The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), intended action to award housing credit funding to Marquis Partners, Ltd. (“Marquis Partners”), based on the Request for Applications 2017-113 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties (the “RFA”) is contrary to governing statutes, Florida Housing rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the award is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulated findings of fact, the oral and documentary evidence presented at hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Findings of Fact are as follows: Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. HTG Village and Marquis Partners submitted applications for funding from Florida Housing to develop affordable housing developments. Both applications were deemed “eligible” for funding. Marquis Partners was preliminarily selected for funding under the RFA. While HTG Village was determined to be eligible for funding, it was not selected for an award of funding. The “tax credit” program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects that qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is that it reduces the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits, SAIL funding, and other funding by means of requests for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48), and adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60, which govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing handles disputes regarding the allocation of its tax credits, which were made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants normally sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount, which can be received, depends upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. Tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of an RFA. An RFA is equivalent to a “request for proposal” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). At issue here is RFA 2017-113: Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. The RFA was issued on October 6, 2017, and responses were due December 28, 2017. The RFA was modified on November 1 and November 29, 2017. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $14,601,863.00 of housing credits to applicants that propose developments in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. Florida Housing received 33 applications in response to RFA 2017-113. A review committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The review committee found 25 applications eligible and eight applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, seven applications were recommended for funding, including Marquis Partners. On March 16, 2018, Florida Housing’s Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee for RFA 2017-113. Later, on March 16, 2018, at approximately 1:05 p.m., Petitioners and all other applicants in RFA 2017-113 received notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and that certain eligible applicants were selected for award of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets on the Florida Housing website, one listing the "eligible" applications in RFA 2017-113 and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In that March 16, 2018, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to seven applicants, including Marquis Partners. HTG Village was eligible, but not recommended for funding. All of the parties in this case applied for funding to develop a proposed development in Broward County. According to the terms of the RFA, a maximum of two Broward County applications are to be funded. Sailboat Bend was the other application, in addition to that of Marquis Partners that was selected for funding in Broward County. Once Marquis Partners dismissed its petition in DOAH Case No. 18-2157BID, there were no remaining challenges to Sailboat Bend. Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. Marquis Partners timely intervened. No challenges were made to the terms of RFA 2017-113. RFA 2017-113 Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A list of the eligibility items is available in section 5.A.1, beginning on page 63 of the RFA. Only applications that meet all the eligibility items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. The eligibility items also include Submission Requirements, Financial Arrearage Requirements, and the Total Development Cost Per Unit Limitation requirement. Applicants can earn points for each of the following items (for a maximum of 20): Submission of Principal Disclosure Form stamped by Corporation as “Pre-Approved” (maximum 5 points); Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive (maximum 5 points); and either Local Government Contribution Points (maximum 5 points) or Local Government Area of Opportunity Points (10 points). The RFA’s stated goal is to fund one application wherein the applicant applied and qualified as a non-profit applicant. As part of the funding selection process, the RFA starts with the application sorting order. All eligible applications are ranked by first sorting all eligible Applications from the highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.11.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The RFA also outlines the funding selection process as follows: The highest ranking eligible Application will be selected for funding for proposed Developments located in each of the following counties for which an eligible Application was received: Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas. If funding remains after funding the highest ranking eligible Applications as outlined in a. above, and if none of the Applications selected for funding in a. above qualify for the Non-Profit goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application wherein the Applicant applied and qualified as a Non-Profit Applicant, regardless of county. If the selected Application cannot be fully funded, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If funding remains after funding the highest ranking eligible Applications as outlined in a. above and at least one (1) of the selected Applications qualified for the Non-Profit goal, the next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application in Broward County. If the selected Application cannot be fully funded, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. If funding remains after selecting the highest ranking eligible unfunded Broward County Application, or if there is no eligible unfunded Application located in Broward County, no additional Applications from any county will be selected for funding and any remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. HTG Village Standing One of the eligibility requirements in the RFA is that applicants are required to demonstrate site control by providing certain documentation as Exhibit 8 to the application. The RFA provides three ways to demonstrate site control: 1) eligible contract, 2) deed or certificate of title, or 3) lease. In order to demonstrate site control as an eligible contract, the following must be demonstrated: Eligible Contract - For purposes of this RFA, an eligible contract is one that has a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018; specifically states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer's rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. Any assignment must be signed by the assignor and the assignee. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided, and, if a contract, must contain the following elements of an eligible contract: a) have a term that does not expire before June 30, 2018 or contain extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than June 30, 2018, and b) specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance. In response to RFA 2017-113, HTG Village timely submitted application number 2018-303C (“HTG Village Application”) requesting an allocation of $2,561,000 in housing credits. HTG Village proposed to develop a 96-unit affordable, multifamily housing development in Broward County. The address of the development site provided within the application of HTG Village is “N Andrews Ave and NE 6th St., Fort Lauderdale.” (“HTG Village Development Site”). HTG Village had a contractual right to purchase the HTG Village Development Site as of the application deadline and satisfied the site control requirement of RFA 2017-113 as of the application deadline. HTG Village terminated its contract to purchase the HTG Village Development Site in a letter dated January 16, 2018, and delivered on January 17, 2018. HTG Village entered a First Amendment and Reinstatement to the original Purchase and Sale Agreement on May 8, 2018 (“Amended Purchase and Sale Agreement”), with a retroactive effective date of January 17, 2018. Although HTG Village terminated its purchase agreement after the application deadline, Ms. Button credibly testified that the determination of whether the applicant is ready to proceed with the development is at the time of the application deadline (through submission of the completed application) and again at the time of underwriting. Of the applicants that submitted applications in response to the RFA, four applicants submitted applications for development in Broward County. Two applicants received a score of 20 points, Sailbooat Bend and Marquis Partners. Of the two applicants that received 20 points, Marquis Partners was assigned a lottery number of nine. HTG Village and another applicant, Casa St. Angelo, received scores of 15 points. HTG Village was assigned a lottery number 1. In the solicitation process, if Marquis Partners is deemed ineligible, HTG Village would be the next highest-ranked application for funding for development in Broward. If Marquis Partners remains eligible, but its score is reduced to 15, HTG Village would replace Marquis Partners in the line for funding because HTG Village has the lowest lottery number (1). Marquis Partners Application In response to RFA 2017-113, Marquis Partners timely submitted application number 2018-279C (“Marquis Partners Application”) requesting an allocation of $1,727,000 in housing credits. Marquis Partners proposed to develop a 100-unit affordable, multifamily housing development in Broward County. Florida Housing determined that the Marquis Partners Application was eligible for an award of housing credits and preliminarily selected the Marquis Partners Application for an award of housing credits. The Marquis Partners Application was selected as the second Broward County application under subpart (c) of the funding selection process. As another eligibility item, RFA 2017-113 required that applicants identify their “Principals” by completing and submitting with their applications a Principal Disclosure Form as follows: Eligibility Requirements to meet the submission requirements, the Applicant must upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 08- 16) (“Principals Disclosure Form”) with the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, as outlined in Section Three above. The Principals Disclosure Form must identify the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline and should include, for each applicable organizational structure, only the types of Principals required by Subsection 67- 48.002(93), F.A.C. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. RFA 2017-113 also enabled an applicant to obtain “points” by participating in Florida Housing’s advance review process as follows: Point Item: Applicants will receive 5 points if the uploaded Principal Disclosure Form was stamped “Approved” during the Advance Review Process provided (a) it is still correct as of Application Deadline, and (b) it was approved for the type of funding being requested (i.e., Housing Credits or Non-Housing Credits). The Advance Review Process for Disclosure of Applicant and Developer Principals is available on the Corporation’s Website http://www.floridahousing.org/programs/ developers-multifamilyprograms/competitive/ 2017/2017-113 (also accessible by clicking here) and also includes samples which may assist the Applicant in completing the required Principals Disclosure Form. Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline. Marquis Partners participated in the advance review process, and on or about December 21, 2017, Florida Housing approved the Principal Disclosure Form submitted by Marquis Partners for an award of housing credits. The Principal Disclosure Form approved by Florida Housing during the advance review process did not properly identify Marquis Partners’ Principals for the corresponding types of entities as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93). Rule 67-48.002(93) defined the term “Principal” based on the applicant or developer entity, and then by the organizational structure of those specific entities. The term “Principal” was capitalized in the RFA. The RFA provided that unless otherwise defined, capitalized terms within the RFA have the meaning as set forth in Exhibit B, in chapters 67-48 and 67-60, or in applicable federal regulations. Within the disclosure form, the applicant was required to disclose the type of Principal, name of the Principal and organization structure of that Principal at each disclosure level. There were three disclosure levels provided on the disclosure form. The Principal Disclosure Form submitted with the Marquis Partners Application included errors at the second Principal disclosure level. The second Principal disclosure level required Marquis Partners to provide the type of Principal being associated with the corresponding first-level Principal entity and the name of the Principal. Marquis Partners failed to disclose one Principal at the second level as further outlined below. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, amongst other partners, Cornerstone Marquis, LLC (“Cornerstone Marquis”), was identified as a general partner of Marquis Partners. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, the members of Cornerstone Marquis were as follows: a) Jorge Lopez; b) Awilda Lopez; c) Mara Mades; and d) M3 Acquisitions, LLC. The members were properly disclosed at the second Principal disclosure level. As of the application deadline and at all times pertinent to this case, the managers of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, were as follows: a) Jorge Lopez; b) Mara Mades; and c) Leon Wolfe. At the second Principal disclosure level, Awilda Lopez and M3 Acquisitions were incorrectly identified as managers of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, when they were in fact only members. More importantly, Leon Wolfe was not identified at the second Principal disclosure level as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis. Since Leon Wolfe was a manager of Cornerstone Marquis, he should have been identified as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis, LLC, at the second Principal disclosure level. Florida Housing’s approval of Marquis Partners’ Principal Disclosure Form during the advance review process did not verify the accuracy of the information contained within the Principal Disclosure Form. The information in the Principal Disclosure Form was incorrect at the time it was submitted for approval and remained incorrect when it was submitted with the Marquis Partners’ Application. Florida Housing evaluates omissions from the Principal Disclosure Form based on whether the inclusion of the incorrect information negatively impacts other applicants. Marisa Button, director of multifamily allocation, testified that the misidentification of Awilda Lopez and M3 Acquisitions, LLC, as managers of Cornerstone Marquis is a minor irregularity. On the other hand, Florida Housing considered the failure to properly disclose Leon Wolfe as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis to be a material deviation. Leon Wolfe was disclosed on the Principal Disclosure Form at the third disclosure level as a member and manager of M3 Acquisitions, LLC. However, Mr. Wolfe was not properly disclosed at the second level of disclosure as required. The RFA required that applicants disclose Principals in the Principal Disclosure Form for each type of entity. Ms. Button testified that the purpose of proper disclosure of all Principals of the entities that are associated with the applicant is so that Florida Housing is aware of who it is doing business with. Florida Housing screens the Principals to determine whether a Principal has been deficient to the corporation on prior affordable housing deals, identify bad actors, or to limit the amount of funding received by any related applicants. Florida Housing uses the disclosed Principals to determine if applications are related. Florida Housing made the advance review process available to assist applicants with completing the Principal Disclosure Form. During the process, there were sample charts provided to assist the applicants with completing the form. Marquis Partners participated in the review process and Florida Housing approved the form. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Marquis Partners did not properly disclose Mr. Wolfe on its Principal Disclosure Form and, as a result, it should not have been awarded the additional five points for the advance review approval. Moreover, the omission of Mr. Wolfe as a manager of Cornerstone Marquis is a material deviation that cannot be waived. Thus, the evidence shows that Marquis Partners is not eligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Florida Housing’s initial scoring decision regarding the Marquis Partners Application was erroneous, concluding that Marquis Partners was ineligible for funding and not eligible for five additional points, and awarding funding to HTG Village. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 304 1725 Capital Circle Northeast Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue Whether 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 Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s ("Florida Housing") intended action to award housing tax credit funding to Intervenors Westside Phase, I, LLLP ("Westside"), HTG Edgewood, Ltd. ("HTG Edgewood"), Diplomat South, LLC ("Diplomat"), and Tranquility at Milton, LLC ("Tranquility"), under Request for Applications 2019-113 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the "RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules, the RFA specifications, and clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. The low income housing tax credit program (commonly referred to as "tax credits" or "housing credits") was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These housing tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects that qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is that the credits reduce the amount that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. Because the total debt is lower, a housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the housing credits. The demand for housing tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. The Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized to allocate housing tax credits and other funding by means of a request for applications or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48) and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60, which govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for housing tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its competitive funding through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. 1 In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. Applicants normally sell the rights to that future stream of income housing tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount which can be received depends 1 A request for application is equivalent to a "request for proposal" as indicated in rule 67- 60.009(3). upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected total development cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. The RFA was issued on August 20, 2019, and responses were initially due October 29, 2019. The RFA was modified on September 10, 2019, and the application deadline was extended to November 5, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms of the RFA. Through the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award up to an estimated $14,805,028 of housing tax credits to proposed developments in medium counties and up to an estimated $1,413,414 of housing credits to proposed developments in small counties. Florida Housing received 184 applications in response to the RFA. A review committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing's Board of Directors (the "Board"). The review committee found 169 applications eligible and 15 applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, 11 applications were preliminarily recommended for funding. The review committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On March 6, 2020, the Board met and considered the recommendations of the review committee. Also, on March 6, 2020, at approximately 9:35 a.m., Petitioners and all other applicants received notice that the Board determined whether applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding, and that certain eligible applicants were selected for award of housing credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets on the Florida Housing website, www.floridahousing.org, one listing the Board approved scoring results and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. In the March 6, 2020, posting, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 11 applicants, including Westside, HTG Edgewood, Diplomat, and Tranquility. Petitioners timely filed notices of protest and petitions for formal administrative proceedings, and Intervenors timely intervened. The RFA Ranking and Selection Process The RFA contemplates a structure in which the applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for other items. A summary of the eligibility items is available in section 5.A.1., beginning on page 64 of the RFA. Only applications that meet all the eligibility items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. There were two total point items scored in this RFA. Applicants could receive five points for Submission of Principals Disclosure Form, stamped by the Corporation as "Pre-Approved," and five points for Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive, for a total application score of up to ten points. The RFA has three funding goals: The Corporation has a goal to fund four Medium County Developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.a. of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund two Developments with a Demographic commitment of Family that select and qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/SADDA Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.b. of the RFA. The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) Development that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal outlined in Section Four A.11.c. of the RFA. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal. As part of the funding selection process, the RFA starts with the application sorting order on page 68. The highest scoring applications are determined by first sorting together all eligible applications from the highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated as follows: First, by the Application's eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.10.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application's Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); And finally, by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The RFA includes a Funding Test where small county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough small county funding available to fully fund the eligible housing credit request amount, and medium county applications will be selected for funding only if there is enough medium county funding available to fully fund the eligible housing credit request amount. The RFA outlines a specific County’s Award Tally: As each application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County’s Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. According to the RFA, the funding selection process is as follows: The first Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Applications that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. The next four Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Medium County Applications that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next two Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Family Applications that qualify for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/HUD-designated SADDA Goal, subject to the Funding Test and the County Award Tally. The next Applications selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Small County Applications that (i) can meet the Small County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Small County Applications. If Small County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Small County Application can meet the Small County Funding Test, no further Small County Applications will be selected and the remaining Small County funding will be added to the Medium County funding amount. The next Application(s) selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible unfunded Medium County Applications that (i) can meet the Medium County Funding Test and (ii) have a County Award Tally that is less than or equal to any other eligible unfunded Medium County Applications. If Medium County funding remains and no unfunded eligible Medium County Application can meet the Medium County Funding Test, no further Applications will be selected and the remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. According to the terms of the RFA: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the [Review] Committee’s recommendation(s), due to an Applicant withdrawing its Application, an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting, or an Applicant’s inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, will be distributed as approved by the Board. All 184 applications for the RFA were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. HTG Edgewood’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1778BID) During scoring, Florida Housing determined that the HTG Edgewood application was eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, selected HTG Edgewood for funding. HTG Edgewood, Florida Housing, and Rochester now agree that HTG Edgewood’s application is ineligible for consideration for funding and the application of Rochester is eligible for funding. Accordingly, HTG Edgewood, Florida Housing, and Rochester agree that Florida Housing should deem the HTG Edgewood application ineligible for funding and Rochester’s application eligible for funding. Diplomat’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1779BID) During scoring, Florida Housing deemed the Diplomat application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Diplomat for funding. Diplomat and Madison Square now agree that Diplomat is ineligible for funding. Florida Housing does not contest Diplomat’s admission of ineligibility. Madison Square, Diplomat, and Florida Housing agree that Madison Square is eligible for funding. Tranquility’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1780BID) Florida Housing deemed the Tranquility application eligible for funding, and pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Tranquility was selected for preliminary funding. Tranquility’s Principals Disclosure Form Madison Oaks contests Florida Housing’s preliminary selection of Tranquility for an award of housing tax credits. In its challenge, Madison Oaks argues that Tranquility failed to correctly complete its Principals Disclosure Form by not identifying the multiple roles of its disclosed principal. Specifically, Madison Oaks argues that Tranquility failed to list Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, which is disclosed as a manager, as a non- investor member as well. Accordingly, Madison Oaks contends Tranquility is not eligible or should lose five points. The purpose of the Principals Disclosure Form is to allow Florida Housing to track an entity’s past and future dealings with Florida Housing so that Florida Housing is aware of the entity with which it is dealing. In regard to principal disclosure, the RFA states, in relevant part: c. Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer (5 points) Eligibility Requirements To meet the submission requirements, the Applicant must upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 05-2019)("Principals Disclosure Form") with the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, as outlined in Section Three above. Prior versions of the Principal Disclosure Form will not be accepted. The Principals Disclosure Form must identify, pursuant to subsections 67-48.002(94), 67- 48.0075(8) and 67-48.0075(9), the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. The investor limited partner of an Applicant limited partnership or the investor member of an Applicant limited liability company investor must be identified. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. Point Item Applicants will receive 5 points if the uploaded Principal Disclosure Form was stamped "Approved" during the Advance Review Process. The Advance Review Process for Disclosure of Applicant and Developer Principals is available on the RFA Website and also includes samples which may assist the Applicant in completing the required Principals Disclosure Form. Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline. The RFA website provides guidance and instructions to assist applicants in completing the principal disclosure. The instructions state: "List the name of each Member of the Applicant Limited Liability Company and label each as either non-investor Member or investor Member (i.e., equity provider and/or placeholder), as applicable." The RFA website guidance and instructions further provides Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQ’s") concerning principal disclosures. FAQ number 4 states: Q: If the Applicant entity is a member managed limited liability company, how should it be reflected on the form since there is no "member-manager" choice at the First Principal Disclosure Level? A: Each member-manager entity/person should be listed twice—once as a non-investor member and once as a manger. If Housing Credits are being requested, the investor-member(s) must also be listed in order for the form to be approved for a Housing Credit Application. On its Principals Disclosure Form, Tranquility listed two entities at the first principal disclosure level: Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, identified as a manager of the applicant and Timshel Partners, LLC, identified as an investor member of the applicant. However, Tranquility failed to identify the dual role of Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a non- investor member in addition to its disclosed role as a manger. Nevertheless, Tranquility’s equity proposal letter submitted as part of its application identified Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a member of the LLC because according to the equity proposal, Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, would retain a .01% ownership interest in the company. Thus, the role of Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, as a member is available within Tranquility’s application. Tranquility participated in Florida Housing’s Advance Review Process, and on October 17, 2019, Florida Housing approved the Principals Disclosure Form submitted by Tranquility during the Advance Review Process for an award of housing credits. During scoring, Tranquility received five points for having its Principals Disclosure Form stamped "Approved" by Florida Housing. Tranquility’s Principals Disclosure Form met the eligibility requirements of the RFA and Tranquility is entitled to the five points. In addition, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that even if Tranquility’s failure to list the dual role of its disclosed principal on the Principals Disclosure Form is an error, it is so minor as to constitute a waivable, minor irregularity. As detailed above, Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC, was specifically designated as a manager on the form and information identifying Tranquility Milton Manager, LLC’s, additional role as a member is included in the equity proposal letter submitted with the application. Madison Oak’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1779BID) Madison Oaks’ application was deemed eligible for funding, but pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Madison Oaks was not selected for preliminary funding. Madison Oaks Site Control Certification Florida Housing and Tranquility now argue that Madison Oaks failed to demonstrate site control. As an eligibility item, the RFA requires applicants