The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Boynton Associates, Ltd., is entitled to receive additional points for Form 5 of its application, related to local government contributions, for the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's 2001 Combined Rental Cycle and, if so, whether Petitioner qualifies for an allocation of federal low-income housing tax credits.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Boynton Associates Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, is the Applicant and owner of property know as Boynton Terrace Apartments located in Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida ("City" or "City of Boynton Beach"). To encourage the development of low-income housing for families, in 1987, Congress created the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program that is allotted to each state, including Florida Tax Credits, each year. The low-income housing credits equate to a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the holder's federal tax liability. This reduction can be taken for up to ten years if the project satisfies the Internal Revenue Code's requirements each year. Each state receives an annual allotment of housing credits, primarily on a per capita basis. For the year 2001, Florida's allotment of low-income housing credits is $23,973,567, of which $20,695,689 is available for allocation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation is the "housing credit agency" responsible for the allocation and distribution of Florida's low-income housing tax housing credits to applicants for the development and/or substantial rehabilitation of low-income housing. See Subsection 420.5099(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to state and federal mandates, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation has established a competitive application process for the award of low-income housing credits. Rule 67-48.004, Florida Administrative Code, as adopted on February 22, 2001, established the process by which the Florida Housing Finance Corporation evaluates, scores, and competitively ranks the applicants for the award of funds and the allocation of housing credits. Under the review and application process, staff of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation first conducts a preliminary review of the applications. Based on that review, a preliminary score is assigned to each application. After the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's preliminary review and scoring, all applicants may review the applications and challenge what they believe to be scoring errors made by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Any applicant alleging scoring errors must make such challenges, in writing, on a Notice of Possible Scoring Error Form (NOPSE) within ten days of the applicant's receiving the preliminary score. This form is an official form developed and provided by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation then reviews each timely filed NOPSE, adjusts scores where applicable, and issues a position paper to the affected applicants informing them of the decision relative to the NOPSE. Affected applicants are then given an opportunity to submit supplemental information, documentation, or revised documents that might address challenges made in any NOPSE. Any such submission by an applicant whose scores have been challenged is called a "Cure." The Florida Housing Finance Corporation provides a Cure Form on which the challenged applicant may submit its statement of explanation addressing the issues raised in the NOPSEs. Following the submission of a Cure by an applicant whose application has been challenged, competitors are allowed to review the supplemental or corrective information which comprises the Cure. After reviewing the Cure, competitors may point out what they perceive to be errors or deficiencies on the challenged applicant's Cure. These perceived errors or deficiencies are then submitted to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, in writing, on a form entitled, Notice of Alleged Deficiency (NOAD), that was developed and provided by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation reviews the Cure submitted by the applicant whose application has been challenged and the NOADs submitted by competing applicants. Following this review, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation assigns each application a pre-appeal score. Boynton submitted an application to Florida Housing Finance Corporation for the 2001 Combined Rental Cycle ("2001 Combined Cycle") to receive annually $559,025.14 in tax credits for the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace, a multifamily housing property. The application was submitted on February 26, 2001, the deadline for submitting applications for the 2001 Combined Cycle. Pursuant to the review and scoring procedures set forth in the 2001 Combined Cycle Application Form and Rule 67- 48.004, Florida Administrative Code, as adopted February 22, 2001, described in paragraphs 7 through 12 above, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation scored the application of Boynton. The application for the allocation of housing credits consists of several forms. However, the only form at issue in this case is Form 5, entitled "Local Government Contributions." Form 5 indicates a local government's support of the affordable housing project for which tax credits are being sought. In scoring Form 5, Florida Housing Finance Corporation awards points based on the amount of "tangible, economic benefit that results in a quantifiable cost reduction and are development specific." The maximum number of points that can be awarded on Form 5 is 20 points. To obtain the maximum number of points for Form 5, the applicant must provide evidence of a local government contribution for which the dollar amount is equal to or greater than one of the following: (1) a specified amount according to the county in which the proposed project is located, or (2) ten percent (10%) of the total development costs of the project listed in Form 4 of the application. In this case, Boynton's application indicated that the local government contribution was 10 percent of its total development costs of $5,096,789, or $509,678.90. At or near the time Boynton's application was submitted, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation determined that the application was complete and, thereafter, conducted a preliminary review of the application. Based on its preliminary review of Boynton's application, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation awarded a total of 618 points to Boynton. Of this preliminary score, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation awarded Boynton 20 points, the maximum allowed, for Form 5. