet the General Developer Experience requirements in (1) and (2) below. (1) General Developer Experience: A Principal of each experienced Developer entity must have, since January 1, 1991, completed at least three (3) affordable rental housing developments, at least one (1) of which was a Housing Credit development completed since January 1, 2001. At least one (1) of the three (3) completed developments must consist of a total number of units no less than 50 percent of the total number of units in the proposed Development. For purposes of this provision, completed for each of the three (3) developments means (i) that the temporary or final certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least one (1) unit in one of the residential apartment buildings within the development, or (ii) that at least one (1) IRS Form 8609 has been issued for one of the residential apartment buildings within the development. As used in this section, an affordable rental housing development, including a Housing Credit development that contains multiple buildings, is a single development regardless of the number of buildings within the development for which an IRS Form 8609 has been issued. If the experience of a Principal for a Developer entity listed in this Application was acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the Principal must have also been a Principal of that previous Developer entity. (2) Prior General Development Experience Chart: The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4 to Exhibit A, a prior experience chart for each Principal intending to meet the minimum general development experience reflecting the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. Each prior experience chart must include the following information: Prior General Development Experience Chart Name of Principal with the Required Experience Name of Developer Entity (for the proposed Development) for which the above Party is a Principal: ___ ___________ ___ Name of Development Location (City & State) Affordable Housing Program that Provided Financing Total Number Of Units Year Completed RFA at pages 5, 6. Exhibit A to the RFA, at 3.c., further provides: General Developer Experience For each experienced Developer entity, the Applicant must provide, as Attachment 4, a prior experience chart for at least one (1) experienced Principal of that entity. The prior experience chart for the Principal must reflect the required information for the three (3) completed affordable rental housing developments, one (1) of which must be a Housing Credit development. RFA at page 41. Ms. O’Neill, a Senior Policy Analyst at FHFC and member of the Review Committee responsible for scoring the applications’ developer information section, testified at hearing. When FHFC first started scoring applications, Ms. O’Neill was not taking any action to confirm principal developer experience, but rather was taking the information provided by applicants at face value, as it had been submitted on the chart. A colleague of Ms. O’Neill’s, not serving on the Review Committee, called her attention to the fact that a development that was then going through credit underwriting (following an award during the 2011 funding cycle) had recently requested that FHFC approve a change to the developer entity. Ms. O’Neill testified that this request raised a question at FHFC as to whether Ms. Wong, listed by APC as the principal with the required experience, met the requirements. FHFC decided to confirm that Ms. Wong had the required experience for the developments listed in the RFA. Ms. O’Neill stated that she did not make any inquiry to Ms. Wong or to Atlantic Pacific Communities as to whether Ms. Wong was, in fact, a principal of St. Luke’s Development, LLC, developer of St. Luke’s Life Center, because “we’re not really supposed to do that.” Ms. O’Neill instead looked at portions of a credit underwriting report on the St. Luke’s Life Center project that were researched and shown to her by a colleague. Ms. O’Neill did not see Ms. Wong listed in that report as a principal. She did find information in FHFC files that Ms. Wong was a principal on the other two listed developments. Ms. Thorp testified that she researched several documents in FHFC’s possession and found no information indicating that Ms. Wong was a principal for the St. Luke’s development. She testified that Ms. Wong or another representative of APC was not contacted about the issue because that would have given them an unfair advantage over other applicants. Based upon the information in its files, FHFC determined that Ms. Wong did not meet the requirements for principal developer experience. FHFC then similarly reviewed the files of other applicants who had listed in-state developments as their experience, but was unable to review out-of-state experience, so out-of-state experience continued to be accepted at face value. Ms. Wong was not originally a principal in the St. Luke’s development. However, it was demonstrated at hearing through documentary evidence that Ms. Wong was later appointed an officer of St. Luke’s Development, LLC, effective March 2007. That change was submitted to the credit underwriter, and Ms. Wong was a principal for the developer entity before it completed credit underwriting. Both Ms. O’Neill and Ms. Thorp testified that if the documents provided at hearing by APC had been in FHFC’s possession at the time APC’s application was scored, FHFC would have found that Ms. Wong was a principal of the St. Luke’s development and that her experience met principal developer experience requirements. In light of the evidence presented at hearing, it is clear that FHFC’s conclusion was wrong. The prior experience chart submitted by APC as part of its application provided all of the information requested by the RFA, and all of that information was accurate. The information available to FHFC in the application correctly indicated that Ms. Wong was a principle for the developer of the St. Luke’s Life Center development. APC’s application met all requirements of the RFA with respect to prior developer experience. The Corporation’s preliminary determinations that Ms. Wong was not a principal in the St. Luke’s development, and that the APC application did not, therefore, meet principal experience requirements to the contrary, made in good faith based upon incomplete information contained in its files, was clearly erroneous. FHFC’s contention that APC should have submitted explanations or further documentation of Ms. Wong’s developer experience at the time it submitted its application is untenable. APC submitted all of information requested of it. FHFC asked for a chart to be completed, which APC did, completely and accurately. An applicant cannot be found ineligible for failing to do more than was required by the RFA. Credit Underwriting A comparison of the RFA and rules with the 2011 Universal Cycle process shows that the Corporation has moved many requirements formerly required as part of the eligibility and scoring phase into a second review in the credit underwriting phase, as noted earlier. Rule 67-48.0072 provides in part: Credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding, including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for Housing Credits. The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team’s experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. The rule goes on to provide that this de novo review in the credit underwriting phase includes not only economic feasibility, but other factors statutorily required for allocation of tax credits, such as evidence of need for affordable housing and ability to proceed. These factors might cause an application to fail and never receive funding, even though it was nominally “awarded” the credits earlier. In that event, the RFA provides: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed to the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in the same county as the Development that returned the funding regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this Application, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If an applicant nominally “awarded” funding in the eligibility and scoring phase fails credit underwriting, the next applicant in the queue of eligible applicants may still be granted funding, and so, is substantially affected by FHFC’s decisions in the credit underwriting phase.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order finding that APC Four Forty Four, Ltd., is eligible for funding, adjusting the Sorting Order accordingly, and otherwise dismissing the formal written protests of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 2014.
The Issue 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 is whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) intended decision on January 29, 2016, to award low-income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in Hillsborough County pursuant to Request for Applications 2015-107 (RFA-107) was contrary to Florida Housing’s rules, policies, or solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. One of its responsibilities is to award low-income housing tax credits, which developers use to finance the construction of affordable housing. Tax credits are made available to states annually by the United States Treasury Department and then are awarded pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with Florida Housing’s issuance of an RFA. This proceeding concerns RFA-107. Madison is an applicant entity for a proposed affordable housing development in Hillsborough County. ARD is a developer entity of affordable housing. SP Gardens and City Edge are entities in the business of providing affordable housing and filed applications pursuant to RFA-107. Background On September 21, 2015, Florida Housing published on its website proposed solicitation RFA-107, inviting applications for the award of tax credits for the development of affordable housing located in six counties, including Hillsborough County. The RFA provided that only one applicant would be awarded tax credits for Hillsborough County. In response to the RFA, six applications were submitted for Hillsborough County. A scoring committee appointed by Florida Housing evaluated the applications