to demonstrate site control by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Site Control Certification form ("Site Control Form"). For the Site Control Form to be considered complete, the applicant must attach documentation demonstrating that it is a party to an eligible contract or lease or is the owner of the subject property. Applicants can demonstrate site control by providing documentation that meets the requirements in the RFA for an eligible contract, deed or certificate of title, or a lease. An eligible contract must meet all of the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before April 30, 2020 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than April 30, 2020; It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant; and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. In demonstrating site control, the RFA states: Note: The Corporation will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation. During scoring, the Corporation will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirements of this RFA to demonstrate site control. The Corporation has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, the Corporation may rescind the award. Additionally, the RFA requires that the site control "documentation include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases, and subleases." In the instant case, Madison Oaks attached a Purchase and Sale Agreement ("Madison Oaks Agreement") to its Site Control Form. The Madison Oaks Agreement lists West Oak Developers, LLC, as the "Seller" and Madison Oaks East, LLC, as the "Purchaser." However, the City of Ocala owns the property in question. The Madison Oaks Agreement in section 12 states that: "Seller has a valid and binding agreement with the City of Ocala, Florida pursuant to which Seller has the right to acquire fee simple title to the Property …." Tranquility and Florida Housing contend that Madison Oaks failed to demonstrate site control because Madison Oaks failed to include the City of Ocala Redevelopment Agreement for Pine Oaks ("Redevelopment Agreement") in its site control documentation. Madison Oaks maintains that the City of Ocala is a seller, pursuant to the Joinder and Section 28 of the Madison Oaks Agreement, and therefore, the Redevelopment Agreement did not need to be included. However, the Madison Oaks Agreement clearly identifies West Oak as the "Seller" and the City of Ocala as the "City." At hearing, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that the Madison Oaks application is ineligible because it did not include the Redevelopment Agreement, which is a relevant agreement for purposes of demonstrating site control. The Redevelopment Agreement was a relevant intermediate contract, which was required to be included in Madison Oak’s application. Madison Oak’s failure to include the Redevelopment Agreement renders its application ineligible. Madison Oaks contends that including the Redevelopment Agreement in its application was unnecessary because of a joinder provision within the Madison Oaks Agreement. The Madison Oaks Agreement contains a Joinder and Consent of the City of Ocala approved by the City Council ("the Joinder"), whereby the City of Ocala joined and consented to the Madison Oaks Agreement "solely for the purposes set forth in, and subject to, Section 28 herein." The Madison Oaks Agreement in Section 28 states that: "Seller hereby acknowledges and agrees that in the event of Seller’s default hereunder, that is not timely cured, or Seller's refusal to close hereunder, Purchaser shall be entitled to close on the property subject to this Agreement … directly with the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Section 28." However, Section 28 only applies in the event of a default by West Oaks that is not timely cured or West Oak’s refusal to close. There is no information within the Madison Oaks application to determine whether a default or termination of the Redevelopment Agreement occurred as of the application deadline. Westside’s Application (DOAH Case No. 20-1770BID) Florida Housing deemed Westside’s application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Westside was preliminary selected for funding to meet the goal to fund one development that qualifies for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. Westside’s Election to Compete for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal In order to qualify for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal, the RFA states: Applicants for proposed Developments that are part of a local revitalization plan may elect to compete for this goal. To qualify for this goal, the Applicant must submit the properly completed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government/Community Redevelopment Agency Verification That Development Is Part Of A Local Community Revitalization Plan form (Form Rev. 08-2019) as Attachment 18. The form is available on the RFA Website. Included with the form must be either (1) a link to the local community revitalization plan or (2) a copy of the local community revitalization plan. The plan must have been adopted on or before January 1, 2019. Florida Housing, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, also has a goal to fund four medium county developments that qualify for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. Westside included an executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government/Community Redevelopment Agency Verification that Development is Part of a Local Community Revitalization Plan form (the "Local Community Revitalization Plan Form") and a link to the local government revitalization plan at Attachment 18 of its application. At question 11.c. in the application, applicants are asked to select "Yes" or "No" from a drop-down menu in response to the question: "Is the proposed Development eligible for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal?" Westside selected "No" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.c. regarding the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. At question 11.a. in the application, applicants are asked to select "Yes" or "No" from a drop-down menu in response to the question: "Is the proposed Development eligible for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal?" Westside selected "Yes" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering questions 11.a. regarding the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. During scoring, Westside was deemed to have qualified for the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal and the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. During the funding selection process, Westside was selected for funding to meet the Local Government Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. HTG Addison selected "Yes" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.c. regarding the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal. HTG Addison included an executed Local Community Revitalization Plan Form at Attachment 18 of its application. HTG Addison selected "No" from the Yes/No drop-down menu in answering question 11.a. regarding the Local Government Areas of Opportunity Funding Goal. HTG Addison is the next highest ranked eligible applicant qualified for the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal after Westside. If Westside is deemed not to have qualified for the revitalization goal, then HTG Addison, as the next highest ranked eligible applicant, would qualify for that goal. HTG Addison alleges that Westside should not be selected to meet the Local Community Revitalization Initiative Goal because Westside selected "No" from the drop-down menu in response Question 11.c. Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that Florida Housing does not rely on the drop-down responses to questions 11a., b., or c. in determining whether an applicant "elects to be eligible for a certain goal" because answering "Yes" or "No" to these requirements is not a requirement of the RFA. Rather, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that in determining whether an applicant qualifies for a funding goal, Florida Housing relies on the documentation submitted with the application that is required for the funding goal. In the instant case, Westside included the executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Revitalization Plan form and a link to the local community revitalization plan at Attachment 18 of its application.2 In addition, Ms. Button persuasively and credibly testified that even if Westside erred in selecting "Yes" in response to question 11.c., it is so minor as to constitute a waivable, minor irregularity because Florida Housing has the required information within the application (the executed form and a link to the local community revitalization plan at Attachment 18). 2 Notably, another applicant responding to the RFA, Tranquility at Ferry Pass, selected "Yes" in response to question 11.c., but failed to include at Attachment 18 either a copy of or a link to the local community revitalization plan. During scoring, Florida Housing determined that Tranquility at Ferry Pass did not qualify for the revitalization goal. Florida Housing’s scoring of the Westside application is consistent with its scoring of the Tranquility at Ferry Pass application because in both cases, Florida Housing scored the application based on the requirements of the RFA for the revitalization goal and the documentation submitted in response to those requirements. Florida Housing did not rely on the applicant’s response to question 11.c. regarding the applicant’s expressions of its own eligibility.
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 protests of HTG Addison and Madison Oaks; (2) finding the HTG Edgewood, Diplomat, and Madison Oaks applications ineligible for funding; and (3) finding the Rochester, Madison Square, Tranquility, and Westside applications eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of June, 2020. Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-231 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 109 North Brush Street, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Sarah Pape, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 820 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Riverside Village Partners, LTD. (Riverside or Petitioner), has, or had at the time of application, a present plan to convert its proposed development to any use other than affordable residential rental property; (2) whether Provincetown Village Partners, LTD. (Provincetown or Petitioner), has, or had at the time of application, a present plan to convert its proposed development to any use other than affordable residential rental property; (3) whether Riverside irrevocably committed to set aside units in its proposed development for a total of 50 years; and (4) whether Provincetown irrevocably committed to set aside units in its proposed development for a total of 50 years.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Provincetown Village Partners, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with its business address at 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, Florida 32751, and is in the business of providing affordable housing units. Petitioner, Riverside Village Partners, LTD., is a Florida limited partnership with its business address at 1551 Sandspur Road, Maitland, Florida 32751, and is in the business of providing affordable housing units. Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (Florida Housing), is a public corporation that administers governmental programs relating to the financing and refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida pursuant to Section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2003). Florida Housing's Financing Mechanisms To encourage the development of affordable rental housing for low-income families, Florida Housing provides low-interest mortgage loans to developers of qualified multi-family housing projects. In exchange for an interest rate lower than conventional market rates, the developer agrees to "set-aside" a specific percentage of the rental units for low-income tenants. Through its Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond (MMRB) program, Florida Housing funds these mortgage loans through the sale of tax-exempt and taxable bonds. Applicants then repay the loans from the revenues generated by their respective projects. Applicants who receive MMRB proceeds are required to execute a Land Use Restriction Agreement (LURA or Land Use Restriction Agreement), which is recorded in the official records of the county in which the applicant’s development is located. Through the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) program, Florida Housing funds low-interest mortgage loans to developers from various sources of state revenue, which are generally secured by second mortgages on the property. Applicants who receive SAIL proceeds are required to execute and record a LURA in the county records as with MMRB's Land Use Restriction Agreements. Florida Housing also distributes federal income tax credits for the development of affordable rental housing for low-income tenants; those tax credits are referred to as "housing credits." Generally, applicants who utilize tax-exempt bond financing for at least 50 percent of the cost of their development are entitled to receive an award of housing credits on a non-competitive basis. These non-competitive housing credits are received by the qualified applicant each year for ten consecutive years. Typically, applicants sell this future stream of housing credits at the initiation of the development process in order to generate a portion of the funds necessary for the construction of the development. The Application, Scoring, and Ranking Process Because Florida Housing’s available pool of tax-exempt bond financing and SAIL funds is limited, qualified projects must compete for this funding. To determine which proposed projects will put the available funds to best use, Florida Housing has established a competitive application process to assess the relative merits of proposed projects. Florida Housing’s competitive application process for MMRB and SAIL financing is included with other financing programs within a single application process (the 2003 Universal Application) governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapters 67-21 and 67-48. The 2003 Universal Application form and accompanying instructions are incorporated as Form "UA1016" by reference into Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-21 and 67-48 and by Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.002(97), and 67-48.002(111), respectively. For the 2003 Universal Application cycle, each applicant who completed and submitted Form UA1016 with attachments was given a preliminary score by Florida Housing. Following the issuance of preliminary scores, applicants are provided an opportunity to challenge the scoring of any competing application through the filing of a Notice of Possible Scoring Error (NOPSE). Florida Housing considers each NOPSE filed and provides each applicant with notice of any resulting change in their preliminary scores (the NOPSE scores). Following the issuance of NOPSE scores, Florida Housing provides an opportunity for applicants to submit additional materials to "cure" any items for which the applicant received less than the maximum score or for which the application may have been rejected for failure to achieve "threshold." There are certain portions of the application which cannot be cured; the list of noncurable items appears in Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.003(14) (for MMRB applicants) and 67-48.004(14) (for SAIL applicants). Following the cure period, applicants may again contest the scoring of a competing application by filing a Notice of Alleged Deficiencies (NOAD), identifying deficiencies arising from the submitted cure materials. After considering the submitted NOADs, Florida Housing provides notice to applicants of any resulting scoring changes. The resulting scores are known as "pre-appeal" scores. Applicants may appeal and challenge, via formal or informal hearings, Florida Housing’s scoring of any item for which the applicant received less than the maximum score or for any item that resulted in the rejection of the application for failure to meet "threshold." Upon the conclusion of the informal hearings, and of formal hearings where appropriate, Florida Housing