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation's preliminary award of 20 points to Boynton for its Form 5 was based on local government contributions listed on the application as follows: donation of landscaping materials valued at $50,000 and donation of dumpsters during the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace valued at $19,845; (2) waiver of tipping fees at the local landfill of $25,500 and waiver of building permit fees of $61,609; and (3) $353,196 for waiver of the requirement to construct 58 parking spaces at $6,089.60 per space. Form 5 provides that a local government contribution for a waiver of parking space requirements will not be recognized except in certain circumstances. Among the circumstances in which a waiver of parking space requirements is expressly recognized as a local government contribution are rehabilitation developments located in areas targeted for neighborhood revitalization by local governments. Once this threshold requirement is established, the local government must also verify that the existing local government code would require the additional parking, and that the parking requirements are waived specifically for the subject development. As part of the information required by Form 5, Boynton provided a letter from Mr. Michael Rumph, the Director of Planning and Zoning for the City of Boynton Beach, verifying that Boynton Terrace is a rehabilitation development located in an area targeted for revitalization by the local government. Additionally, the letter stated in part the following: In support of the [Boynton Terrace Apartments] housing development, the City of Boynton Beach has accepted and processed an application for a variance to provide relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 11 Supplemental Regulations, H. 16. a.(2)., requiring a minimum parking space ratio of 2 spaces per unit, to allow a reduction of 58 spaces or a 1.3 space per unit variance. The Boynton Terrace Apartments rehabilitation development is located in an area targeted for neighborhood revitalization by the local government. As such, if parking requirements are waived for the project, such waiver or variance is recognized as a local contribution. Boynton Terrace is comprised of 84 multi-family residential units. For each unit in the development, the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations requires two parking spaces. Accordingly, based on the City's regulations, 168 parking spaces would be required for the Boynton Terrace development. Boynton applied for a variance to be able to construct fewer parking spaces than the 168 spaces, since much of the area currently occupied by existing parking would be encroached upon by the construction of the new clubhouse/community center, the new landscaping, and other amenities. The City Commission for the City of Boynton Beach, after a full hearing on Boynton's request, granted the variance, which obligated Boynton to provide 1.3 parking spaces for every multi-family residential unit at the property rather than two parking spaces for every such unit. As a result of the City Commission's decision, the Boynton Terrace development was required to have 110 parking spaces instead of the 168 spaces required by the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations. On Form 5 of its application, Boynton indicated that the City reduced the required number parking spaces from 168 to 110. Form 5 of the application also indicated that by the City's reducing the required number of parking spaces by 58 spaces, the local government contribution with regard to parking spaces was the cost of constructing 58 parking spaces at a cost of $6,089.60 per space, or $353,196.80. An attachment to the City's "contribution letter" referred to in paragraph 21, and part of Boynton's application, indicated that as a result of the City's reducing the number of parking spaces required at Boynton Terrace, the City's contribution to the Boynton Terrace development was $353,196.80. According to the aforementioned attachment, this amount represented the cost of constructing 58 parking spaces at a cost of $6,089.60 per space. After the Florida Housing Finance Corporation issued it preliminary scores, three competing applicants submitted NOPSEs, challenging Boynton's Form 5 score of 20. According to the NOPSEs, the competing applicants believed that Boynton was not entitled to be awarded points based on a local contribution of $353,196 for a waiver or variance of the number of parking spaces required for the development. According to the NOPSEs, Boynton was only receiving a cost savings from not having to construct 11 parking spaces because 157 parking spaces already existed at Boynton Terrace. Based on these challenges, the competing applicants indicated that the local government contribution for a waiver of the City's parking space requirement should be reduced from $353,196 to $66,985.60, the cost of Boynton's constructing 11 parking spaces at $6,089.60 per space. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation reviewed and considered the NOPSEs filed by competing applicants that challenged the local government contribution of $353,196 listed on Form 5 of Boynton's application. Following its review, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation reduced Boynton's preliminary score on Form 5 from 20 points to 8.79 points. This reduction in points represented a pro rata reduction based on the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's decision that the local government contribution, with regard to parking spaces, was $66,985.60 instead of $353,196, the amount stated on Form 5 of Boynton's application. As previously noted in paragraph 10, applicants whose applications have been challenged are permitted to submit a Cure in response to NOPSES filed by competing applicants. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation's Cure Form consists, in part, of a page entitled "Brief Statement of Explanation for Revision/Addition for Application 2001- ." In addition to submitting a Cure Form, pursuant to Rule 67.48.004 (11), Florida Administrative Code, as adopted February 22, 2001, Boynton was allowed to submit additional documentation, revised forms, and other information that it deemed appropriate to address the issues raised in the NOPSEs and to any score reductions imposed by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. In response to the NOPSEs filed by the competing applicants and the Florida Housing Finance Corporation's reduction in Boynton's Form 5 score, Boynton submitted an explanation on a Cure Form, which stated in relevant part the following: [T]he application involves substantial rehabilitation with new amenity areas, a clubhouse/community center and dumpsters. To meet the demands called for under the proposed renovation, many of the parking spaces are lost to provide for the rehabilitation and other features called for within the application. As such, because of these significant changes, the applicant would have had have [sic] new parking areas and the incurred costs in providing for the new parking. In cooperation and conjunction with the City, the applicant was able to obtain specific cost savings for the parking and has evidenced same within the application as called for. The applicant is saving the stated number of spaces and the costs associated with otherwise having to build them. According to the Cure submitted by Boynton, the application "involves substantial rehabilitation with new amenity areas, a clubhouse/community center and dumpsters." Boynton also stated that "to meet the demands called for under the proposed renovation, many of the parking spaces are lost to provide for the rehabilitation and other features called for within the application." While the