and submitted a recommendation to the Board of Directors (Board). On January 29, 2016, all participants received notice that the Board had determined which applicants were eligible or ineligible for consideration of funding. Only the application filed by a non- party, Mango Blossoms, was found ineligible. The Board determined that SP Gardens and City Edge satisfied all mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding and received “perfect” scores of 28 points out of a total of 28 points. They were ranked one and four, respectively, based on random lottery numbers assigned by the luck of the draw. Because Bethune and The Boulevard are no longer parties, and their applications have been deemed to be ineligible by Florida Housing, SP Gardens and City Edge are now ranked one and two. The Board also determined that Petitioners satisfied all mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding; however, they received a score of 23 out of 28 total points, and were ranked below SP Gardens and City Edge. In this bid dispute, Petitioners contend that Florida Housing erred in the scoring, eligibility, and award decision of the applications of SP Gardens and City Edge. But for the incorrect scoring of those two applications, Petitioners argue they would have been entitled to an allocation of housing credits or would have been moved up in the ranking. SP Gardens Consistent with its policy, even though an appeal was taken by Petitioners, in 2016, Florida Housing awarded tax credits to the highest ranked applicant, SP Gardens. On April 21, 2016, Florida Housing issued an invitation to credit underwriting, which was accepted by the applicant on April 25, 2016. SP Gardens closed on the purchase and sale agreement, as amended, on June 15, 2016, and Florida Housing issued a carry- over allocation agreement on August 5, 2016. The applicant has since completed a credit underwriting with a positive recommendation, closed on the financing with the tax credit investor, and commenced construction of its development. Petitioners contend the application of SP Gardens is deficient in three respects, which renders the applicant ineligible for funding. First, they contend SP Gardens failed to demonstrate control over the site of the project, as required by the RFA. Second, they contend the purchase and sale agreement is invalid because the applicant cannot enforce the specific performance of the contract. Finally, they contend the development location point (DLP) is not located on the parcel where most of the units will be constructed. Section 4.A.8.a. of the RFA requires in part that the applicant demonstrate site control in the following manner: The Applicant must demonstrate site control by providing, as Attachment 15 to Exhibit A, the documentation required in Items a., b., and/or c., as indicated below. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites. SP Gardens submitted documentation to satisfy item a., which requires that an “eligible contract” be provided with the application in order to demonstrate control over the project site. An applicant typically submits an address, property description, metes and bounds, folio number, intersections of streets, or other information that describes the subject property. Florida Housing’s practice is to accept the representations of an applicant. SP Gardens’ purchase and sale agreement (contract) identifies the subject property using an engineer’s drawing with sketched hash marks, a description of the property as “approximately two acres,” and an address of “1108 E. Bloomingdale Avenue” in Valrico. County records do not reflect that such an address exists. However, the records do indicate an address of 1108 East Bloomindale Avenue that is on the proposed site and is owned by GF Financial, LLC, the seller of the property. Except for this scrivener’s error, the purchase and sale agreement is otherwise an acceptable agreement. An eligible contract must include a specific performance remedy. Petitioners contend the purchase and sale agreement cannot be enforced because of various alleged deficiencies in the agreement, including a failure to provide a legal description of the property and language in the agreement which does not reflect a meeting of the minds of the buyer and seller. However, a legal description of the property is not required. Then, too, Florida Housing does not attempt to determine if there was a meeting of the minds of the parties or if the agreement is legally enforceable. Only a circuit court may do so. See § 26.012, Fla. Stat. Petitioners also contend the DLP is not located on a parcel where most of the units will be constructed. The DLP is located on the property that is identified in the purchase and sale agreement. Whether or not the property ends up consisting of scattered sites will be addressed during the credit underwriting process. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.0072 provides in part that “credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding.” Pursuant to this rule, during the credit underwriting process, a scattered site applicant must demonstrate compliance with the RFA. Also, in the final site plan approval process, the configuration of the proposed development will be fleshed out. With the advantage of hindsight in this case, this is exactly what SP Gardens did after it was issued an invitation to credit underwriting. By providing all required forms, a DLP, and appropriate assurances that it would comply with all RFA terms, SP Gardens has satisfied all RFA requirements. See, e.g., Brownsville Manor, LP v. Redding Dev. Partners, LLC, 224 So. 3d 891, 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the application of SP Gardens is eligible for funding. City Edge Petitioners allege that City Edge failed to disclose all of the principals of the applicant and developer. They also contend that City Edge is unable to pursue specific performance of its sale and agreement contract against the developer or the seller of the property. The RFA requires an applicant to “provide a list identifying the principals for the applicant and for each developer.” The application identifies City Edge as the applicant entity. It also identifies the general partner of the applicant entity, City Edge Senior GP, LLC, and its limited partner, The Richman Group of Florida, Inc. (TRGF). TRGF is both the limited partner of the applicant entity and the developer entity for City Edge. City Edge identified the principals for TRGF as of the application deadline. Florida Housing determined that this form was adequate to meet the requirements of the RFA. The application names James P. Hussey as the developer entity’s Treasurer. At hearing, Mr. Hussey’s position with TRGF was verified by TRGF’s vice president and a corporate document. Petitioners point out that, according to a printout of the annual report filed by TRGF with the Secretary of State, as shown on the SunBiz website, at the time the application was filed, the Treasurer of TRGF was Doreen Cole, and not Mr. Hussey. However, the evidence shows that Ms. Cole was removed from the position of Treasurer on or about September 1, 2015, and she subsequently separated from the company in late 2015. Through sworn testimony and a corporate record, City Edge established that Mr. Hussey was Treasurer at the time of the application deadline, November 5, 2015. Notably, Florida Housing does not rely on SunBiz for establishing who the principals of an entity are as of the application deadline. This is because SunBiz does not definitively identify the corporate officers as of the application deadline, and it sometimes contains errors. See, e.g., Warley Park, LTD v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp., Case No. 17- 3996BID (Fla. DOAH Oct. 19, 2017; FHFC Dec. 8, 2017). For this reason, Florida Housing does not require applicants to provide SunBiz printouts to verify the names of the principals. Petitioners also contend that because of various deficiencies, the purchase and sale agreement cannot be enforced in circuit court. For the reasons expressed above, this determination does not lie within the jurisdiction of Florida Housing. In any event, the RFA requires that if the owner of the property is not a party to the eligible contract, the applicant must submit documents evidencing intermediate agreements between or among the owner, or other parties, and the applicant. Here, City Edge included in its application: (a) a purchase and sale agreement between 301 and Bloomingdale, LLC (the seller), and TRGF (the purchaser), and (b) a purchase and sale agreement between TRGF (the seller) and City Edge (the buyer). The latter document is the intermediate contract and meets all RFA-specified requirements for an intermediate contract. The documents reflect that TRGF possesses a specific performance remedy to compel 301 and Bloomingdale, LLC, to sell the property, and City Edge possesses the right to compel TRGF to perform under the intermediate contract. For purposes of ascertaining compliance with the RFA, the documents submitted by City Edge suffice. In a similar vein, Petitioners contend City Edge did not demonstrate site control because it did not include an eligible contract. Currently, 301 and Bloomingdale, LLC, is the owner of the property on which the housing will be built. City Edge attached to its application a purchase and sale agreement and an intermediate contract. The two contracts satisfy the elements of an eligible contract necessary to demonstrate control over the project site, they provide a specific performance remedy, and they conform to the RFA. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that City Edge’s application is eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the Protest of Petitioners. It is further recommended that Florida Housing reaffirm its decision to award tax credits to SP Gardens. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Sarah Pape, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. Suite 600 315 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1607 (eServed) J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. Suite 600 315 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1607 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7740 (eServed) Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., Esquire Holland and Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 (eServed) Tiffany A. Roddenberry, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Suite 600 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1872 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602-2637 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602-2637 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Boynton Associates, Ltd., is entitled to receive additional points for Form 5 of its application, related to local government contributions, for the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's 2001 Combined Rental Cycle and, if so, whether Petitioner qualifies for an allocation of federal low-income housing tax credits.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Boynton Associates Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, is the Applicant and owner of property know as Boynton Terrace Apartments located in Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida ("City" or "City of Boynton Beach"). To encourage the development of low-income housing for families, in 1987, Congress created the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program that is allotted to each state, including Florida Tax Credits, each year. The low-income housing credits equate to a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the holder's federal tax liability. This reduction can be taken for up to ten years if the project satisfies the Internal Revenue Code's requirements each year. Each state receives an annual allotment of housing credits, primarily on a per capita basis. For the year 2001, Florida's allotment of low-income housing credits is $23,973,567, of which $20,695,689 is available for allocation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation is the "housing credit agency" responsible for the allocation and distribution of Florida's low-income housing tax housing credits to applicants for the development and/or substantial rehabilitation of low-income housing. See Subsection 420.5099(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to state and federal mandates, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation has established a competitive application process for the award of low-income housing credits. Rule 67-48.004, Florida Administrative Code, as adopted on February 22, 2001, established the process by which the Florida Housing Finance Corporation evaluates, scores, and competitively ranks the applicants for the award of funds and the allocation of housing credits. Under the review and application process, staff of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation first conducts a preliminary review of the applications. Based on that review, a preliminary score is assigned to each application. After the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's preliminary review and scoring, all applicants may review the applications and challenge what they believe to be scoring errors made by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Any applicant alleging scoring errors must make such challenges, in writing, on a Notice of Possible Scoring Error Form (NOPSE) within ten days of the applicant's receiving the preliminary score. This form is an official form developed and provided by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation then reviews each timely filed NOPSE, adjusts scores where applicable, and issues a position paper to the affected applicants informing them of the decision relative to the NOPSE. Affected applicants are then given an opportunity to submit supplemental information, documentation, or revised documents that might address challenges made in any NOPSE. Any such submission by an applicant whose scores have been challenged is called a "Cure." The Florida Housing Finance Corporation provides a Cure Form on which the challenged applicant may submit its statement of explanation addressing the issues raised in the NOPSEs. Following the submission of a Cure by an applicant whose application has been challenged, competitors are allowed to review the supplemental or corrective information which comprises the Cure. After reviewing the Cure, competitors may point out what they perceive to be errors or deficiencies on the challenged applicant's Cure. These perceived errors or deficiencies are then submitted to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, in writing, on a form entitled, Notice of Alleged Deficiency (NOAD), that was developed and provided by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation reviews the Cure submitted by the applicant whose application has been challenged and the NOADs submitted by competing applicants. Following this review, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation assigns each application a pre-appeal score. Boynton submitted an application to Florida Housing Finance Corporation for the 2001 Combined Rental Cycle ("2001 Combined Cycle") to receive annually $559,025.14 in tax credits for the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace, a multifamily housing property. The application was submitted on February 26, 2001, the deadline for submitting applications for the 2001 Combined Cycle. Pursuant to the review and scoring procedures set forth in the 2001 Combined Cycle Application Form and Rule 67- 48.004, Florida Administrative Code, as adopted February 22, 2001, described in paragraphs 7 through 12 above, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation scored the application of Boynton. The application for the allocation of housing credits consists of several forms. However, the only form at issue in this case is Form 5, entitled "Local Government Contributions." Form 5 indicates a local government's support of the affordable housing project for which tax credits are being sought. In scoring Form 5, Florida Housing Finance Corporation awards points based on the amount of "tangible, economic benefit that results in a quantifiable cost reduction and are development specific." The maximum number of points that can be awarded on Form 5 is 20 points. To obtain the maximum number of points for Form 5, the applicant must provide evidence of a local government contribution for which the dollar amount is equal to or greater than one of the following: (1) a specified amount according to the county in which the proposed project is located, or (2) ten percent (10%) of the total development costs of the project listed in Form 4 of the application. In this case, Boynton's application indicated that the local government contribution was 10 percent of its total development costs of $5,096,789, or $509,678.90. At or near the time Boynton's application was submitted, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation determined that the application was complete and, thereafter, conducted a preliminary review of the application. Based on its preliminary review of Boynton's application, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation awarded a total of 618 points to Boynton. Of this preliminary score, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation awarded Boynton 20 points, the maximum allowed, for Form 5. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation's preliminary award of 20 points to Boynton for its Form 5 was based on local government contributions listed on the application as follows: donation of landscaping materials valued at $50,000 and donation of dumpsters during the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace valued at $19,845; (2) waiver of tipping fees at the local landfill of $25,500 and waiver of building permit fees of $61,609; and (3) $353,196 for waiver of the requirement to construct 58 parking spaces at $6,089.60 per space. Form 5 provides that a local government contribution for a waiver of parking space requirements will not be recognized except in certain circumstances. Among the circumstances in which a waiver of parking space requirements is expressly recognized as a local government contribution are rehabilitation developments located in areas targeted for neighborhood revitalization by local governments. Once this threshold requirement is established, the local government must also verify that the existing local government code would require the additional parking, and that the parking requirements are waived specifically for the subject development. As part of the information required by Form 5, Boynton provided a letter from Mr. Michael Rumph, the Director of Planning and Zoning for the City of Boynton Beach, verifying that Boynton Terrace is a rehabilitation development located in an area targeted for revitalization by the local government. Additionally, the letter stated in part the following: In support of the [Boynton Terrace Apartments] housing development, the City of Boynton Beach has accepted and processed an application for a variance to provide relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 Supplemental Regulations, H. 16. a.