issues the final scores and ranking of applicants. Applicants are then awarded tentative MMRB and/or SAIL funding in order of rank; Florida Housing issues final orders allocating the tentative funding and inviting successful applicants in the credit underwriting process. If an applicant who requests a formal hearing ultimately obtains a final order that modifies its score and threshold determinations so that its application would have been in the funding range had the final order been entered prior to the date the final rankings were presented to the Florida Housing Board of Directors (Board), that applicant’s requested funding will be provided from the next available funding or allocation. The 2003 Application Process On or about April 8, 2003, Riverside, Provincetown, and others submitted applications for MMRB and SAIL financing in the 2003 Universal Application cycle. Riverside requested $3,205,000 in tax-exempt MMRB funding and $1.6 million in SAIL funding to help finance its proposed development, a 34-unit development in Pinellas County, Florida. In its application, Riverside committed to lease all or most of these units to house families earning 60 percent or less of the area median income (AMI). However, depending on which Florida Housing funding source(s) Riverside’s application was deemed eligible to receive, it would commit to lease at least 17 percent of the units to families earning 50 percent or less of AMI, or would commit to lease only a total of 85 percent of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. Provincetown requested $4.5 million in tax-exempt MMRB funding and $2.0 million in SAIL funding to help finance its proposed development, a 50-unit development in Gadsden County, Florida. In its application, Provincetown committed to lease all or most of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. However, depending on which Florida Housing program(s) Provincetown’s application was deemed eligible to receive, it would commit to lease at least 11 percent of the units to families earning 50 percent or less of AMI, or would commit to lease only a total of 85 percent of the units to families earning 60 percent or less of AMI. Florida Housing evaluated all applications and notified applicants of their preliminary scores on or before May 12, 2003. Applicants were then given an opportunity to file NOPSEs on or before May 20, 2003. After considering all NOPSEs, Florida Housing notified applicants by overnight mail on or about June 9, 2003, of any resulting changes in the scoring of their applications. Applicants were then allowed to submit, on or before June 19, 2003, cure materials to correct any alleged deficiencies in their applications previously identified by Florida Housing. Applicants were also allowed to file NOADs on competing applications on or before June 27, 2003. After considering the submitted NOADs, Florida Housing issued notice to Provincetown, Riverside, and others of their adjusted scores on or about July 21, 2003. Commitment to Affordability Period Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006, entitled "Development Requirements," lists certain minimum requirements that a development shall meet or that an applicant shall be able to certify that such requirements shall be met. One of these requirements is "The Applicant shall have no present plan to convert the Development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property." Part III.E.3 of the Application provides a line for an applicant to commit to an "affordability period" for its application. This subsection of the application form reads in its entirety: 3. Affordability Period for MMRB, SAIL, HOME, and HC Application: Applicant irrevocably commits to set aside units in the proposed Development for a total of years. Both Provincetown and Riverside filled in the number "50" on the blank line in this subsection of their respective applications. An applicant’s score on its application is determined in part by the length of its affordability period commitment. An applicant who commits to an affordability period commitment of 50 or more years received 5 points; 45 to 49 years, 4 points; 40 to 44 years, 3 points; 35 to 39 years, 2 points; 31 to 34 years, 1 point; and 30 years or less, 0 points. Scoring of Provincetown and Riverside Applications In its preliminary scoring of the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing awarded each applicant the full 5 points on Part III.E.3 of his or her application for the 50-year affordability period commitment. Also, in the preliminary scoring of the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing did not find any threshold failure regarding an alleged present plan to convert the development to a use other than affordable residential rental property. In its preliminary scoring of the Provincetown application, Florida Housing identified an alleged threshold failure related to the validity of the contract for purchase of the site of the proposed development. A subsequent cure submitted by Provincetown regarding the contract for purchase of the site has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer takes the position that the Provincetown application fails threshold for any reason related to site control. In its preliminary scoring of the Riverside application, Florida Housing identified a threshold failure related to documentation of the status of site plan approval, or plat approval, for the proposed development. A subsequent cure submitted by Riverside regarding the status of site plan approval has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer takes the position that the Riverside application fails threshold for any reason related to site plan approval, or plat approval. During the scoring process, Florida Housing received NOPSEs on both the Provincetown and Riverside applications, which asserted that these applicants were proposing transactions that were not financially feasible and would not pass subsequent credit underwriting requirements. The NOPSEs also alleged that the Riverside and Provincetown applications were for townhouses designed with an intent to eventually convert to home ownership in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6). According to that rule, the applicant shall have no present plan to convert the development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property. After reviewing these NOPSEs, but before issuing revised NOPSE scores, Florida Housing determined that it was inappropriate to apply subsequent credit underwriting requirements during the scoring of these applications, and therefore, disagreed with the allegations of the NOPSEs on those grounds. Accordingly, Florida Housing's scoring summaries for Riverside and Provincetown issued, after receipt of the NOPSEs, raised no issues concerning financial feasibility, and it was not placed at issue in this proceeding. Following the filing of NOPSEs, Florida Housing released NOPSE scores for all applicants, including Riverside and Provincetown. The NOPSE scores are reflected on a NOPSE Scoring Summary dated June 9, 2003. For both Provincetown and Riverside, the NOPSE Scoring Summary contained the following statement regarding alleged threshold failure, identifying two separate reasons for the alleged threshold failure: The proposed Development does not satisfy the minimum Development requirements stated in Rule 67-21.006, F.A.C. The Development is not a multifamily residential rental property comprised of buildings or structures each containing four or more dwelling units. Further, the Applicant has a present plan to convert the Development to a use other than as an affordable residential rental property. The first threshold failure noted in the preceding paragraph relates to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(2), which requires that there be four or more residential units per building for projects financed with MMRB. A subsequent cure regarding the design of the proposed developments has resolved this issue, and Florida Housing no longer contends that these applications, as cured, exhibit a threshold failure related to the number of residential units per building. The second threshold failure noted in the NOPSE Scoring Summary and quoted in paragraph 30 above, relates to Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6), which requires that applicants "shall have no present plan to convert the Development to any use other than the use as affordable residential rental property." In response to the NOPSE Scoring Summaries, both Provincetown and Riverside submitted cures to their respective applications. In the cures, Provincetown and Riverside presented their explanations of how they believed their applications, as submitted, demonstrated a 50-year affordability period commitment and included these applicants’ contentions that they had no present plan to convert the developments to a use other than affordable residential rental property. For Provincetown, an issue had also been raised by a NOPSE concerning whether the Provincetown application was entitled to certain "tie-breaker" points for the distance from the proposed development to a public transportation stop. The points awardable to Provincetown for tie-breaker purposes are not in dispute, and Provincetown, if its application is otherwise deemed to meet threshold requirements, would be entitled to 5.0 of a possible 7.5 tie-breaker points. If Riverside's application were deemed to meet threshold requirements and if the 5 points for the affordability period commitment were restored, Riverside would have been within the funding range for applicants within the 2003 Universal Application cycle at the time the Board took final action on the ranking of applications on October 9, 2003. If Provincetown's application were deemed to meet threshold requirements and if the five points for the affordability period commitment were restored, Provincetown would have been within the funding range for applicants within the 2003 Universal Application cycle at the time the Board took final action on the ranking of applications on October 9, 2003. The Sciarrino Letter and Cures After reviewing the NOPSEs filed against the Provincetown and Riverside applications, Florida Housing received a letter dated June 2, 2003 (Sciarrino letter or letter), from Michael Sciarrino, president of the CED Companies, addressed to Orlando Cabrera, executive director of Florida Housing, with a copy to Kerey Carpenter, deputy development officer of Florida Housing. Michael Sciarrino is a manager of the sole general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 Y, LLC., a Florida limited liability company) of Provincetown. Mr. Sciarrino is also a Class B limited partner of the sole member of the general partner (CED Capital Holdings XVI, LTD., a Florida limited partnership). Michael Sciarrino is a manager of the sole general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 K, LLC., a Florida limited liability company) of Riverside. Mr. Sciarrino is also a Class B limited partner of the sole member of the general partner (CED Capital Holdings 2003 XVI, LTD., a Florida limited partnership). As manager of the sole general partner of Provincetown and Riverside, Mr. Sciarrino had supervisory authority and editorial control over the processing and preparation of the Provincetown and Riverside applications. The Sciarrino letter was drafted, in part, to respond to the allegations of the NOPSEs filed against Provincetown and Riverside applications and specifically addressed those issues pertaining to Provincetown and Riverside applications. Also, while the letter does not mention Petitioners by name, the description and location of the properties, as detailed in the letter, clearly refer to these applicants. The Sciarrino letter evinces a present plan on the part of Petitioners to convert the proposed developments to a use other than that of affordable residential rental housing. First, the letter describes in detail the economic motivations for the subsequent sale of the units of the proposed development within the 50-year extended affordability period stating that the "residual value potential" of such an arrangement "is the single biggest economic reason for our desire to develop these communities." Next, the letter describes in detail the means by which Petitioners would be relieved of the commitment to a 50-year affordability period as stated in their applications, that is, by seeking a waiver from Board after the 15-year period of tax credit recapture exposure had expired. Third, the letter plainly states that Petitioners had intended to request such relief from the 50-year affordability period in the future. Petitioners' present plan to convert the proposed developments for sale to homeowners during the 50-year extended affordability period is further evident by the fact that the concept of such a conversion existed prior to and at the time the applications were filed. Moreover, the Provincetown and Riverside developments were specially selected to test the concept. On or about June 19, 2003, Petitioners filed cures with Florida Housing addressing the issues raised in the NOPSEs. While the cures presented argument in favor of their respective applications and reiterated Petitioners' commitment to the 50-year extended affordability period for each proposed development, they did not deny that it was their intention to seek relief from this period in the future. Following review of the Sciarrino letter and the cures submitted by Petitioners, Florida Housing rejected both the Provincetown and Riverside applications for failing to meet the mandatory development requirement set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-21.006(6). The applications also had five points deducted from their scores on the grounds that, under the circumstances, their commitment to an affordability period could not be determined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order that upholds the scoring of the applications of Riverside Village Partners, LTD., and Provincetown Village Partners, LTD.; that rejects the applications of Riverside Village Partners, LTD., and Provincetown Village Partners, LTD.; and that denies the relief requested in the Petitions. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Fifth Floor Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Orlando J. Cabrera, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wellington H. Meffert, II, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s intended decision to find the application of Clearlake Village, L.P., ineligible for funding is contrary to Respondent’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida for purposes of allocating low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program incentivizes the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to housing developers in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. Developers then sell these credits to investors to raise capital (or equity) for their projects, which reduces the debt that the developer would otherwise have to borrow. When sold to investors, the tax credits provide equity that reduces the debt associated with the project. With lower debt, the affordable housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rent. As consideration for receipt of tax credits, developers covenant to keep rent at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply. The Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized to allocate tax credits and other funding by means of requests for proposals or other competitive solicitations allowed by section 420.507(48), Florida Statutes. Florida Housing adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the one for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 was adopted on August 20, 2013, replacing prior procedures used by Florida Housing for allocating tax credits, and provides that the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3) govern its process for allocating tax credits. Applicants request in their applications a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. The amount of housing tax credits an applicant may request is based on several factors, including, but not limited to, a certain percentage of the projected total development cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. On November 21, 2014, Florida Housing issued the RFA at issue in the instant dispute. According to the RFA, Florida Housing expects to award an estimated $12,914,730 of housing tax credits which are available for award to proposed developments located in medium counties, and up to an estimated $1,513,170 of housing tax credits available for award to proposed developments located in small counties. On January 21, 2015, Petitioner, in response to the RFA, submitted an application seeking $1,418,185 in housing tax credits to finance the construction of an 80-unit residential rental development in Brevard County, Florida (a medium county), to be known as Clearlake Village. Though Petitioner has submitted other applications for housing tax credits, this is the first time Petitioner has done so in Florida. Petitioner’s application was assigned lottery number 4 by Florida Housing. On January 20, 2015, Intervenor, in response to the RFA, submitted an application requesting $1,475,000 in housing tax credits to support the construction on an 80-unit affordable housing development also in Brevard County. As part of the RFA process, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to nine medium county developments, including Intervenor’s application number 2015-073C for Brevard County. Notice On March 20, 2015, Petitioner received notice that Florida Housing intended to designate Petitioner’s application ineligible for funding and that other applications were selected for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. In response to Respondent’s notice of intended action, Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Protest, and Petitioner’s Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings. RFA 2014-114 Ranking and Selection Process Florida Housing received 82 applications seeking funding in response to the RFA, including 76 for medium county developments. Developments were proposed in 21 different medium counties throughout the State, including four in Brevard County. The process employed by Florida Housing for this RFA makes it virtually impossible for more than one application to be selected for funding in any given medium county. Because of the amount of funding available for medium counties, many medium counties will not receive an award of housing tax credit funding in this RFA, due to the typical amount of an applicant’s housing tax credit request (generally $1.0 to $1.5 million), and the number of medium counties for which developments are proposed. Florida Housing intends to award funding to nine developments in nine different medium counties. The RFA requires that applicants file an online electronic application with development cost pro forma. Each applicant is also required to submit several hard copies of its application and attachments. One of the applications is designated by the applicant as the “original,” which must contain an original signature in blue ink; and two others it designates as “copies,” which are used by Florida Housing staff to score the applications. Florida Housing scans the application attachments from the original and posts the online application with the scanned attachments on its web page. The applications were received, processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. Applications are considered for funding only if they are deemed “eligible,” which means that the application complies with Florida Housing’s various content requirements. Of the 82 applications submitted to Florida Housing for the RFA, 69 were found “eligible,” and 13 were found ineligible. Petitioner’s application was found ineligible. A five-page spreadsheet created by Florida Housing, entitled “RFA 2014-114 – All Applications,” which identifies all eligible and ineligible applications, was provided to each applicant. The first consideration in sorting eligible applications for funding is application scores. Applicants can achieve a maximum score of 23 points. Eighteen of those 23 points are attributable to “proximity” scores based on the distance of the proposed development from services needed by tenants and the remaining five points are attributable to local government contributions. All 69 eligible applications received the maximum score of 23 points. Petitioner’s application was not fully scored, because it was deemed ineligible. If Petitioner’s application had been scored, rather than being found ineligible, it would have received a score of 23. Many applicants achieve tie scores, and in anticipation of that occurrence Florida Housing designed the RFA and rules to incorporate a series of “tie breakers,” the last of which is randomly assigned lottery numbers. Lottery numbers have historically played a significant role in the outcome of Florida Housing’s funding cycles, and lottery numbers were determinative of funding selections in the current RFA. Florida Housing employs a “funding test” to be used in the selection of medium county applications for funding in this RFA. The “funding test” requires that the amount of tax credits remaining (unawarded) when a particular medium county application is being considered for selection must be enough to fully fund that applicant’s request amount, and partial funding will not be given. The RFA also specifies a sorting order for funding selection, with applications first arranged from highest score to lowest. Applicants with tie scores are separated based on criteria not relevant to resolving the instant protest. Suffice to say that Petitioner’s application qualified for each funding preference and it had a better lottery number than Intervenor. County Award Tally In selecting among eligible applicants for funding, Florida Housing also applies a “County Award Tally.” The County Award Tally is designed to prevent a disproportionate concentration of funded developments in any one county. Generally, before a second application can be funded in any given county, all other counties that are represented by an eligible applicant must receive an award of funding. As there were eligible medium county applications submitted from 21 different counties for the RFA, there cannot be more than one applicant funded from any given medium county. The nine medium county applicants selected for funding had lottery numbers 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 20, 26, 27, and 28. The applicant with lottery number 6 (Intervenor), is from Brevard County. If Petitioner is deemed eligible, it would be selected for funding because it has a lower lottery number (4) than Intervenor and would displace Intervenor as the only project funded in Brevard County. Basis for Petitioner’s Ineligibility Florida Housing reviewed Petitioner’s application and determined that it was ineligible as it failed to meet the RFA requirement that applicants must demonstrate control of the site upon which the development is to be constructed. Florida Housing rejected Petitioner’s site control documentation. Site control is an important element of an application––the “meat and potatoes of the application.” Proof that the applicant has control of the development site is a matter of “do or die if you miss a document.” The RFA has a general requirement that each application be complete, and must include all applicable documentation. Site control can be established through a deed, a long-term lease, or a contract for purchase and sale. In each case, the entity with control of the site must be the applicant entity. If the purchaser under a contract for purchase and sale is not the applicant, then the application must contain one or more assignments that give the applicant all rights and remedies of the purchaser. Section 4.A.7 of the RFA, at page 23, lists the requirements for site control. The instructions provide, in relevant part: Site Control: The Applicant must demonstrate site control by providing, as Attachment 7 to Exhibit A, the documentation required in Items a., b., and/or c., as indicated below. a. Eligible Contract - For purposes of the RFA, an eligible contract is one that[:] has a term that does not expire before a date that is six (6) months after the Application Deadline or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than six (6) months after the Application Deadline; specifically states that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer's rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. As an overall submittal requirement, the RFA requires that each application be complete and include all “applicable documentation.” The RFA process does not provide an opportunity for applicants to cure errors or omissions discovered after submission of an application to Florida Housing. Petitioner’s application sought to establish site control through attachment 13 to its application, which includes, among other things, a vacant land contract, and an assignment and assumption agreement. The vacant land contract pertains to the land that Petitioner intends to use for the site identified in its application. The vacant land contract was prepared using a Florida Association of Realtors form contract. Paragraph 12 of the vacant land contract contains boilerplate language which reads as follows: “ASSIGNABILITY; PERSONS BOUND: Buyer may not assign this Contract without Seller’s written consent.” According to Petitioner, the word “not” was struckthrough in the following manner, to wit: not. Amy Garmon, Florida Housing’s multi-family programs manager, scored the site control element of all 82 applications filed in response to the RFA. Ms. Garmon has scored site control applications for nine to ten years, and is very familiar with the Florida Association of Realtors’ form contract, having scored hundreds of contracts submitted on that form. Ms. Garmon reviewed paragraph 12 of the vacant land contract submitted by Petitioner and concluded that the language set forth therein does not allow for an assignment of the contract without written consent from the seller. Ms. Garmon reached her conclusion because in her opinion, the strikethrough of the word “not” in paragraph 12, although the word itself appears somewhat darker and not as clear as some of the other words in the paragraph, is not sufficiently obvious so as to alert a reader to the presence of the strikethrough. Upon review of paragraph 12, the undersigned agrees with Ms. Garmon, and concludes that the strikethrough of the word “not” is not sufficiently observable so as to alert a reviewer to the presence of the strikethrough. Given the findings in paragraph 31, the provision of the vacant land contract which provides that “[h]andwritten or typewritten terms inserted in or attached to th[e] contract prevail over preprinted terms” is not triggered because the purported strikethrough of the word “not” in paragraph 12 of the contract, given its ambiguity, does not rise to the level of constituting a “handwritten or typewritten” modification of a preprinted contractual term. Additionally, the finding in paragraph 31 also means that Petitioner, in order to demonstrate site control, must prove that the seller gave written consent to DPKY Development Company’s assignment of its interest in the vacant land contract to Petitioner. Petitioner also submitted with its application an assignment and assumption agreement which relates to paragraph 12 of the vacant land contract. The assignment and assumption agreement provides that DPKY Development Company, LLC, is assigning to Petitioner its interest in the vacant land contract it has with William T. Taylor. The vacant land contract provides that “William T. Taylor, in his capacity as trustee of the Hidden Creek Land Trust Agreement dated January 15, 2004,” is the “seller” of the land and “DPKY Development Company, LLC, or assigns” is the “buyer” of land. While the assignment and assumption agreement lists the name of the seller, it does not include a signature line for the seller or any other acknowledgement by the seller expressing consent to the assignment. Petitioner does not dispute that the assignment and assumption agreement is deficient in this regard. Turning to the vacant land contract, Petitioner contends that the first page of the vacant land contract identifies the buyer as “DPKY Development Company, LLC, or assigns,” and because the seller initialed the bottom of the first page of the vacant land contract this means that Respondent should have reasonably known that the presence of seller’s initials means that the seller is consenting to the assignment of DPKY Development Company’s interest in the property. The portion of page one of the vacant land contract initialed by the seller provides that “Buyer ( ) and Seller ( ) acknowledge receipt of a copy of this page, which is page 1 of 7.” Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the introductory provision of the vacant land contract that identifies the “buyer” as “DPKY Development Company, LLC, or assigns,” cannot be read in isolation when there is another provision in the contract which specifically addresses the issue of assignability, to wit: “[b]uyer may not assign th[e] contract without [s]ellers written approval.” The introductory provision of the vacant land contract relied upon by Petitioner may have conveyed a stronger expression of the seller’s purported intent to consent to an assignment if Petitioner removed from paragraph 12 of the vacant land contract any reference to assignability. Because Petitioner failed to do so, the fact that the seller acknowledged that it received a copy of the page of the contract identifying the buyer as “DPKY Development Company, LLC, or assigns” is not sufficient, in itself, to establish that the seller consented to DPKY Development Company’s assignment of its interest in the contract to Petitioner.2/ Ms. Garmon, after determining that the required consent of the seller to the assignment was not included in the original copy of Petitioner’s application, reviewed each of the other copies of Petitioner’s application in Respondent’s possession. Ms. Garmon’s review of the other copies of Petitioner’s application confirmed that the seller’s written consent to assignment was not a part of Petitioner’s application. The evidence supports the conclusions reached by Ms. Garmon and Florida Housing.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner’s protest be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's intended decision to award low-income housing tax credits to Wisdom Village Crossing, LP (Wisdom Village), and Oakland Preserve, LLC (Oakland Preserve), is contrary to governing statutes, Respondent's rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Overview Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted by Congress in 1986 to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Tax credits are competitively awarded to developers in Florida for qualified rental housing projects. These are tax credits and not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15 percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150. However, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. Developers that are awarded tax credits can use them directly. However, most developers sell the tax credits to raise equity capital for their projects. Developers sell these credits for up-front cash. A developer typically sets up a limited partnership or limited liability company to own the apartment complex. The developer maintains a small interest, but is responsible for building the project and managing (or arranging for the management of) the project. The investors have the largest ownership interest, but are typically passive investors with regard to development and management. Provided the property maintains compliance with the program requirements, investors receive a dollar-for-dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over a period of ten years. The amount of the annual credit is based on the amount invested in affordable housing. Because the tax credits can be used for ten years by the investors that provide the equity, they are very valuable. When sold to the investors, they provide equity which reduces the debt associated with the project. With lower debt, the affordable housing tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rent. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply. The Competitive Application Process Florida Housing is authorized by law to allocate tax credits and other funding by means of requests for proposal or other forms of competitive solicitation. Pursuant to that authority, Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the tax credit program. Chapter 67-60 was newly enacted on August 20, 2013, replacing prior procedures used by Florida Housing for allocating tax credits. The bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3) are adopted as part of the process for allocating tax credits, except that no bond is required. See Fla. Admin Code R. 67-60.009. Tax credits are made available annually. Florida Housing begins the competitive application process through the issuance of Requests for Applications.4/ The RFA that started the competitive application process being considered here was issued September 19, 2013, with responses/applications due November 12, 2013. According to the RFA, Florida Housing expected to award up to approximately $10,052,825 in tax credits for qualified affordable housing projects in Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Knowing that there would be far more applications than available credits, Florida Housing established an order for funding in the three counties: The Applications will be considered for funding in the following funding order: first the highest scoring eligible Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Broward County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible Application located in Palm Beach County that can meet the Funding Test, then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Miami-Dade County that can meet the Funding Test and then the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in Broward County regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund this last Broward County Application, the Application will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. No further Applications will be considered for funding and any remaining funding will be distributed as approved by the Board. Applications were scored using a 27-point scale based on criteria in the RFA, as set out in the RFA: The highest scoring Applications will be determined by first sorting all eligible Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated first by the Application's eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.c.(1)(a) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application's eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.9.e. of the RFA, (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), then by the Application's Leveraging Classification (applying the multipliers outlined in Exhibit C below and having the Classification of A be the top priority, then by the Application's eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Preference which is outlined in Exhibit C below (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference), and then by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The way this process works in reality is that the developers know that they must first submit an application that meets all the eligibility criteria and does not have any significant omissions or errors.5/ Developers also strive to submit projects structured to receive the maximum of 27 points, with 22 points available for the proposed development's proximity to transit and community services. The tiebreakers are determined strictly by the luck of the draw. At the time each application is filed, it is randomly assigned a lottery number used to break the ties. The role of the lottery numbers is demonstrated by the following facts: 119 applications were filed in response to the RFA; all but six received the maximum score of 27 points. Seventy of the 119 applications were deemed eligible. Of those 70, 69 received the maximum score of 27 points. As such, the lottery numbers are a big factor in deciding the winners and, concomitantly, the challengers here are applicants with lottery numbers outside the funding range that are trying to displace those with lower lottery numbers. All applicant-parties in this case were deemed eligible and received the maximum 27 points as a result of Florida Housing's initial review and scoring. Therefore, the two Broward projects selected for funding were Oakland Preserve and Wisdom Village, based on their lower lottery numbers of 12 and 20, respectively. Heritage drew lottery number 26 and HTG drew lottery number 48. Florida Housing's rules provide that the selection of applicants for funding does not end the competition. Instead, Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072 provides in part: Credit underwriting is a de novo review of all information supplied, received or discovered during or after any competitive solicitation scoring and funding preference process, prior to the closing on funding, including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for Housing Credits. The success of an Applicant in being selected for funding is not an indication that the Applicant will receive a positive recommendation from the Credit Underwriter or that the Development team's experience, past performance or financial capacity is satisfactory. An applicant might fail in this de novo review in the credit underwriting phase and never receive funding, even though it was "awarded" tax-credit funding as a result of a proceeding such as this one. In that event, the RFA provides: Funding that becomes available after the Board takes action on the Committee's recommendation(s), due to an Applicant declining its invitation to enter credit underwriting or the Applicant's inability to satisfy a requirement outlined in this RFA, and/or Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., will be distributed to the highest scoring eligible unfunded Application located in the same county as the Development that returned the funding regardless of the Funding Test. If there is not enough funding available to fully fund the Application, it will be entitled to receive a Binding Commitment for the unfunded balance. Therefore, if one or more applicants nominally "awarded" funding in the eligibility and scoring phase fail credit underwriting, the next applicant(s) in the queue of eligible applicants may still be granted funding. As such, these applicants are substantially affected by the order established for the queue before credit underwriting, just as they may be substantially affected by decisions resulting from the de novo credit underwriting review. In this consolidated proceeding, the objective of the applicants not selected for funding was to displace any and all applicants in more favorable positions. Thus, Petitioner Heritage sought to challenge the scoring of both the Oakland Preserve and Wisdom Village applications; and Petitioner HTG sought to challenge the scoring of the Oakland Preserve, Wisdom Village, and Heritage applications. The specific issues raised as to the three challenged applications will be discussed in turn below. OAKLAND PRESERVE HTG and Heritage sought to prove that the scoring of Oakland Preserve's application was erroneous in only one respect: they contend that Oakland Preserve was not entitled to any points for the proximity of its proposed development to a "medical facility" because the location used by Oakland Preserve does not meet the RFA's definition of "medical facility." Without those proximity points, Oakland Preserve's application would have fallen below the threshold number of proximity points needed to be deemed eligible for funding. The RFA defined "medical facility" as follows: For purposes of proximity points, a Medical Facility means a medically licensed facility that (i) employs or has under contractual obligation at least one physician licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, F.S. available to treat patients by walk-in or by appointment; and (ii) provides general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person. Facilities that specialize in treating specific classes of medical conditions or specific classes of patients, including emergency rooms affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals and clinics affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals, will not be accepted.[6/] To qualify for these proximity points, Oakland Preserve's application included the required surveyor certification form (provided as part of the RFA) attesting to the proximity of the development site (measured from Oakland Preserve's DLP) to Dr. Edie Durand’s medical office practice. Florida Housing accepted the information and awarded Oakland Preserve points for the proximity of its development to Dr. Durand's office. Florida Housing conducted no independent investigation into whether Dr. Durand's office practice qualified as a "medical facility" within the meaning of the RFA. That is hardly surprising given the fact that Florida Housing personnel were also reviewing 118 other applications in addition to carrying out their other duties unrelated to the RFA. HTG and Heritage contend that Dr. Durand's office practice does not meet the definition of "medical facility," because Dr. Durand restricts her practice to treating only adults and geriatric patients, and does not treat persons under age 18. Neither HTG nor Heritage raised any other issue in their formal written protests regarding whether Dr. Durand's office practice qualifies as a "medical facility."7/ It is undisputed that Dr. Durand qualifies as a matter of credentials to satisfy the professional provider requirement imposed by the medical facility definition, in that she is a physician licensed to practice osteopathic medicine, pursuant to chapter 459, Florida Statutes. It is also undisputed that, if Dr. Durand's medical office practice otherwise qualifies as a "medical facility," it would meet the RFA's temporal requirement that the service must be in existence and available for use by the general public as of the application filing deadline. Dr. Durand's medical office practice has been open and operational since 2003. To prove that Dr. Durand does not treat "any person," but rather, restricts her practice to only adults and geriatric patients, Petitioners offered the testimony of a private investigator retained by Heritage for the purpose of developing proof that Dr. Durand does not treat patients under age 18. However, the investigator's report offered nothing but hearsay evidence, including the investigator's recounting of what he contends was said during brief discussions with Dr. Durand's receptionist/medical assistant and with Dr. Durand at her office. The private investigator set out to prove a certain point, consistent with his client's objective. Accordingly, his report focused on indicators suggesting that Dr. Durand markets to adults and geriatric patients, and her marketing highlights certain specialty treatments that might be popular with these age groups, such as anti-aging treatment. Dr. Durand has business cards that focus on these areas. On the other hand, the front of Dr. Durand's office has a large sign with her name printed on the top line, below which are the words "Family Medicine." Dr. Durand's office also has a large sign painted on the side of the building to advertise her medical office practice, indicating in bullet points the type of treatment she offers there. The very first bullet point is "Family Medicine." The investigator ignored these indicators that ran contrary to his objective. The investigator discussed certain information in brochures used by Dr. Durand, but did not mention that these brochures highlight a picture of Dr. Durand in a white physician's coat, on which her name and "Family Medicine" are prominently embroidered. The investigator also did not mention that the brochures display a picture of the front of Dr. Durand's office, with a large sign across the front of the building identifying the office for "Dr. Edie Durand, D.O." (on the top line), "Family Medicine" (immediately below her name). The picture of Dr. Durand in her embroidered "Family Medicine" physician's coat is also portrayed on the home page of Dr. Durand's website. The home page also advertises "Family Doctor," with a picture of a doctor examining a young girl. HTG also sought to collect evidence that Dr. Durand does not treat minors, but like the investigator's report, HTG came up with only hearsay evidence. Matthew Rieger, president and CEO of Housing Trust Group, testified that "we" (i.e., someone from his company) sent an email inquiry to Dr. Durand. The subject reference of this email was: "Children." The body of the email asked Dr. Durand whether she provided general medical treatment to physically sick or injured children (parroting part of the RFA definition, except that the word "person" was changed to "children"). Dr. Durand responded negatively to the question (at 9:30 p.m.), stating that she specializes in adults and geriatrics, and "only treat[s] 18 year old and up." In her deposition testimony, Dr. Durand acknowledged that she sent this email, but explained that at that late hour when she was trying to read and respond quickly to many email inquiries, she understood this inquiry on the subject of "children" to be asking whether she was a pediatrician who only treated children.8/ Dr. Durand testified that she is available to provide general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person, and does so, at her office location. Although there is some conflicting evidence, the greater weight of the non-hearsay evidence establishes that Dr. Durand does, in fact, offer general medical treatment to persons under the age of 18; she does not restrict her practice to only patients who are 18 or older. While Dr. Durand acknowledged that she treats many more adults and geriatric patients than minors, Dr. Durand remains available to treat minors, and does in fact treat small numbers of patients under the age of 18. Significantly, Dr. Durand has never turned away a child who was brought to her office for treatment, nor has she ever declined to make an appointment to treat a child upon request of someone calling the office for such an appointment. No evidence to the contrary was offered; Dr. Durand's unrebutted testimony is accepted.9/ Dr. Durand explained that one reason she does not treat greater numbers of patients under the age of 18 is that parents tend to steer those patients to pediatricians instead of family practitioners. Dr. Durand testified that the pediatrician who trained her in pediatrics when she was a resident at Broward General Hospital has his well-established office practice across the street from Dr. Durand's office. Dr. Durand does not actively compete for this patient population, except to the extent that she advertises her specialty in family medicine. Dr. Durand is well-qualified to treat patients of all ages, having done her residency in family practice at Broward General Hospital, and thereafter attaining board certification in osteopathic family medicine, which she maintains through many hours of continuing medical education in family medicine. Indeed, as plainly as on the signs on both the front and the side of Dr. Durand's office building, Dr. Durand's dossier collected by the private investigator is replete with references to Dr. Durand's specialty in family practice and family medicine. The investigator's singular objective kept him from asking about Dr. Durand's family medicine practice. HTG and Heritage failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Durand's medical office location does not qualify as a "medical facility" as defined in the RFA. WISDOM VILLAGE Challenge to Public School Proximity Points HTG and Heritage also joined in challenging the award of proximity points to Wisdom Village for its location near a public school, Northside Elementary School. Petitioners' argument is that the surveyor certification measured the distance from the "wrong" door instead of from the “right” door at Northside. Taking a pass/fail approach, neither HTG nor Heritage address whether the distance discrepancy between the so-called "wrong" and "right" doors is significant or material. Pursuant to the RFA, in expressing the location of community services, such as a public school, the surveyor certification form must identify the latitude and longitude coordinates that "represent a point that is on the doorway threshold of an exterior entrance that provides direct public access to the building where the service is located." There are two doors on the front of the Northside Elementary School building facing Northeast 11th Street, one on the east (east door) and the other to the west (west door). Wisdom Village's surveyor certification form identified the latitude and longitude coordinates of a point on the doorway threshold of the west door. The east door is less prominent than the west door chosen by Wisdom Village. The name of the school is engraved in large letters above the west door. Next to the walkway from the sidewalk to the west