Cure submitted by Boynton referred generally to "amenity areas" and a "clubhouse/community and dumpsters," Form 7 of Boynton's application noted the specific features that would be included in the Boynton Terrace rehabilitation project. Form 7 of the application listed several features that could be included in the rehabilitation project. From this list, applicants were to mark the boxes, indicating the particular features that would be included in their respective developments. Form 7 including the category, "Quality of Design," includes Sections A, B, and C. Each section lists features which the applicant may provide as part of the rehabilitation project. At the end of the "Quality of Design" category" is the following pre-printed language: IMPORTANT! CHECKING ITEMS IN SECTIONS A, B, AND C OF QUALITY DESIGN COMMITS THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THEM. . . . On Form 7, Section B of the "Quality of Design" category, Boynton indicated that it would provide eight of the listed features. These features included the following: an exercise room, a community center or clubhouse, a playground/tot lot, a covered picnic area, an outside recreation facility for older children, and a library. After Boynton submitted its Cure Form, competing applicants filed (NOADs) with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation pursuant to Rule 67-48.004(12), Florida Administrative Code, as adopted on February 22, 2001. One NOAD indicated that no documents were submitted by Boynton to show the number of spaces that would have to be eliminated or demolished as part of the rehabilitation or how many spaces would have to be constructed as part of the rehabilitation process. Another NOAD stated that the Cure submitted by Boynton amounted to a "de facto appeal," because the initial application did not indicate that the renovation would involve the loss of parking spaces. The NOADs relied on a 1980 as-built survey to argue that Boynton Terrace already contained a parking lot with 157 spaces. Based on its review of Boynton's Cure Form and the NOADs submitted in response thereto, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation determined that Boynton should be awarded 8.79 points for Form 5. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation believes that the 8.79 points awarded to Boynton for Form 5 are appropriate based on its determination of the local government contribution listed on and substantiated by the application and the information provided on Boynton's Cure Form. In reducing Boynton's preliminary award for Form 5 from 20 points to 8.79, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation accepted and concurred with the statements expressed in the NOPSEs. According to those statements, described in paragraph 28, Boynton should receive credit for a local contribution of $66,985, the cost of building 11 parking spaces. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation does not accept that the proposed cost of constructing each new parking space is $6,089, as noted in Boynton's application, is the actual cost. Rather, it considers the proposed cost of $6,089 to be questionable. The reason the Housing Corporation questioned the proposed cost of $6,089 to construct each new parking space was that documentation reflected that during a period of less than three months, the projected cost went from $4,017.19 per space as of December 6, 2000, to $5,821 as of February 12, 2001, and finally to $6,089 as of February 23, 2001. During the time Boynton's application was being reviewed, Mr. Christopher Bushwell, a former construction manager with the Corps of Engineers and an auditor with the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, questioned the increased cost of the construction of each parking space from $4000 to $6000. Despite Mr. Bushwell's concern about the accuracy of the projected cost of construction of each parking space, no staff member of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation called to verify the figure with the City of Boynton Beach. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation produced no evidence to support its contention that the projected or estimated cost for construction of each parking space was not accurate. Yet it persisted in its belief that Boynton "back[ed] into" the parking space estimates solely for the purpose of presenting to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation a local government contribution equal to or near $353,196, a figure that would result in Boynton's being awarded the maximum of 20 points for Form 5. The projected cost of $4,017 for construction of a parking space was included on the City's Variance Review Report dated December 6, 2000. That report analyzed Boynton's request that a variance be granted that allowed one parking space per unit, or a total of only 84 parking spaces. It is unknown who arrived at this figure or how it was derived. On January 16, 2001, the City agreed to grant Boynton a variance to reduce the number of parking space by 58, thereby reducing the number of required parking spaces from two spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit. After the variance was granted on January 16, 2001, on February 12, 2001, the City of Boynton Beach submitted a letter to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation stating that the variance had been granted reducing the required number of parking spaces from two spaces per unit to 1.3 spaces per unit. The letter stated that the cost for each parking space was $5,821, which would result in a local government contribution of $337,630. On February 23, 2001, the City of Boynton Beach submitted another letter to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation identical to the February 12, 2001, letter except that the attachment to the former letter indicated that the construction cost for each parking space was $6.089.60. This projected cost would result in the local government contribution of $353,196.80 for the reduction in required parking spaces. The estimates for the cost of constructing each parking space stated in the February 12 and February 23, 2001, letters were made by Jeffrey Kammerude and approved by the City's Engineering Department. Mr. Kammerude is a licensed contractor and the construction manager of Heritage Construction Company, the company that would be responsible for the renovation of Boynton Terrace. Mr. Kammerude changed the estimated cost of each parking space from $5,821 to $6,089 because at the time of the former estimate, it was his belief that the local building code required a 20-foot minimum driveway or aisle-way. However, after meeting with City officials, Mr. Kammerude was told that the 20-foot aisle-way that he had used in making the February 12, 2001, estimate was incorrect and that with the back-to-back parking that existed at Boynton Terrace, the aisle-way had to be 27 feet wide. The increased size of the aisle-way would require a corresponding increase in the required pavement and, thus, an increase in the cost of constructing each parking space. The reason given by Mr. Kammerude for increasing the estimated cost of each parking space was uncontroverted. Moreover, the greater weight of the evidence established that the estimated cost of $6,089 per parking space