(2)., requiring a minimum parking space ratio of 2 spaces per unit, to allow a reduction of 58 spaces or a 1.3 space per unit variance. The Boynton Terrace Apartments rehabilitation development is located in an area targeted for neighborhood revitalization by the local government. As such, if parking requirements are waived for the project, such waiver or variance is recognized as a local contribution. Boynton Terrace is comprised of 84 multi-family residential units. For each unit in the development, the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations requires two parking spaces. Accordingly, based on the City's regulations, 168 parking spaces would be required for the Boynton Terrace development. Boynton applied for a variance to be able to construct fewer parking spaces than the 168 spaces, since much of the area currently occupied by existing parking would be encroached upon by the construction of the new clubhouse/community center, the new landscaping, and other amenities. The City Commission for the City of Boynton Beach, after a full hearing on Boynton's request, granted the variance, which obligated Boynton to provide 1.3 parking spaces for every multi-family residential unit at the property rather than two parking spaces for every such unit. As a result of the City Commission's decision, the Boynton Terrace development was required to have 110 parking spaces instead of the 168 spaces required by the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations. On Form 5 of its application, Boynton indicated that the City reduced the required number parking spaces from 168 to 110. Form 5 of the application also indicated that by the City's reducing the required number of parking spaces by 58 spaces, the local government contribution with regard to parking spaces was the cost of constructing 58 parking spaces at a cost of $6,089.60 per space, or $353,196.80. An attachment to the City's "contribution letter" referred to in paragraph 21, and part of Boynton's application, indicated that as a result of the City's reducing the number of parking spaces required at Boynton Terrace, the City's contribution to the Boynton Terrace development was $353,196.80. According to the aforementioned attachment, this amount represented the cost of constructing 58 parking spaces at a cost of $6,089.60 per space. After the Florida Housing Finance Corporation issued it preliminary scores, three competing applicants submitted NOPSEs, challenging Boynton's Form 5 score of 20. According to the NOPSEs, the competing applicants believed that Boynton was not entitled to be awarded points based on a local contribution of $353,196 for a waiver or variance of the number of parking spaces required for the development. According to the NOPSEs, Boynton was only receiving a cost savings from not having to construct 11 parking spaces because 157 parking spaces already existed at Boynton Terrace. Based on these challenges, the competing applicants indicated that the local government contribution for a waiver of the City's parking space requirement should be reduced from $353,196 to $66,985.60, the cost of Boynton's constructing 11 parking spaces at $6,089.60 per space. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation reviewed and considered the NOPSEs filed by competing applicants that challenged the local government contribution of $353,196 listed on Form 5 of Boynton's application. Following its review, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation reduced Boynton's preliminary score on Form 5 from 20 points to 8.79 points. This reduction in points represented a pro rata reduction based on the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's decision that the local government contribution, with regard to parking spaces, was $66,985.60 instead of $353,196, the amount stated on Form 5 of Boynton's application. As previously noted in paragraph 10, applicants whose applications have been challenged are permitted to submit a Cure in response to NOPSES filed by competing applicants. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation's Cure Form consists, in part, of a page entitled "Brief Statement of Explanation for Revision/Addition for Application 2001- ." In addition to submitting a Cure Form, pursuant to Rule 67.48.004 (11), Florida Administrative Code, as adopted February 22, 2001, Boynton was allowed to submit additional documentation, revised forms, and other information that it deemed appropriate to address the issues raised in the NOPSEs and to any score reductions imposed by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. In response to the NOPSEs filed by the competing applicants and the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's reduction in Boynton's Form 5 score, Boynton submitted an explanation on a Cure Form, which stated in relevant part the following: [T]he application involves substantial rehabilitation with new amenity areas, a clubhouse/community center and dumpsters. To meet the demands called for under the proposed renovation, many of the parking spaces are lost to provide for the rehabilitation and other features called for within the application. As such, because of these significant changes, the applicant would have had have [sic] new parking areas and the incurred costs in providing for the new parking. In cooperation and conjunction with the City, the applicant was able to obtain specific cost savings for the parking and has evidenced same within the application as called for. The applicant is saving the stated number of spaces and the costs associated with otherwise having to build them. According to the Cure submitted by Boynton, the application "involves substantial rehabilitation with new amenity areas, a clubhouse/community center and dumpsters." Boynton also stated that "to meet the demands called for under the proposed renovation, many of the parking spaces are lost to provide for the rehabilitation and other features called for within the application." While the Cure submitted by Boynton referred generally to "amenity areas" and a "clubhouse/community and dumpsters," Form 7 of Boynton's application noted the specific features that would be included in the Boynton Terrace rehabilitation project. Form 7 of the application listed several features that could be included in the rehabilitation project. From this list, applicants were to mark the boxes, indicating the particular features that would be included in their respective developments. Form 7 including the category, "Quality of Design," includes Sections A, B, and C. Each section lists features which the applicant may provide as part of the rehabilitation project. At the end of the "Quality of Design" category" is the following pre-printed language: IMPORTANT! CHECKING ITEMS IN SECTIONS A, B, AND C OF QUALITY DESIGN COMMITS THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THEM. . . . On Form 7, Section B of the "Quality of Design" category, Boynton indicated that it would provide eight of the listed features. These features included the following: an exercise room, a community center or clubhouse, a playground/tot lot, a covered picnic area, an outside recreation facility for older children, and a library. After Boynton submitted its Cure Form, competing applicants filed (NOADs) with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation pursuant to Rule 67-48.004(12), Florida Administrative Code, as adopted on February 22, 2001. One NOAD indicated that no documents were submitted by Boynton to show the number of spaces that would have to be eliminated or demolished as part of the rehabilitation or how many spaces would have to be constructed as part of the rehabilitation process. Another NOAD stated that the Cure submitted by Boynton amounted to a "de facto appeal," because the initial application did not indicate that the renovation would involve the loss of parking spaces. The NOADs relied on a 1980 as-built survey to argue that Boynton Terrace already contained a parking lot with 157 spaces. Based on its review of Boynton's Cure Form and the NOADs submitted in response thereto, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation determined that Boynton should be awarded 8.79 points for Form 5. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation believes that the 8.79 points awarded to Boynton for Form 5 are appropriate based on its determination of the local government contribution listed on and substantiated by the application and the information provided on Boynton's Cure Form. In reducing Boynton's preliminary award for Form 5 from 20 points to 8.79, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation accepted and concurred with the statements expressed in the NOPSEs. According to those statements, described in paragraph 28, Boynton should receive credit for a local contribution of $66,985, the cost of building 11 parking spaces. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation does not accept that the proposed cost of constructing each new parking space is $6,089, as noted in Boynton's application, is the actual cost. Rather, it considers the proposed cost of $6,089 to be questionable. The reason the Housing Corporation questioned the proposed cost of $6,089 to construct each new parking space was that documentation reflected that during a period of less than three months, the projected cost went from $4,017.19 per space as of December 6, 2000, to $5,821 as of February 12, 2001, and finally to $6,089 as of February 23, 2001. During the time Boynton's application was being reviewed, Mr. Christopher Bushwell, a former construction manager with the Corps of Engineers and an auditor with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, questioned the increased cost of the construction of each parking space from $4000 to $6000. Despite Mr. Bushwell's concern about the accuracy of the projected cost of construction of each parking space, no staff member of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation called to verify the figure with the City of Boynton Beach. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation produced no evidence to support its contention that the projected or estimated cost for construction of each parking space was not accurate. Yet it persisted in its belief that Boynton "back[ed] into" the parking space estimates solely for the purpose of presenting to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation a local government contribution equal to or near $353,196, a figure that would result in Boynton's being awarded the maximum of 20 points for Form 5. The projected cost of $4,017 for construction of a parking space was included on the City's Variance Review Report dated December 6, 2000. That report analyzed Boynton's request that a variance be granted that allowed one parking space per unit, or a total of only 84 parking spaces. It is unknown who arrived at this figure or how it was derived. On January 16, 2001, the City agreed to grant Boynton a variance to reduce the number of parking space by 58, thereby reducing the number of required parking spaces from two spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit. After the variance was granted on January 16, 2001, on February 12, 2001, the City of Boynton Beach submitted a letter to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation stating that the variance had been granted reducing the required number of parking spaces from two spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit. The letter stated that the cost for each parking space was $5,821, which would result in a local government contribution of $337,630. On February 23, 2001, the City of Boynton Beach submitted another letter to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation identical to the February 12, 2001, letter except that the attachment to the former letter indicated that the construction cost for each parking space was $6.089.60. This projected cost would result in the local government contribution of $353,196.80 for the reduction in required parking spaces. The estimates for the cost of constructing each parking space stated in the February 12 and February 23, 2001, letters were made by Jeffrey Kammerude and approved by the City's Engineering Department. Mr. Kammerude is a licensed contractor and the construction manager of Heritage Construction Company, the company that would be responsible for the renovation of Boynton Terrace. Mr. Kammerude changed the estimated cost of each parking space from $5,821 to $6,089 because at the time of the former estimate, it was his belief that the local building code required a 20-foot minimum driveway or aisle-way. However, after meeting with City officials, Mr. Kammerude was told that the 20-foot aisle-way that he had used in making the February 12, 2001, estimate was incorrect and that with the back-to-back parking that existed at Boynton Terrace, the aisle-way had to be 27 feet wide. The increased size of the aisle-way would require a corresponding increase in the required pavement and, thus, an increase in the cost of constructing each parking space. The reason given by Mr. Kammerude for increasing the estimated cost of each parking space was uncontroverted. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence established that the estimated cost of $6,089 per parking space was not only reasonable, but was likely lower than the actual per space construction cost because it did not include the cost of curbing. In view of the credible testimony of Mr. Kammerude, the cost estimate of $6,089.60 for constructing a parking space at Boynton Terrace is reasonable. In February 2001, at or near the time Boynton submitted its application to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, the parking lot at Boynton Terrace was in poor condition and had many potholes and cracks in the pavement. Given the condition of the parking lot, the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace would require repaving of at least part of the parking lot. On October 31, 2001, about eight months after Boynton submitted its application, Mr. Bushnell went to Boynton Terrace to count the parking spaces and look at the parking lot. From his cursory observation, it appeared that the parking lot had been recently resurfaced and was in "excellent shape. However, Mr. Bushnell did not conduct a comprehensive inspection of the parking lot and was unable to determine the quality of the work done on the parking lot or whether the work complied with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Code. The City of Boynton Beach requires a permit for the repaving and/or repair of parking lots at developments such as Boynton Terrace. However, no permit was issued for the repaving and/or repair of the parking lot at Boynton Terrace referenced in the preceding paragraph. Consequently, the City never conducted an inspection of the parking lot to determine if the parking lot repairs and/or repaving at Boynton Terrace met the applicable City Code requirements. Based on the number of parking spaces that he counted while at Boynton Terrace, Mr. Bushnell questioned the cost reduction of eliminating spaces. Moreover, because Mr. Bushnell saw concrete pads in place for dumpsters, he did not believe that parking spaces needed to be eliminated in order to place dumpsters on the property. Finally, in reaching the conclusion that there would be no reduction in parking spaces, Mr. Bushnell did not consider the number of spaces that would be eliminated as a result of the addition of any of the new amenities to the property such as the clubhouse/community center, picnic areas, and mailbox kiosks, and the landscaping required under the City Code. Boynton had a site plan prepared on or near December 2000, which showed the placement of many of the new amenities to be included as a part of the rehabilitation of the Boynton Terrace development. The site plan was used as part of Boynton's submission and presentation to the City when it was seeking a parking space variance. According to the site plan, the clubhouse/community center would consume 25 to 30 parking spaces, the landscaping of the development would consume about 15 parking spaces, and the picnic area would consume about two to four parking spaces. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation did not consider that the addition of the new amenities would reduce the number of parking spaces at the property and result in the need to construct new parking spaces unless the City of Boynton Beach granted a variance to Boynton. Boynton did not include the December 2000 site plan as part of its application or Cure submitted to the Florida Housing Corporation. Moreover, Boynton did not provide information in its application or Cure regarding how many spaces would be eliminated as a result of construction of a clubhouse community center. At hearing, Boynton presented credible evidence that the clubhouse/community center would be constructed over existing parking spaces and that without a variance from the City of Boynton Beach, it would have to construct new spaces to replace those spaces lost to construction as well as to other features related to the rehabilitation of the development. Boynton also presented credible evidence that additional parking spaces at Boynton Terrace would be eliminated due to the City's landscaping requirements, the construction of a picnic area, a tot lot, and mail box kiosks. The City's Code requires 20 feet of landscaping for each parking space. However, this information was not included in the Cure submitted by Boynton to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The variance granted by the City of Boynton Beach amounted to a waiver of the parking space requirements applicable to the Boynton Terrace rehabilitation project which provided a tangible economic benefit that resulted in a quantifiable cost reduction that is specific to the development.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation award to Petitioner, Boynton Associates, Ltd., the maximum number of 20 points for Form 5 of the 2001 Combined Cycle, and enter a Final Order awarding Boynton Associates, Ltd., a total of 622 points for it Combined Cycle Application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Kaplan, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Elizabeth G. Arthur, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Jon C. Moyle, Jr., Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Kollins, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the specifications, terms, and conditions of the Request for Proposals 2009-04 issued by Respondent are contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, or policies.
Findings Of Fact Elmwood is a Florida limited partnership and is engaged in the development of affordable housing in Florida. RST is a Florida limited partnership authorized to do business in Florida and is in the business of providing affordable housing. Florida Housing is a public corporation created by Section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2009),1 to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Florida Housing’s statutory authority and mandates are contained in Chapter 420, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing is governed by a Board of Directors (Board), consisting of nine individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. On July 31, 2009, Florida Housing issued the RFP, setting forth criteria and qualifications for developers to seek funding for affordable housing projects from funds that Florida has received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5 (ARRA). ARRA was enacted in 2009 by Congress as part of the federal economic stimulus efforts and was signed into law on February 17, 2009. Elmwood and RST received notice of the RFP through e-mail notification on July 31, 2009. The RFP required applicants to submit proposals to Florida Housing no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 14, 2009. Elmwood and RST are “applicants” as defined in the RFP. Elmwood and RST submitted separate applications, intending to seek financing for their affordable housing projects by applying for funding from the sources that are proposed to be allocated through the RFP. On August 5, 2009, Elmwood timely submitted notice of its intent to protest the RFP, and, on August 17, 2009, timely filed its Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Subsection 120.57(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-110.004. As an interested developer, who intended to, and did, seek funding from the sources being allocated through the RFP, Elmwood’s substantial interests are affected by the terms of the RFP. On August 18, 2009, Florida Housing issued its RFP 2009-04 Statement of Necessity to Continue RFP Process After Bid Protest is Filed (Statement of Necessity), pursuant to Subsection 120.57(3)(c), Florida Statutes. The Statement of Necessity was not challenged. On August 20, 2009, Florida Housing proceeded with making determinations of eligibility for funding under the RFP. Both RST and Brownsville were selected for funding and invited into credit underwriting as provided in the RFP. Elmwood was not selected for funding. On September 9, 2009, RST filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Elmwood to challenge the minimum occupancy standard of 92% required in the RFP. On September 10, 2009, Brownsville filed its Petition for Leave to Intervene on behalf of Florida Housing. Florida Housing administers several programs aimed at assisting developers to build affordable multi-family rental housing in an attempt to protect financially marginalized citizens in Florida from excessive housing costs. The programs through which Florida Housing allocates resources to fund such affordable housing