door, there is a large marquee sign for school announcements. When photos in evidence were taken, the sign reported an upcoming early release day and the dates when the school would close for spring break. In contrast, the school name does not appear above the east door, nor is there a marquee sign next to the walkway leading to that door. Physically, both doors provide direct access to the school building, in that they open to inner hallways in the main school building where classes are held. As a matter of function and usage, both doors provide restricted access to the school building. There is an outer fence around the entire school building, with gates to the walkways to both east and west doors. Both gates are opened in the mornings before school, and both gates are closed and locked in the evenings when the custodial staff leaves campus. As of the beginning of the current school year on August 20, 2013, the school district adopted a security restriction, requiring all Broward County public schools to designate a single exterior door as the door to which visitors to the school must enter. Visitors are not allowed free access to the school building. Instead, guards at the door direct the visitors to the office where they must sign in and explain the reason for their visit. Parents are not allowed to enter the school building to walk their children to classes or pick them up from their classes. Thus, in a sense, security measures dictate that there is no such thing as "direct access" to public schools by the general public. The west door used to measure proximity in the Wisdom Village application does not serve as the designated entry point for the school. Instead, as of the current school year, the east door was designated as the single entrance to the school building. The west door is used as an exit. The unrebutted evidence established that the two doorways on the front of the school building are very close together. Both doors are shown in a single picture in evidence, which also shows the street with parallel parking spaces in front of the school. Based on this picture, the distance between the two doors appears to be the length of approximately four parking spaces. Witnesses who have been to the school site estimated the distance between the two doors to be 50 feet, 100 feet, 120 feet, or 200 feet. It is reasonable to estimate the distance between the two doors as approximately 100 feet. Wisdom Village's surveyor certification form stated that the distance between the public school (measured from the west door) and the Wisdom Village development was .57 miles. Florida Housing accepted the surveyor certification and Wisdom Village received three proximity points, the number of points awarded when the proximity of this service to a development is between one-half mile and one mile. Wisdom Village would have received the same number of proximity points had it used the east door that is now designated as the entrance, instead of the west door that is now designated as an exit. Thus, even if it could be said that Wisdom Village selected the "wrong" door to measure proximity, the choice of door was immaterial to the point award, conferring no competitive advantage on Wisdom Village. Wisdom Village's doorway selection to measure proximity of its proposed development to the public school was reasonable. Physically, the west door does provide direct access to the general public to the building in which the community service is provided. The door certainly has the appearance of being the main entrance to the building, and at times in the past, the door has functioned as an entrance. The school's current designations of the functions of the east and west doors could change again. The evidence at the hearing, not considered by Florida Housing, confirmed the correctness of Florida Housing's award of three proximity points to Wisdom Village for the proximity of its development to Northside Elementary School, either because the choice of the west door was appropriate to comply with the RFA, or because the choice of the west door instead of the east door was, at worst, a waivable minor irregularity. Challenge to sufficiency of site control documentation HTG, but not Heritage, challenged the sufficiency of Wisdom Village's demonstration of site control. To demonstrate site control, the RFA requires at Section Four A.7. that an applicant must provide a copy of an eligible contract, deed, or lease. The RFA specifications for the first option, an eligible contract, are as follows: Eligible Contract - For purposes of the RFA, an eligible contract is one that has a term that does not expire before a date that is six (6) months after the Application Deadline or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than six (6) months after the Application Deadline; specifically states that the buyer's remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; and the buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an assignment of the eligible contract which assigns all of the buyer's rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant, is provided. If the owner of the subject property is not a party to the eligible contract, all documents evidencing intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or conveyances of any kind between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must be provided. . . . Wisdom Village's application included the following documents as evidence of site control: a contract for the sale and purchase of the development site; an addendum to that contract; a second addendum to that contract; and an assignment of the contract from the original named buyer to the entity that was the applicant. HTG contends that the contract does not qualify as an "eligible contract" because it was not properly executed on behalf of a seller with an ownership interest in the property. The property in question was owned at one time by Benjamin and Jean Bollinger, as joint tenants. Benjamin and Jean Bollinger were husband and wife. In 1992, Benjamin Bollinger died. In 2010, Jean Bollinger died. Benjamin and Jean Bollinger's two sons are James Bollinger and Bruce Bollinger. The two sons are co-personal representatives of the estates of both Benjamin Bollinger and Jean Bollinger. They are also co-trustees of the Jean Bollinger family trust. HTG does not dispute the authority of James and Bruce Bollinger to act in these representative capacities to enter into a contract to sell real property on behalf of the estates of either or both of their deceased parents, or on behalf of the trust; instead, HTG questions whether James and Bruce Bollinger properly did so. The land in question twice had been the subject of past contracts for sale to developers applying for tax credit funding for low-income rental property. Bill Schneider was the liaison in dealing with the Bollinger family. Those prior contracts were not consummated because the applications did not obtain tax- credit funding. Mr. Schneider approached James and Bruce Bollinger in preparation for the Wisdom Village application and they expressed their continued interest in selling the property. The Vacant Land Contract for sale and purchase of the property appears to be clear as to all essential terms. However, the contract is messy, and arguably somewhat ambiguous, with respect to naming the seller and having the named seller properly sign the contract in the proper capacity. On the first page, typed into the form contract in the blank for "seller" is the following: "Bruce A. Bollinger and James B. Bollinger, PR's of Benjamin A. Bollinger, deceased and Jean Rupp Bollinger." A line was then drawn through "Jean Rupp Bollinger," next to which the word "DECEASED" was handwritten and initialed by JBB and BAB. At the bottom of the first and all subsequent pages of the contract, space was provided for the "buyer" and "seller" to place their initials, to acknowledge receipt of a copy of that contract page. Each page is initialed by JBB and BAB in the spaces provided for "seller." On the signature page of the contract, Bill Schneider signed the contract as executive director of Home Start, LLC, the buyer. For the seller, Bruce A. Bollinger's signature appears above the following typed name: "Bruce A. Bollinger Personal Rep. of Benjamin A. Bollinger, Deceased"; then James B. Bollinger's signature appears above the following typed name: "James B. Bollinger Personal Rep. of Benjamin A. Bollinger, Deceased." A third "seller" signature line was provided, above the typed name "Jean Rupp Bollinger." Instead of any full signatures in the line above this typed name, an "X" was drawn through the typed name, next to which the word "DECEASED" was handwritten and initialed by JBB and BAB. The first addendum to the contract was executed at the same time of the original contract, and the manner of identifying the seller and executing on behalf of the seller was the same as in the original contract. Roughly six months later, two additional documents were executed: an assignment of the buyer's interest in the contract from Home Start, LLC, to the applicant, Wisdom Village; and a second addendum to the contract. Both documents clearly refer back to the original contract to sell and purchase the real property in question. The second addendum to the contract identifies the "seller" in the original contract as follows: This is an Addendum to that certain purchase and sale contract by and between BRUCE A. BOLLINGER AND JAMES B. BOLLINGER, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF BENJAMIN A. BOLLINGER, DECEASED AND JEAN RUPP BOLLINGER, DECEASED, "Seller" . . . . The second addendum was executed by the "seller," with two signature lines provided. On the first signature line for the seller, Bruce A. Bollinger's signature appears above the following typed name: "Bruce A. Bollinger, PR of Benjamin A. Bollinger, Deceased and Jean Rupp Bollinger, Deceased." On the second signature line for the seller, James B. Bollinger's signature appears above the following typed name: "James B. Bollinger, PR of Benjamin A. Bollinger, Deceased and Jean Rupp Bollinger, Deceased." Similarly, the assignment document was "accepted by seller," with the signatures of Bruce and James appearing above the same typed names as in the second addendum. HTG contends that the failure to properly or clearly identify the seller and to sign in the proper representative capacity on behalf of the estate of Jean Rupp Bollinger, instead of or in addition to the estate of Benjamin Bollinger, is fatal to the original contract, and that the clarifying descriptions in the subsequent documents could not cure the fatal flaw in the original contract. Florida Housing, however, considered the documents as a whole, and as such, found that they were sufficiently clear to identify the seller and the capacity in which the documents were executed. James Bollinger testified at the final hearing to confirm that he was the one who drew the lines through his mother's name on the original contract and wrote DECEASED, and that he thought the manner in which he did so, initialed by his brother and himself, was sufficient to express that he and his brother were acting as sellers of the property in their capacity as the personal representatives on behalf of both of their deceased parents. To the extent that was not entirely clear, he testified that they tried to make it clearer in the second addendum and assignment documents. The contract to sell and purchase the Wisdom Village development site has been partially executed, in that two nonrefundable payments totaling $50,000 were made by the buyer to, and accepted by, James and Bruce Bollinger, as personal representatives on behalf of their deceased parents. It is unnecessary, and beyond the scope of the undersigned's jurisdiction, to make a determination as to how the title to the real property in question was held at the time of the original vacant land contract filed with the Wisdom Village application. HTG suggests that the property in question was owned outright by Jean Bollinger's estate, having passed to her upon Benjamin Bollinger's death as an incident of joint tenancy. HTG also raised the possibility that the property was owned by the trust, but the evidence was to the contrary. For purposes of this proceeding, it is sufficient to observe that James and Bruce Bollinger, as the co-personal representatives of both parents' estates (and as co-trustees of the family trust), were the two persons who were authorized to act on behalf of either or both parents' estates, and that they did so, in entering into and accepting part of the benefits of a contract to sell the property on behalf of either or both of their deceased parents. A preponderance of the evidence does not support HTG's position that the original contract was fatally flawed. Instead, the document itself provided written evidence of the identity of the "seller" and the execution by the two Bollinger sons in their representative capacities on behalf of their deceased parents. Moreover, parol evidence clarifies any arguable ambiguity, as does clarification in the subsequent documents that specifically refer back to the original contract. HTG also argues that Florida Housing’s acceptance of Wisdom Village’s site control documents is inconsistent with its rejection of other applicants’ site control documentation where the buyer was not the same entity as the applicant. HTG offered no documentation to prove that the circumstances were similar; the description of these other instances does not sound similar, in that apparently those other applications did not meet the requirement in the RFA’s “eligible contract” definition that “the buyer MUST be the Applicant”--the only part of the definition that screams its importance in all caps. Challenge to financing proposal documentation HTG contends that Wisdom Village's financing proposal documentation should have been rejected, because the applicant only "acknowledged" and did not "accept" the financing terms. The RFA in Section Four A.9.d.(1) addresses the requirements for financing proposal documentation, providing in pertinent part: Financing proposal documentation, regardless of whether the documentation is in the form of a commitment, proposal, term sheet, or letter of intent, must meet the following criteria. . . . (a) Each financing proposal shall contain: * * * (iv) Signature of all parties, including acceptance by the Applicant. (emphasis added). Wisdom Village submitted a letter from JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (Chase) as part of its financing proposal documentation. HTG contends that the following portion of the Chase letter, appearing below the signature on behalf of Chase, does not satisfy the RFA requirement for acceptance by the applicant: Borrower's "acceptance" of this preliminary outline of terms to satisfy the requirements of Florida Housing Finance Corporation shall not create a binding or enforceable agreement between Borrower and JPMorgan Chase. For the purpose of satisfying the requirements of Florida Housing Finance Corporation, the proposed Borrower has countersigned this preliminary outline of terms to evidence acceptance thereof, this 21st day of October , 2013. Acknowledged By Wisdom Village Crossing, LP By: Wisdom Village Crossing, LLC, General Partner By: Turnstone Development Corporation, Member/Manager _/S/ William Schneider, Executive Director HTG contends that the above language shows that Wisdom Village only "acknowledged" the financing terms in the Chase letter, and did not accept them. However, the language in the document is clear that the signature on behalf of Wisdom Village stands to "evidence acceptance thereof." Mr. Schneider testified that he signed the letter, and he hand-wrote the day and month on which he signed the letter "to evidence acceptance" of the terms on behalf of Wisdom Village. The additional typed words "Acknowledged by" appearing below the language specifying that the borrower's signature stands to evidence acceptance of the financing terms does not change or in any way undermine that acceptance language. Florida Housing reasonably accepted Wisdom Village's financing proposal documentation as meeting the RFA's requirement that the applicant accept the outlined financing terms. HERITAGE Although Heritage was not selected for funding, its application has a priority position over HTG's application. Both applicants will remain in line, even if the Florida Housing initial decision is confirmed, because the applicants selected for