was not only reasonable, but was likely lower than the actual per space construction cost because it did not include the cost of curbing. In view of the credible testimony of Mr. Kammerude, the cost estimate of $6,089.60 for constructing a parking space at Boynton Terrace is reasonable. In February 2001, at or near the time Boynton submitted its application to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, the parking lot at Boynton Terrace was in poor condition and had many potholes and cracks in the pavement. Given the condition of the parking lot, the rehabilitation of Boynton Terrace would require repaving of at least part of the parking lot. On October 31, 2001, about eight months after Boynton submitted its application, Mr. Bushnell went to Boynton Terrace to count the parking spaces and look at the parking lot. From his cursory observation, it appeared that the parking lot had been recently resurfaced and was in "excellent shape. However, Mr. Bushnell did not conduct a comprehensive inspection of the parking lot and was unable to determine the quality of the work done on the parking lot or whether the work complied with the requirements of the applicable provisions of the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Code. The City of Boynton Beach requires a permit for the repaving and/or repair of parking lots at developments such as Boynton Terrace. However, no permit was issued for the repaving and/or repair of the parking lot at Boynton Terrace referenced in the preceding paragraph. Consequently, the City never conducted an inspection of the parking lot to determine if the parking lot repairs and/or repaving at Boynton Terrace met the applicable City Code requirements. Based on the number of parking spaces that he counted while at Boynton Terrace, Mr. Bushnell questioned the cost reduction of eliminating spaces. Moreover, because Mr. Bushnell saw concrete pads in place for dumpsters, he did not believe that parking spaces needed to be eliminated in order to place dumpsters on the property. Finally, in reaching the conclusion that there would be no reduction in parking spaces, Mr. Bushnell did not consider the number of spaces that would be eliminated as a result of the addition of any of the new amenities to the property such as the clubhouse/community center, picnic areas, and mailbox kiosks, and the landscaping required under the City Code. Boynton had a site plan prepared on or near December 2000, which showed the placement of many of the new amenities to be included as a part of the rehabilitation of the Boynton Terrace development. The site plan was used as part of Boynton's submission and presentation to the City when it was seeking a parking space variance. According to the site plan, the clubhouse/community center would consume 25 to 30 parking spaces, the landscaping of the development would consume about 15 parking spaces, and the picnic area would consume about two to four parking spaces. The Florida Housing Finance Corporation did not consider that the addition of the new amenities would reduce the number of parking spaces at the property and result in the need to construct new parking spaces unless the City of Boynton Beach granted a variance to Boynton. Boynton did not include the December 2000 site plan as part of its application or Cure submitted to the Florida Housing Corporation. Moreover, Boynton did not provide information in its application or Cure regarding how many spaces would be eliminated as a result of construction of a clubhouse community center. At hearing, Boynton presented credible evidence that the clubhouse/community center would be constructed over existing parking spaces and that without a variance from the City of Boynton Beach, it would have to construct new spaces to replace those spaces lost to construction as well as to other features related to the rehabilitation of the development. Boynton also presented credible evidence that additional parking spaces at Boynton Terrace would be eliminated due to the City's landscaping requirements, the construction of a picnic area, a tot lot, and mail box kiosks. The City's Code requires 20 feet of landscaping for each parking space. However, this information was not included in the Cure submitted by Boynton to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. The variance granted by the City of Boynton Beach amounted to a waiver of the parking space requirements applicable to the Boynton Terrace rehabilitation project which provided a tangible economic benefit that resulted in a quantifiable cost reduction that is specific to the development.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation award to Petitioner, Boynton Associates, Ltd., the maximum number of 20 points for Form 5 of the 2001 Combined Cycle, and enter a Final Order awarding Boynton Associates, Ltd., a total of 622 points for it Combined Cycle Application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Kaplan, Executive Director Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Elizabeth G. Arthur, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Jon C. Moyle, Jr., Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Kollins, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017-113 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, 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 provide and promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing has been designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. As such, Florida Housing is authorized to establish procedures to distribute low-income housing tax credits and to exercise all powers necessary to administer the allocation of these credits. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. For purposes of this administrative proceeding, Florida Housing is considered an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing administers the competitive solicitation process to award low-income housing tax credits and other funding by means of request for proposals or other competitive solicitation. Florida Housing initiates the competitive solicitation process by issuing a Request for Applications. §§ 420.507(48) and 420.5087(1), Fla. Stat.; and Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.009(4). 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. Tax credits are awarded competitively to real estate developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. Typically, developers then sell the tax credits to raise capital for their housing projects. Because tax credits allow developers to reduce the amount necessary to fund a housing project, they can (and must) offer the tax credit property at lower, more affordable rents. Developers also agree to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years. The Request for Applications at issue in this matter is RFA 2017-113, entitled “Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties.” The purpose of RFA 2017-113 is to distribute funding to create affordable housing developments in the State of Florida. Through RFA 2017-113, Florida Housing intends to provide an estimated $14,601,863.00 of housing credit financing. Florida Housing issued RFA 2017-113 on October 6, 2017. Applications were due to Florida Housing by December 28, 2017.6/ Florida Housing received 33 applications in response to RFA 2017-113. Five proposed developments, including FOUR6 Skyway7/ and Eagle Ridge, applied for funding for housing credits in Pinellas County. Upon receipt of the applications, Florida Housing assigned each applicant a lottery number. Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score each application. The Review Committee reviewed, deemed eligible or ineligible, and ranked applications pursuant to the terms of RFA 2017-113, as well as Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60, and applicable federal regulations. As further explained below, the Review Committee deemed FOUR6 Skyway’s application ineligible for consideration under RFA 2017-113. Specifically, the Review Committee determined that FOUR6 Skyway’s application failed to state its housing project’s Development Location Point in “decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal point” as expressly required by Section Four, A.5.d(1), of RFA 2017-113. Conversely, the Review Committee found that Eagle Ridge’s application satisfied all mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding and was awarded 20 out of 20 total points. Eagle Ridge was assigned a lottery number of 16. On March 16, 2018, the Review Committee presented its recommendation of preliminary rankings and allocations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors. Based on the Review Committee’s recommendations, the Board of Directors (without explanation) stated that FOUR6 Skyway did not satisfy all mandatory and eligibility requirements for funding. Consequently, although FOUR6 Skyway was assigned a lower lottery number of 2, the Board of Directors selected Eagle Ridge for funding to develop affordable housing in Pinellas County. (Only applications that met all eligibility requirements were considered for selection.) The Board of Directors approved $1,660,000.00 in housing credit funding for Eagle Ridge’s housing project. FOUR6 Skyway protests Florida Housing’s selection of Eagle Ridge instead of its own housing project. FOUR6 Skyway specifically challenges Florida Housing’s determination that its application was ineligible under the terms of RFA 2017-113. If FOUR6 Skyway successfully demonstrates that Florida Housing erred in disqualifying its application, FOUR6 Skyway, by virtue of holding the lower lottery number, will be selected for housing credit financing in Pinellas County instead of Eagle Ridge. The focus of FOUR6 Skyway’s challenge is the information it provided in response to RFA 2017-113, Section Four, A.5.d., entitled “Latitude/Longitude Coordinates.” RFA 2017-113, Section Four, A.5, entitled “Location of Proposed Development” instructs, in pertinent part: The Applicant must indicate the county where the proposed Development will be located. This RFA is only open to proposed Developments located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas counties. * * * d. Latitude/Longitude Coordinates (1) All applicants must provide a Development Location Point[8/] stated in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. In its application, FOUR6 Skyway responded to Section Four, A.5.d(1), as follows: [Latitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place.] N 27 43 34.215880 [Longitude in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place] W 82 40 47.887360 As shown above, FOUR6 Skyway stated its Development Location Point in a “degree/minute/second” format instead of the required “decimal degrees” format.9/ Because FOUR6 Skyway failed to comply with the Section A.5.d instruction to state the Development Location Point in decimal degrees, the Review Committee (and subsequently the Board of Directors) determined that FOUR6 Skyway’s application was ineligible for funding.10/ In arguing that its application was eligible under RFA 2017-113, FOUR6 Skyway contends that map coordinates written in a “degree/minute/second” format may be converted to decimal degrees by using the following mathematical equation: Degree + minute/60 + second/3600 = decimal degrees. Using this formula, the coordinates FOUR6 Skyway listed in its application can be converted into the following decimal degrees: Latitude: N 27 43 34.215880 equals 27.726171 decimal degrees Longitude: W 82 40 47.887360 equals - 82.679969 decimal degrees Florida Housing does not dispute that the latitude/longitude coordinates FOUR6 Skyway listed (in either the “degree/minute/second” or decimal degree formats) correspond to a map location that would have been eligible for funding under RFA 2017-113. Consequently, FOUR6 Skyway argues that Florida Housing could have, and should have, used this “simple” mathematical formula to obtain the decimal degrees of its Development Location Point. FOUR6 Skyway further claims that it included sufficient information on the face of its application for Florida Housing to pinpoint the exact location of its proposed housing development in Pinellas County. Not only did FOUR6 Skyway list the address of its development, but it attached to its application a Surveyor Certification Form which also identified its Development Location Point using the “degree/minute/second” format.11/ FOUR6 Skyway asserts that, in light of the fact that the term “decimal degrees” is not defined by statute, rule, or in RFA 2017-113, Florida Housing should have deemed its application eligible for funding based on the information it provided. Finally, FOUR6 Skyway contends that Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-60.002(6) and 67-60.008 authorize Florida Housing to waive “minor irregularities” in applications. FOUR6 Skyway maintains that Florida Housing should have exercised its discretion and waived FOUR6 Skyway’s failure to state its Development Location Point in decimal degrees as a “minor irregularity.” Therefore, Florida Housing should have found FOUR6 Skyway’s application eligible for funding under RFA 2017-113. In response to FOUR6 Skyway’s challenge, Florida Housing asserts that it properly acted within its legal authority to disqualify FOUR6 Skyway’s application. Florida Housing argues that FOUR6 Skyway, by stating the latitude/longitude coordinates of its Development Location Point in the (unacceptable) “degree/minute/second” format, failed to comply with the express terms of RFA 2017-113, thus rendering its application ineligible for funding. In support of its position, Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations. In her job, Ms. Button oversees the Request for Applications process. Ms. Button initially explained the procedure by which Florida Housing awarded funding under RFA 2017-113. Ms. Button conveyed that Florida Housing created a Review Committee from amongst its staff to score the applications. Florida Housing selected Review Committee participants based on the staff member’s experience, preferences, and workload. Florida Housing also assigned a backup reviewer to separately score each application. Review Committee members independently evaluated and scored discrete portions of the applications based on various mandatory and scored items. Thereafter, the scorer and backup reviewer met to reconcile their scores. If any concerns or questions arose regarding an applicant’s responses, the scorer and backup reviewer discussed them with Florida Housing’s supervisory and legal staff. The scorer then made the final determination