in Florida include: a federally funded multi-family mortgage revenue bond program (MMRB), established under Section 420.509, et. seq., Florida Statutes; the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program (SAIL), created pursuant to Section 420.5087, et seq., Florida Statutes; and the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (the Tax Credit Program), established in Florida pursuant to Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes. These funding sources are allocated by Florida Housing to finance the construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing. A portion of the units constructed based on funding from these programs must be set aside for residents earning a certain percentage of area median income (AMI). Generally, the units are targeted to tenants earning 60% of AMI or below. The primary program at issue in this proceeding is the Tax Credit Program. The Tax Credit Program was created by the Federal Income Tax Reconciliation Act of 1986, as a means to induce the private sector to construct and manage affordable housing projects. The Tax Credit Program is governed by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 42. Low income housing tax credits (Tax Credits) come in two varieties: competitively awarded “9%” Tax Credits and non- competitively awarded “4%” Tax Credits. For the 9% Tax Credits, the federal government annually allocates a specific amount of Tax Credits to each state using a population-based formula. Tax Credits are a dollar-for-dollar offset to federal income tax liability. Developers awarded the Tax Credits get the credit amount every year for ten years. The developer will often sell the future stream of Tax Credits to a syndicator, who, in turn, sells them to investors seeking to shelter income from federal income taxes. For example, a developer who receives a $1,000,000 award of Tax Credits is entitled to that amount of tax credit paid each year for ten years, for a face value of $10,000,000. The developer sells the Tax Credits to a syndicator or investor who has tax liability sufficient to absorb the amount of credits. If the selling price is 85 cents on the dollar, the sale of the Tax Credits would generate $8,500,000 cash. Unlike a loan or the proceeds from issuance of bonds, a developer who is awarded Tax Credits and syndicates those Tax Credits receives cash equity with no debt associated with it. Thus, Tax Credits provide an attractive subsidy and, consequently, are a highly sought-after funding source. Florida Housing is the designated agency in Florida to allocate Tax Credits to developers of affordable housing, pursuant to Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes. Every year since 1986, Florida has received an allocation of Tax Credits to be used to fund construction of affordable housing. As required by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, each year Florida Housing adopts a Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), which sets forth the allocation methodology for the competitive 9% Tax Credits. The QAP must be approved by the Governor each year. The QAP is also adopted and incorporated by reference into Florida Housing’s rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.002(95). The 2009 QAP includes the following provision: In order for the Corporation to implement the provisions of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “2009 Stimulus Act”), any funds received pursuant to 2009 Stimulus Act may be allocated by a competitive request for proposal or competitive application process as approved by the Board. Any such process will be governed by Section 42, IRC, and Chapter 67- 48, F.A.C., as applicable, or, an emergency rule authorized by the Florida Legislature specifically for the 2009 Stimulus Act, if any. The 2009 QAP was adopted as part of the 2009 Universal Cycle rules by Florida Housing’s Board on March 13, 2009. At that time, Florida Housing had not yet received guidance from the federal government as to how the ARRA funds should be allocated. The Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Program was created in Section 420.5092, Florida Statutes, for the purposes of stimulating creative private section lending activities to increase the supply and lower the cost of financing or refinancing eligible housing, creating security mechanisms to allow lenders to sell affordable housing loans in the secondary market, and encouraging affordable housing lending activities that would not have taken place or that serve persons who would not have been served but for the creation of this program. Florida Housing has accomplished these goals by issuing capitalizing bonds to create the Guarantee Fund, which lowers the interest paid on the MMRB bond debt by serving as a credit enhancer. Since 2002, Florida Housing has allocated funding from the MMRB, SAIL, and Tax Credit Programs through a single annual competitive application process known as the “Universal Cycle,” in which the applicants compete against one another for funding. The Universal Cycle and the attendant complex application review process are intended to equitably and reasonably distribute affordable housing throughout Florida. Florida Housing has adopted rules which incorporate by reference the application forms and instructions for the Universal Cycle to govern the allocation of funds from the various programs it administers. Florida Housing amends it Universal Cycle rules, forms, and instructions every year. Following the completion of the Universal Cycle, Florida Housing engages in an extensive public comment process through which it solicits feedback and comments from developers for the next year’s cycle. Any new amendments are adopted to take effect prior to an established Application Deadline for the ensuing year. The process used by Florida Housing to review and approve the Universal Cycle applications is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004. Florida Housing reviews all timely-filed applications to determine if threshold requirements are met and scores each application based on factors such as programs for tenants, amenities of the development as a whole and of the tenants’ units, local government contributions to the specific development, and local government ordinances and planning efforts that support affordable housing in general. The process includes a series of tiebreakers to choose among applications with otherwise equal scores. After the initial review and scoring by Florida Housing, all applications and included exhibits, along with the scores for the applications, are posted on Florida Housing’s website. Applicants are given a specific time period to alert Florida Housing of any errors they believe Florida Housing made in its initial scoring. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.005 sets forth an appeal procedure for challenging the scores. After any appeal proceedings, Florida Housing publishes final rankings which determine which applications are preliminarily selected for funding. The applicants for those applications selected are invited to participate in the credit underwriting process, which is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. A third party financial consultant, who is selected by Florida Housing but paid for by the individual applicant, determines whether the proposed project is financially sound. The credit underwriter reviews all aspects of the proposed development, including financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072(10) requires an appraisal and market study. The credit underwriter is required to consider the market study, as well as the development’s financial impact on other developments in the area previously funded by Florida Housing, and make a recommendation for approval or disapproval of funding. Each year the Universal Cycle provides a mechanism for selecting applications to meet statutory geographic requirements; for certain targeting goals that address housing needs of particular demographic groups, such as farm workers, commercial fishery workers, the homeless, or the elderly; for specific set-asides or targeting goals aimed at addressing identified needs, such as the Florida Keys, inner city areas, or rural development; and for the preservation of existing affordable housing complexes. Each set-aside group essentially has its own separate funding from its share of the funds distributed by Florida Housing. After the set-aside goals are addressed, Florida Housing then uses the final rankings to try to achieve a distribution of affordable housing units among the county groupings (small, medium, and large, based on population) in accordance with the adopted percentages. Each of the three groups must receive at least 10% of the funds. Within the county size groups, Florida Housing uses a formula called SAUL, which is an acronym for Set-Aside Unit Limitation. The formula is set forth in the application instructions and incorporated by reference into the rules for each Universal Cycle in an attempt to evenly distribute the units. As part of the Universal Cycle process, Florida Housing designates certain geographic areas of the state that are considered soft markets as “Location A” areas. Florida Housing first began incorporating into its application process a mechanism for identifying weak markets, known as “Location A” in 2003. The Location A designations are included in the Universal Cycle Application Instructions, which are incorporated by reference in the rules of Florida Housing. Elmwood timely filed an application in the 2007 Universal Cycle, seeking an award of Tax Credits and a supplemental loan to construct a 116-unit family apartment complex, Elmwood Terrace, in Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida. Elmwood’s application received a perfect score and maximum tiebreaker points. As a result, Elmwood was allocated $1,498,680 in Tax Credits. During the credit underwriting process, Elmwood committed to set aside more than the required units for Extremely Low-Income (ELI) households. Based on the final ranking of its application, Elmwood was invited into the credit underwriting process. The credit underwriter designated by Florida Housing conducted the analysis required under Florida Housing’s rules and issued a