funding might fall out during the credit underwriting process. Thus, with the hope of improving its position in line, HTG challenged several aspects of the Heritage application. Challenge to DLP as outside development site HTG sought to prove that Heritage's DLP, identified in its surveyor certification form and used to measure proximity from the development site to various services, is not within the boundaries of the Heritage development site according to the legal description attached to the contract to purchase the site submitted in Heritage's application. The RFA explicitly requires that the DLP selected by the applicant must be on the development site. The instructions for identifying the DLP in the surveyor certification form require the surveyor to provide coordinates for the applicant's DLP, expressed in degrees, minutes, and seconds. The degrees and minutes must be expressed in whole numbers, and the seconds must be "truncated" after one decimal place. The word "truncated" is not defined in the RFA. John Pulice, the expert surveyor witness for Heritage, testified that "truncated" is not a term of art in the field of surveying. Donna West, HTG's expert surveyor, equivocated on this point; she testified first that the term has a specific connotation in her field. However, she later testified that it is not a term normally used in the surveying field. The evidence was not persuasive that "truncated" is a term of art with a particular meaning in the field of surveying. Ms. West testified that she understood the "truncated" instruction to mean that only the first digit to the right of the decimal point should be put on the form, and any additional digits to the right of that one digit were to be dropped. Both experts agreed that expressing latitude and longitude coordinates to one-tenth of a second does not define a specific point on the ground; instead, a range of possible points is defined, within an area measuring roughly ten feet by nine feet. Ms. West applied her interpretation of the "truncated" instruction to locate the DLP identified by the coordinates in Heritage's surveyor certification form. She then compared that "point," or area, to the legal description for the development site submitted by Heritage in its application. The result was that she identified an area of roughly ten feet by nine feet that was entirely outside of the Heritage development site. The closest points to the Heritage development site were approximately eight-tenths of one foot--less than ten inches-- outside the development site boundaries. However, the Heritage surveyors who located the DLP and completed the surveyor certification form did not apply the same interpretation of "truncated" used by Ms. West. The unrebutted testimony by Mr. Pulice was that the actual point selected as the DLP was the southwest corner of the development site. The full coordinates for that point are: latitude 26 degrees, 14 minutes, 06.66 seconds north; longitude 80 degrees, 7 minutes, 28.100 seconds west. The DLP coordinates in Heritage's surveyor certification form were: latitude 26 degrees, 14 minutes, 06.7 seconds north; longitude 80 degrees, 07 minutes, and 28.1 seconds west. As Mr. Pulice explained, the DLP coordinates in Heritage's surveyor certification form "truncated" the seconds after one decimal place by shortening the number of digits to the right of the decimal place to one digit rounded to the nearest value, instead of just lopping off the additional digits. The truncated presentation affected the latitude only, for which the seconds were expressed as 06.7 seconds instead of the actual 06.66 seconds. If Heritage's surveyors had interpreted "truncated" the way Ms. West did, the truncated latitude seconds would have been expressed as 06.6 instead of 06.7. By shortening the actual seconds to the required number of digits and rounding the last digit, Heritage's surveyor certification form showed a more accurate number: 06.7 is closer than 06.6 to expressing the actual latitude seconds of 06.66. Mr. Pulice testified that in deciding to shorten the seconds by rounding the first decimal place to the nearest digit, he considered the fact that a surveyor always tries to present information in the most accurate manner possible. Ms. West agreed that surveyors try to present information found in the field in the most accurate way possible. Mr. Pulice also considered an instruction on the surveyor certification form requiring that "horizontal positions shall be collected to meet sub-meter accuracy[.]" He viewed the "sub-meter accuracy" instruction as inconsistent with an interpretation of "truncated" that would result in seconds being shortened by just lopping off the extra digits instead of by rounding. The ordinary meanings of the word "truncated" found in regular dictionaries often favor Ms. West's interpretation; however, there is room for interpretation among the common dictionary definitions of "truncated." For example, one dictionary defines "truncated" as "made briefer or shorter, usually by removing a part." See American English Dictionary – Cambridge Dictionaries Online, http://www.dictionary.cambridge. org/dictionary/American-english/truncated. A similar definition of "truncated" is provided by the online MacMillan Dictionary: "made shorter, especially by having the end or top removed." See MacMillan Dictionary at http://www.macmillandictionary.com/ dictionary/american/truncated. Thus, "truncated" always means "made shorter." While "usually" one would truncate a number by simply lopping off the extra digits, truncated can sometimes mean "made shorter" by means other than simply removing the extra digits. In this particular context, a reasonable interpretation of "truncated" is that seconds should be truncated by shortening the number after one decimal place and rounding the last digit up or down, instead of just by lopping off the extra digits. This would provide the shorter number required by the surveyor certification form, while also improving the accuracy of the shortened coordinates expressed in the form. Given the undisputed evidence regarding the actual location of the DLP before truncation of the coordinates, HTG failed to prove that Heritage's DLP was not within the development site according to the legal description provided in the Heritage application. At most, HTG proved that the surveyor certification form identified an area as the DLP that would not be within the development site based on how Ms. West would have truncated the coordinates, which was not how Heritage's surveyors truncated the coordinates. Ms. West identified an area outside of the development site by assuming that the range of possibilities for the actual seconds in the latitude coordinates spanned from 06.70 seconds to 06.79 seconds. That was shown not to be an accurate assumption, because the actual seconds in the latitude coordinates were 06.66. In the absence of a clear meaning of "truncated" imposed by statute, rule, or RFA specifications that requires shortening by just lopping off extra digits instead of shortening by rounding, the interpretation used for Heritage's surveyor certification form was reasonable. The evidence offered at hearing, which was not considered by Florida Housing, confirmed the correctness of Florida Housing's initial decision to accept the DLP in Heritage's survey certification form, in that the DLP identified in that form in fact corresponds to a point within the boundaries of the legal description of the development site in Heritage's application, and the coordinates of that DLP were expressed in the certification form in a manner that was reasonable and consistent with the RFA requirements. Challenged proximity points for public bus transfer stop HTG also challenges the award of proximity points to Heritage for proximity to a public bus transfer stop, because the surveyor certification form contained an error in stating the distance between the bus station and the DLP. HTG did not dispute the appropriateness of the public bus transfer stop used by Heritage, nor did HTG dispute the accuracy of the coordinates provided for the bus stop's location. However, in stating the distance between the bus stop and the DLP, the surveyor made an error: the surveyor certification form stated that the distance was 0.04 miles, when, in fact, evidence at hearing established that the distance is actually .15 miles. Under the RFA, an applicant is entitled to six proximity points if its development is less than a quarter-mile (.25 miles) to a public bus transfer stop. A distance of .04 miles would yield six proximity points; a distance of .15 miles would also yield six proximity points. Thus, although there was a plain error in Heritage's surveyor certification form, just as plainly, that error is insignificant and immaterial. Whether the distance was as stated in the surveyor certification form or as corrected by the evidence at hearing, Heritage would have received the same number of proximity points. The slight error conferred no competitive advantage on Heritage; its application received no more points than it was entitled to by reason of the mistake. The evidence at hearing, not considered by Florida Housing, confirms the correctness of Florida Housing's proximity point award to Heritage with respect to the public bus transfer stop. The slight error in the surveyor certification form is a waivable minor irregularity. Challenge to site control documentation HTG challenged the sufficiency of Heritage's site control documentation, contending that the contract to purchase the development site submitted by Heritage contains an impermissible condition on the exercise of options to extend the contract's term. HTG argues that the contract does not meet the RFA's definition of "eligible contract" (quoted above in paragraph 51), which requires that the extension options must be "exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies[.]" The contract at issue established a closing date of March 21, 2014, but allowed the purchaser to extend the closing date by up to two 30-day extensions, by providing prior written notice of the purchaser's election to extend the closing date and payment of extension fees to an escrow agent by wire transfer, in the amount of $25,000 per 30-day extension. HTG argues that the provision specifying that the purchaser will give written notice that it is exercising the extension option, in addition to the requirement to send payment to an escrow agent by wire transfer, is an impermissible additional condition in violation of the RFA. Although the contract provides for the purchaser to give written notice that it is exercising the extension option, HTG did not prove that the extension option is "conditioned" on the notice in the sense that the failure to give timely or proper notice would defeat an extension option if the extension fee were timely and properly paid. Instead, the notice to the seller that the purchaser is exercising the extension option appears to mean nothing more than that the extension options are "exercisable by the purchaser." The notice serves the pragmatic function of informing the seller that the purchaser is exercising the extension option, in that payment of the extension fee itself must be by wire transfer to an escrow agent. In the past, before wire transfers became customary, these two parts would have been collapsed into a single step: a transmittal letter mailed by purchaser to seller explaining what the enclosed check is for. Florida Housing reviewed the extension option terms in Heritage's contract, and reasonably determined that the contract met the requirements in the RFA. Challenge to misnamed general partner HTG's final challenge is based on a typographical error in the Department of State, Division of Corporations' records that misnamed Heritage's general partner as "NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC" instead of "NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC." The Heritage application identifies Heritage's general partner as "NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC." The RFA’s Certification and Acknowledgement Form was executed on behalf of Heritage by Robert G. Hoskins, as managing member of NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC, general partner of Heritage. At the time of the application, the Department of State, Division of Corporations' records for Heritage contained a typographical error, identifying the name of Heritage's general partner as NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC. At hearing, although Heritage could not explain how the typographical error found its way into the Division of Corporations' records, Heritage proved that the general partner entity is and always has been NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC. The correct entity name was verifiable and verified by evidence linking up the "document number" uniquely assigned to NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC (L13000119322), as shown on that entity's electronic articles of organization, with the same document number corresponding to the misnamed "NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC" in the "general partner detail" section of the Division of Corporations' "detail by entity name" screen for Heritage. HTG argues that Heritage's application reflects the "wrong corporate entity" as its general partner, and that because Heritage did not identify its general partner as NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC, Florida Housing should have thrown out the application. However, HTG offered no evidence to prove that there were two entities, one named NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC, and the other named NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC. No evidence was presented to prove there ever was an entity in Florida named NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC. HTG offered no evidence to refute Heritage's compelling proof that the misnamed NDG Heritage Pompany, LLC, entity in the Division of Corporations’ records was one and the same as the correctly named NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC, based on the matching document number uniquely assigned to the entity NDG Heritage Pompano, LLC. HTG attempts to make much of the facts that Heritage did not discover the typographical error before it was called to its attention in this proceeding, and that Heritage corrected the typographical error by means of an amendment to the certificate of limited partnership. Mr. Hoskins testified convincingly that when the typographical error was called to his attention, he contacted the Division of Corporations to try to find out how the error came to be and how to correct it. He was unable to determine the source of the typographical error--whether it was a mistake on his part or on the part of the Division of Corporations. Regardless of how the typographical error occurred, he followed instructions to file an amendment to the certificate of limited partnership as the only way that the Division of Corporations could correct its records. Mr. Hoskins acted reasonably to follow the instructions and correct the typographical error. That he did so does not undermine the proof that regardless of how the typographical error became imbedded in the Division of Corporations' system, the "Pompany" entity was the same entity as the restored "Pompano" entity. HTG failed to prove its contention that Heritage's application reflected the "wrong corporate entity" as its general partner. The evidence proved a typographical error in the Division of Corporations' records. If it could be said that that error somehow is considered an error in Heritage's application, then it is, at worst, a minor, inconsequential error that is surely waivable. HTG failed to prove that this typographical error was a reason to throw out Heritage's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation, enter a final order consistent with its initial decisions: (1) to award funding for the Oakland Preserve and Wisdom Village proposed developments; (2) to award the maximum 27 points to Heritage's application, maintaining that application's priority position based on its lottery number of 26, over HTG's application, with the maximum 27 points and a lottery number of 48; and (3) dismissing the formal written protests of Heritage at Pompano Housing Partners, Ltd., and HTG Broward 3, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The 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