as to each application. For RFA 2017-113, Florida Housing assigned Karla Brown, a Multifamily Programs Manager, as the lead scorer for the “proximity” portion of RFA 2017-113, which included the Section Four, A.5.d, latitude/longitude coordinates of the Development Location Point. Ms. Brown has scored proximity points for Requests for Application for approximately ten years. At the final hearing, Florida Housing offered the deposition testimony of Ms. Brown. In her deposition, Ms. Brown testified that, upon reviewing FOUR6 Skyway’s application, she immediately noticed that FOUR6 Skyway did not use decimal degrees to record the latitude/longitude coordinates of its Development Location Point. Ms. Brown explained that Florida Housing’s mapping software required applicants to list their Development Location Points in decimal degrees in order to locate the proposed housing project. The software would not allow her to plot latitude/longitude coordinates written in the “degree/minute/second” format. Consequently, she was not able to determine the location of (or award “proximity” points to) the FOUR6 Skyway development. As a direct result, Ms. Brown determined that FOUR6 Skyway’s application was ineligible for an award of funding under RFA 2017-113. Furthermore, Ms. Brown considered whether she should waive FOUR6 Skyway’s latitude/longitude coordinates as a “minor irregularity.” She determined that waiving FOUR6 Skyway’s “degree/minute/second” coordinates was not appropriate because RFA 2017-113 expressly instructed applicants to state the Development Location Point in the distinct format used by its mapping software, i.e., decimal degrees. At the final hearing, Ms. Button elaborated on Ms. Brown’s testimony maintaining that an applicant’s use of decimal degrees for its Development Location Point was critical in Florida Housing’s review of each application. Ms. Button reiterated that Florida Housing uses the application’s Development Location Point to confirm that the proposed housing project is located in the area covered by the Request For Applications. Ms. Button explained that when latitude/longitude coordinates are submitted in the wrong format, it is impossible for Florida Housing staff to plot the Development Location Point using its internal mapping software. Regarding FOUR6 Skyway’s argument that Florida Housing should have considered its “degree/minute/second” format as a “minor irregularity,” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing recognizes that developers occasionally make errors in their applications. In light of this possibility, the rules governing the competitive solicitation process authorize Florida Housing to waive “minor irregularities.” As provided in rule 67-60.008, [Florida Housing] may waive Minor Irregularities in an otherwise valid Application. Mistakes clearly evident to the Corporation on the face of the Application, such as computation and typographical errors, may be corrected by the Corporation; however, the Corporation shall have no duty or obligation to correct any such mistakes. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-60.002(6) and RFA 2017-113, Section Three, A.2.C. However, Ms. Button declared that the difference between latitude/longitude coordinates stated in “degree/minute/seconds” versus “decimal degrees” is more than just a “minor irregularity.” Converting map coordinates into decimal degrees goes beyond simply correcting a computational or typographical error. Such action requires the scorer to actually calculate the coordinate point on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Button explained that scorers are not prepared or trained on how to mathematically determine map coordinates. (In her deposition, Ms. Brown testified that she did not “even know how to begin to try to convert” a “decimal/minutes/second” coordinate to decimal degrees. She is a “scorer,” not a “surveyor.” Ms. Brown relayed that she was specifically trained to use the decimal degrees numbers, and only the decimal degrees numbers, to plot Development Location Points in the Florida Housing mapping software.) Ms. Button added that, not only would converting latitude/longitude coordinates into decimal degrees place the burden on the scorers to correctly enter an applicant’s data into the mapping software program, but, a scorer might miscalculate the plot points. This result would taint the reliability of the scoring process. Consequently, Florida Housing did not believe that it should have exercised its discretion to waive FOUR6 Skyway’s improper latitude/longitude coordinates and convert its “degree/minute/second” Development Location Point into decimal degrees. Therefore, Florida Housing fully supported Ms. Brown’s decision not to waive FOUR6 Skyway’s response to Section Four, A.5.d., as a “minor irregularity.” Finally, Ms. Button professed that transcribing latitude/longitude coordinates into decimal degrees would be contrary to competition by relieving an applicant of the minor, but real, burden of accurately plotting its project’s Development Location Point. Such a practice would allow a Florida Housing scorer to independently modify (and thus, benefit) a developer’s application, thereby enabling it to prevail over other applicants. Finally, at the formal hearing, FOUR6 Skyway presented evidence of other “minor irregularities” Florida Housing has waived in past Requests for Applications.12/ FOUR6 Skyway argues that, in light of these prior decisions, Florida Housing’s failure to waive its nonconforming latitude/longitude coordinates in this matter was arbitrary and capricious. However, FOUR6 Skyway did not offer any evidence or elicit any testimony that Florida Housing has ever waived similar coordinate formatting errors. On the contrary, Ms. Button stated that she was not aware of any other instance where Florida Housing waived an applicant’s listing of latitude/longitude coordinates in “degree/minute/seconds,” instead of decimal degrees, as a “minor irregularity.” Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing, FOUR6 Skyway did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Florida Housing’s decision finding FOUR6 Skyway’s application ineligible for funding was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Therefore, the undersigned concludes, as a matter of law, that Petitioner did not meet its burden of proving that Florida Housing’s proposed action to award housing credit funding to Eagle Ridge under RFA 2017-113 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the provisions of RFA 2017-113.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order dismissing the protest by FOUR6 Skyway. It is further recommended that Florida Housing Finance Corporation select Eagle Ridge as the recipient of housing credit funding under RFA 2017-113. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 24th day of July, 2018.