favorable recommendation for funding. The Credit Underwriting Report for Elmwood Terrace was accepted by the Florida Housing Board on September 22, 2008. By the fall of 2008, significant changes were taking place in the economic environment and the housing market in particular, and it became evident that the market for Tax Credits had precipitously dropped. Tax credits had typically sold in the range of 85 to 95-cents on the dollar in recent years, but the value of Tax Credits had plummeted in the last two years. Sales, when a buyer can be found, are currently in the low 60-cents on the dollar range. Shortly before Elmwood was scheduled to close on its Tax Credits in the fall of 2008, the syndicator who had originally expressed its intent to purchase Elmwood’s Tax Credits informed Elmwood that it would not go forward with the syndication. Many other projects that were awarded Tax Credits during the 2007 and 2008 Universal Cycles similarly experienced difficulty in finding syndicators to purchase the awarded Tax Credits and, thus, were unable to proceed to closing. In order to accomplish the legislative mandate to pay, Florida Housing attempted to assist these troubled projects by granting extensions of time to meet various benchmarks in the Tax Credit program. In January 2009, the Florida Legislature met in special session to address budget revenue shortfalls for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Legislation was adopted and signed into law on January 27, 2009, which swept trust fund balances, transferred $30 million from multi-family housing programs to the State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) program, and required Florida Housing to pay $190 million in previously appropriated funds to the treasury by June 1, 2009. These funds were to be taken first from developments that would provide new construction. In order to accomplish the legislative mandate to pay $190 million to the treasury, Florida Housing had to deobligate approximately $80 to $90 million of funds preliminarily committed to SAIL-funded projects and from funds preliminarily committed to the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) projects. For the first time in Florida Housing’s history, it was compelled to take money away from people at the Legislature’s direction. In early 2009, in recognition of the collapse of the housing market and the difficulty in marketing Tax Credits, the federal government, as part of it economic stimulus efforts, established mechanisms to assist in the development of affordable housing and offset some of the economic devastation to developers. Congress included specific provisions in ARRA intended to address the condition of the Tax Credit market. Section 1602 of ARRA allows the state Tax Credit allocating agencies to return up to 40% of the state’s annual Tax Credit allocation, as well as Tax Credits awarded in 2007 and 2008 to the federal government, to be exchanged for a cash distribution of 85 cents for each tax credit dollar returned. The exchange of Tax Credits generated a pool of $578,701,964 for the State of Florida. The Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP), a separate provision in ARRA, includes a direct allocation of funds to state housing finance agencies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide gap financing for affordable housing projects that have been affected by the economic downturn. These funds were allocated to the states to “resume funding of affordable rental housing projects across the nation while stimulating job creation in the hard-hat construction industry.” Florida Housing issued the RFP as the method for allocating the Exchange Funds and to provide an opportunity for applicants to request TCAP funds. The RFP solicits proposals from applicants with an “Active Award” of Tax Credits who were unable to close and are seeking alternate funding to construct affordable housing utilizing Exchange Funds from the Tax Credit Exchange Program authorized under Section 1602 of ARRA. Section 4D.2 of the RFP provides: Proposed Developments located within a 2009 Location A Area are eligible to apply only under the following circumstances: Developments where the original Application for the Proposed Development was funded under the Housing Credit Hope VI goal. Developments where the Original Application for the Proposed Development reflects the Housing Credit Preservation Designation. Proposed Developments that are located in a 2009 Location A Area that does not have a Guarantee Fund Development with the same Demographic category located in the same county. (Emphasis in original) The Location A areas in the RFP are the Location A areas in the rules adopted for the 2009 Universal Cycle. The Elmwood Terrace project is located in Lee County, which was not designated as a part of Location A in the 2007 Universal Cycle. The rules for the 2008 Universal Cycle provided that Location A included that part of Lee County lying south of State Road 80 and the Caloosahatchee River. The 2008 Location A for Lee County did not specify demographic categories. For the 2009 Universal Cycle, all of Lee County was designated Location A for both the family and elderly designations. The Universal Application Package, which is incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004(1)(a), provides: (1) Set-Aside Location A Development (Threshold) A proposed Development qualifies as a Set- Aside Location A Development if the location of the proposed Development is within a Set- Aside Location A Area and the Applicant selected the applicable Demographic Commitment (Elderly or Family) at Part III.D of the Application. The only exception to this provision is if the proposed Development also qualifies as a HOPE VI Development at Part III.A.2.d. of the Application. Applicants with a Set-Aside Location A Development must meet the following set- aside requirements: Applicants requesting Competitive HC must commit to set aside 100 percent of the Development’s residential units at 50 percent AMI or less; or Applicants requesting MMRB must commit to set aside at least 85 percent of the Development’s residential units at 50 percent AMI or less. All Applicants must meet the minimum ELI Set-Aside threshold set out in Part III E.1.b.(2)(a)(iii) of these instructions. Because Elmwood’s proposed development is located in Lee County, Florida, the specifications of the RFP prohibit Elmwood from being considered for the allocation of funds in exchange for its Tax Credits. The RFP provides that any project that receives an allocation of Exchange Funds and/or TCAP Funds will be required to go through the credit underwriting process, including an assessment of market need and impact. Section 5B.1b of the RFP states that a tentative funding award under the RFP will be rescinded “if the submarket of the Proposed Development does not have an average occupancy rate of 92% or greater for the same Demographic population, as determined by a market study ordered by the Credit Underwriter, and analyzed by the Credit Underwriter and Florida Housing staff, as well as approved by the Board.” The term “submarket” is used in Florida Housing’s credit underwriting rules in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. “Submarket” and “primary market area” are synonymous terms. Determining a submarket or primary area market is very subjective; even two adjacent sites may have different submarkets. Determination of a submarket is an art that involves making judgments. The market analysis, which is required to be done as part of the credit underwriting process, will delineate the primary market area or submarket area of the proposed project. Such delineation will be based on criteria which may be unique to that proposed site. Thus, it is not practical to specify what criteria are used to establish the primary market area or submarket area of a proposed project. The RFP provides that the demographic grouping submitted in the original application cannot be changed. The RFP allows applicants to change other aspects of their original proposal, including that an applicant may increase the number of proposed units. Subsequent to the withdrawal of its anticipated equity syndicator in September 2008, Elmwood explored other options that could potentially enable it to proceed to closing. One option that Elmwood proposed to Florida Housing was to change the demographic grouping of Elmwood Terrace to an elderly project. Elmwood formally requested a change to its demographic grouping in a letter from Elmwood’s attorney, Warren Husband, to Florida Housing’s deputy development officer, Deborah Blinderman, dated January 26, 2009. That request was not approved. Elmwood contends that the prohibition on changing a development’s demographic grouping is contrary to Florida Housing’s policy of allowing other developers to change their demographic groupings. Florida Housing did allow two developments to change their demographic groupings. On April 24, 2009, the Board granted River Trace Senior Apartments’ request to change its demographic grouping from elderly to family. River Trace Senior Apartments was a development which had been funded in 2000 as an elderly development. It operated for eight years as an elderly development without achieving satisfactory occupancy in its 178 units. Based on the development’s history, the Board allowed a demographic grouping change in hopes of achieving satisfactory occupancy levels. Unlike Elmwood’s proposed development, River Trace Senior Apartments was a housing development, which was already built and in operation. In October 2008, Florida Housing approved a request for a change in demographic grouping in a proposed project. The proposed development, Bradenton Village II, was the third phase of a large HOPE VI redevelopment project and consisted of 36 units designated as family units. During the permitting process, the City of Bradenton informed the developer that the proposed site could not accommodate the number of parking spaces required for a family development, but the required parking could be provided if 32 of the units were designated as elderly units. Bradenton Village had an investor who was willing to remain in and go forward with the project redesignated as elderly. Florida Housing did not allow