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether the decision of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) to award State Apartment Incentive Loan (“SAIL”) funding to Intervenor, La Joya Estates, Ltd. (“La Joya”), pursuant to Request for Applications 2015-112 (the “RFA”) was contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Douglas Gardens is a Florida limited partnership based in Coconut Grove, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes. For the purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing various types of funding for affordable housing. One of the programs administered by Florida Housing is the SAIL program, created in section 420.5087, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing has adopted Chapter 67-60, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the competitive solicitation process for several programs, including the SAIL program. Other administrative rule chapters relevant to the selection process are chapter 67-48, F.A.C., which governs competitive affordable multifamily rental housing programs; chapter 67-21, Florida Administrative Code, which governs multifamily mortgage revenue bonds ("MMRB") and non-competitive housing credits; and chapter 67-53, Florida Administrative Code, governing compliance procedures. Applicants for funding, pursuant to the RFA, are required to comply with provisions of the RFA and the applicable rule chapters. La Joya is a Florida limited partnership based in Miami, Florida, and is also in the business of providing affordable housing. On October 9, 2015, Florida Housing issued the RFA, seeking applications from developers proposing to construct multifamily housing for families and for the elderly. The RFA outlined a process for the selection of developments to share the estimated $49 million in funding for eligible applicants. Among the stated goals of the RFA is to fund one new construction development serving the elderly in a large county, with priority given to the highest ranked eligible new construction application for the elderly that is located in Miami-Dade County. The RFA provides that if there are no eligible Miami-Dade County applications that qualify, then the highest ranking eligible new construction development serving the elderly in Broward County will be selected. A total of 23 applications were filed in response to the RFA. On November 9, 2015, Douglas Gardens timely submitted its Application, numbered 2016-177BS, seeking $5,781,900 in SAIL funding to assist in the development of a proposed new construction development for the elderly in Broward County. Douglas Gardens’ was the only “new construction” application submitted for Broward County. Also on November 9, 2015, La Joya timely filed its Application, numbered 2016-178S, seeking $5,778,100 in SAIL funding to assist in the development of a proposed new construction development for the elderly in Miami- Dade County. La Joya’s was the only application submitted for Miami-Dade County in any development category. The executive director of Florida Housing selected a review committee to review and score the applications. The review committee issued a recommendation of preliminary rankings and allocations. Florida Housing’s Board of Directors approved these recommendations on December 11, 2015. The Board of Directors found both La Joya and Douglas Gardens eligible for funding, but awarded funding to La Joya on the basis that it was the highest ranked, eligible, elderly, new construction application located in Miami-Dade County. On December 16, 2015, Douglas Gardens timely filed a notice of intent to protest. On December 28, 2015, Douglas Gardens timely submitted a Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing. The RFA awarded up to 18 “proximity points” to an applicant based on its project’s location in relation to transit and community services such as grocery stores, medical facilities, and pharmacies. The RFA required each applicant to submit a “Surveyor Certification” form, which included longitude and latitude coordinates corresponding to the location of the proposed development site and the site’s proximity to listed services that would presumably serve the proposed development. Each applicant was required to retain a Florida licensed surveyor to prepare and submit the Surveyor Certification form and to sign the form attesting, under penalty of perjury, that the information on the form is true and correct. In the bottom left hand corner of each page of the form is a blank line on which the applicant or surveyor was to indicate the RFA number for which the form was being submitted. Beneath the blank line is a parenthetical indicating the identification number of the form, e.g., (Form Rev. 07-15). Section Four A.6.a.(1) of the RFA provided the following regarding the Surveyor Certification form: In order to meet the Mandatory requirement and be eligible for proximity points, all Applicants must provide an acceptable Surveyor Certification form, (Form Rev. 07- 15), as Attachment 14 to Exhibit A, reflecting the information outlined below. The Surveyor Certification form (Form Rev. 07-15) is provided in Exhibit B of this RFA and on the Corporation’s website Note: The Applicant may include the Florida Housing Surveyor Certification form that was included in a previous RFA submission for the same proposed Development, provided (i) the form used for this RFA is labeled Form Rev. 07-15, (ii) other than the RFA reference number on the form, none of the information entered on the form and certified to by the signatory has changed in any way, and (iii) the requirements outlined in this RFA are met. The previous RFA number should be crossed through and RFA 2015-112 inserted. If the Applicant provides any prior version of the Surveyor Certification form, the form will not be considered. (Emphasis added). Section Three C.1. of the RFA provided that Florida Housing reserved the right to waive “Minor Irregularities” in the applications. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-002(6) defines “Minor Irregularity” as variation in a term or condition of an Application pursuant to this rule chapter that does not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants, and does not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-60.008 titled “Right to Waive Minor Irregularities,” provides as follows: The Corporation may waive Minor Irregularities in an otherwise valid Application. Mistakes clearly evident to the Corporation on the face of the Application, such as computation and typographical errors, may be corrected by the Corporation; however, the Corporation shall have no duty or obligation to correct any such mistake. La Joya submitted a Surveyor Certification form as Attachment 14 of its Application. The identification number in the parenthetical in the bottom left hand corner was “(Form Rev. 10-14)” rather than the specified “(Form Rev. 07-15).” Form Rev. 10-14 was the Surveyor Certification form used for 2014 applications. The only difference between Form Rev. 10-14 and Form Rev. 07-15 is that the latter contains a revised list of location coordinates for several Sun Rail stations in the Orlando area. This difference was of no matter to the RFA under discussion. For the substantive purposes of this RFA, the forms were identical. If La Joya’s Surveyor Certification form had not been considered and not scored, La Joya would have been ineligible for funding and Douglas Gardens would have been selected as the applicant meeting Florida Housing’s goal of funding one new construction development for elderly residents in a large county. Heather Boyd, multifamily loan manager for Florida Housing, sat on the review committee and was assigned to score the proximity portion of the