changes in pending deals after the Legislature’s special session budget action in January 2009 because of the large number of projects that had lost their funding and proposed changing the scope of their projects to qualify for ARRA funds. These included a number of CWHIP projects. The director for Florida Housing felt that he could not justify allowing Elmwood to change its demographic designation while refusing to allow the deobligated CWHIP developers to change their target markets. The evaluation process for the RFP is set forth in Section 7 of the RFP and provides that the Florida Housing Review Committee will: [S]elect Applicants most likely to be considered for award, make any adjustments deemed necessary to best serve the interest of Florida Housing’s mission, and develop a recommendation or series of recommendations to the Board. The Committee will then rank the Applications deemed eligible for funding with preference given to Applications that are Shovel-Ready. The Board may use the Proposals, the Committee’s scoring, and any other information or recommendation provided by the Committee or staff, and any other information the Board deems relevant in the selection of Applicants to whom to award funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding: The specifications of the RFP which exclude consideration of funding for projects located in a Location A area without regard to whether the applicant is willing to lower the AMI for its units to 50% or less are contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes. The provision in the RFP which precludes the applicant from changing its demographic grouping is not contrary to Florida Housing’s policies. The provision of the RFP which requires 92% occupancy is contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes. The lack of a definition of “submarket” in the RFP is not arbitrary, capricious, clearly erroneous, or contrary to competition. The provisions of the RFP which eliminate from consideration for funding any project in a county with a Guarantee Fund development is contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes. The evaluation criteria in Section 7 of the RFP which sets forth the evaluation procedure is contrary to the Florida Housing’s governing rules and statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 12th day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) employed an unadopted rule when it used rounding on a competing application to place Petitioner’s application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“HC” or “Tax Credits”) in the 2004 Universal Application Cycle in the “B” leveraging tie-breaker group, and if so, whether Florida Housing complied with the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, when it employed rounding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida limited partnership. Reliance- Andrews, LLC, the sole general partner of Petitioner, is a non- profit entity under Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(81). Petitioner’s address is 516 Northeast 13th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304. The affected agency is the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”), 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized under Part V, Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, to provide and promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing and refinancing houses and related facilities in Florida in order to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing to persons and families of low, moderate, and middle income. Petitioner filed an application, number 2004-102C, with Florida Housing for tax credits under the Housing Credit (“HC”) program for a proposed development in Broward County, Florida, known as Flagler Point. Under the HC program, successful applicants receive a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal tax liability in exchange for the development of units to be occupied by low-income households. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for the State of Florida and is authorized to establish procedures necessary for the allocation of Tax Credits under Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing scores and ranks applications for the HC program pursuant to the Universal Application Package Instructions ("Application Instructions") which are adopted as rules pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.002(111). The applicants for housing credits are sophisticated, and the application process is highly competitive. Most applicants achieve a perfect score on applications, so Florida Housing has created a series of “tiebreakers” to determine which projects receive allocations of tax credits. These include “leveraging,” (the amount of requested funding over the number of set-aside units), proximity to services, proximity of other Florida Housing developments, and, finally, a lottery. Petitioner and numerous other applicants for the HC program received the maximum score on the application, 66 points. Florida Housing then ranked the applications that received perfect scores to determine priority for funding according to certain Ranking and Selection Criteria as outlined in the Application Instructions. Part of the Ranking Selection Criteria process includes "tie-breakers" as enumerated in the Application Instructions. The first of the applicable tie-breakers separates the applications into groups A and B based upon a formula used by Florida Housing to determine funding request per set-aside unit. Group A is comprised of the 80 percent of applications with the lowest amount of total funding request per set-aside unit. The 20 percent of applications with the highest per unit request amount are placed in Group B. Applications in Group A receive preference over Group B. The A/B leveraging tiebreaker alone does not determine who gets funded. Some leveraging Group B projects are funded. The total number of set-aside units for each Application is computed by multiplying the total number of units within the proposed development by the highest total set- aside percentage the applicant committed to in the Set-Aside Commitment section of the Application. Florida Housing rounded up the total set-aside units on application 2004-084C from 182.7 (the product of the total number of units (203) and the highest total set aside percentage (90%)) to 183. Rounding this figure produces a lower per unit funding request amount for application 2004-084C ($51,857.95 instead of $51,943.10). Petitioner's per unit funding request is $51,882.28, which would be lower than application number 2004-084C if the total set-aside unit figure was not rounded. Petitioner's application was placed in Group B instead of Group A. On May 7, 2004, Petitioner filed a Notice of Possible Scoring Error ("NOPSE") requesting correction of the set-aside unit rounding, which Petitioner contended was in error. Respondent did not adopt Petitioner’s NOPSE, and on May 28, 2004, issued its scoring summary for application number 2004- 084C indicating a per unit Florida Housing funding request of $51,857.95. On July 9, 2004, Respondent issued the 2004 Final Score Corporation Funding Per Set-Aside for A and B Groups indicating that Petitioner had been placed in Leveraging Group B. Florida Housing has used rounding to determine the number of set-aside units in the same manner each year from the 2002 Universal Application Cycle through the 2004 Universal Application Cycle. Applicants are encouraged to, and more often than not do, set aside 100 percent of the units for low or very low income tenants. As most applicants for Tax Credits do just that, rounding is not often an issue. The number of set-aside units represents a commitment the developer makes in return for funding, and the number in the application is the number of set aside units the developer must provide, and is used to determine whether the development is in compliance with its commitment to Florida Housing, and to the Internal Revenue Service. As a practical matter, the number of set-aside units cannot be a fraction of a unit. Rounding up to the next whole number is the only option, because if the unit number is rounded down, the percentage of set-aside units would be below the set- aside commitment, the IRS would deem that the property had not met its set-aside commitment, and the investors would not receive their tax credits. Florida Housing revises its Universal Cycle Application and Instructions through the rulemaking process each year, in response to stakeholder input, in reaction to litigation, and to clarify issues which arise during the year. During the rulemaking process, there is considerable dialogue between developers and Florida Housing. Public hearings (rule development workshops) are noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly, with the agendas being posted on Florida Housing’s website and also made available for distribution at the public hearings. The affordable housing development community is small and its members pay close attention to Florida Housing’s application process, which is intensely competitive. Petitioner is an experienced developer, and has previously received funding from Florida Housing. Petitioner is a member of a coalition of affordable housing developers, which meets before the rule development workshops to discuss the agenda, and to attempt to reach consensus on agenda issues. Petitioner is part of the development community, which normally participates in the rule development process, and Petitioner has been an active participant in the 2005 rule development process. An active member of the affordable housing developer’s coalition, and a veteran participant in the Florida Housing application and funding process, would have been aware of Florida Housing’s use of rounding to determine the number of set-aside units to which each applicant committed. The rounding issue that is at the heart of this proceeding has been addressed by Florida Housing in its proposed rule amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002 for the 2005 Universal Application Cycle.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case dismissing the petition and denying all relief sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 2004.