applications. Based on the distances provided in the Surveyor Certification form, Ms. Boyd awarded La Joya a total of 11.5 proximity points as follows: 5.5 points for proximity for Public School Bus Rapid Transit Stop, 3 points for proximity to a Grocery Store, and 3 points for proximity to a Medical Facility. (La Joya also included coordinates for a Public School, but the proposed elderly development was not eligible for Public School proximity points.) To be considered eligible for funding, an applicant needed to receive at least 10.25 proximity points, including at a minimum 2 points for Transit Services. No issue was raised as to the accuracy of the information submitted by La Joya or of Ms. Boyd’s calculation. If it was permissible to consider La Joya’s Surveyor Certification form, then La Joya satisfied the proximity requirements in the RFA and was properly awarded funding. If La Joya’s Surveyor Certification form had been rejected, La Joya would not have been awarded funding and Douglas Gardens would have been awarded funding. Florida Housing’s decision to award funding to La Joya was based in part on Ms. Boyd’s scoring of the Surveyor Certification form and reflected the agency’s support of Ms. Boyd’s action. However, during the pendency of Douglas Gardens’ protest, Florida Housing changed its position and determined that La Joya’s Surveyor Certification form should not have been considered, based on the mandatory language of section Four A.6.a.(1) of the RFA. Ms. Boyd testified that she did not notice that La Joya’s Surveyor Certification form was a prior version and that she scored it as if it were the current version. She testified that she should not have scored the form “[b]ecause it specifically says in the RFA, if they do not have the correct form, they will not be considered.” Jean Salmonsen, housing development manager, acted as a backup to Ms. Boyd in reviewing the Surveyor Identification forms and verifying the award of proximity points. Ms. Salmonsen testified that she, too, missed the fact that La Joya had filed the wrong version of the form and that she would have rejected the form had she correctly recognized it. Evidence presented at the hearing indicated that in January 2016, Ms. Salmonsen had in fact disqualified an application in a different RFA for submitting the 2014 version of the Surveyor Identification form. Several valid policy reasons were cited for the RFA’s requirement that applicants use only the current version of the Surveyor Identification form. Ken Reecy, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that it is important to apply the rules and RFA criteria in a consistent manner because of the tremendous volume of applications the agency receives. Mr. Reecy stated, “For like criteria, yes, consistency. We live and die by consistency, frankly.” As to the Surveyor Certification form specifically, Mr. Reecy explained that over the years Florida Housing had used a number of different forms with different contents. Allowing applicants to submit different forms would add to the difficulty of scoring the hundreds of applications received from around the state. Uniformity and consistency as to applicant submissions allow Florida Housing to process all of these applications in a cost efficient manner. Though he expressed his concern with consistency of review and ensuring that all applicants provide the same information as reasons for rejecting La Joya’s submission of the 2014 Surveyor Certification form, Mr. Reecy conceded that one of the reasons Florida Housing moved away from the previous rigid Universal Application Cycle allocation process was to allow for flexibility in determining that insignificant scoring errors need not be the basis for disqualifying an otherwise acceptable application. Florida Housing’s recent adoption in 2013 of the “Minor Irregularity” rule is further indication of its intent to employ more flexible evaluation criteria than it has in the past. See Findings of Fact 14 and 15, supra. Mr. Reecy acknowledged that in the instant case, the substance of the 2014 and 2015 Surveyor Certification forms was identical, and that the information provided by La Joya using the 2014 form was the same information required by the 2015 form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation dismissing the Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing filed by Douglas Gardens V, Ltd., and finding that La Joya, Ltd. is eligible for funding under Request for Applications 2015-112. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: THE PARTIES Berkeley is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,500,000 in CDBG Development funding; $2,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $844,699 in non-competitive housing credits. The Berkeley Application, assigned number 2020-017D, was preliminarily deemed ineligible for consideration for funding. Brisas is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $5,000,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,674,839 in non-competitive housing credits. The Brisas Application, assigned number 2020-056D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Northside is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,300,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,588,014 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (“MMRB”). The Northside Application, assigned number 2020-024D, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Beacon Place is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $6,925,500 in CDBG Development funding; $4,320,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,764,203 in non-competitive housing credits; and $24,000,000 in MMRB. The Beacon Place Application, assigned number 2020-045DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bella Vista is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $8,000,000 in CDBG Development funding; $1,450,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $609,629 in non-competitive housing credits; and $13,000,000 in MMRB. The Bella Vista Application, assigned number 2020-038DB, was preliminarily deemed eligible but was not selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Solaris is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,420,000 in CDBG Development funding; $4,500,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; and $937,232 in non-competitive housing credits. The Solaris Application, assigned number 2020-039D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Metro Grande is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,175,000 in CDBG Development funding and $1,041,930 in non-competitive housing credits. The Metro Grande Application, assigned number 2020-041D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Sierra Bay is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $3,650,000 in CDBG Development funding; $3,300,000 in CDBG Land Acquisition funding; $1,074,173 in non-competitive housing credits; and $16,000,000 in MMRB. The Sierra Bay Application, assigned number 2020-040DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Bembridge is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $7,800,000 in CDBG Development funding; $564,122 in non-competitive housing credits; and $10,100,000 in MMRB. The Bembridge Application, assigned number 2020-046DB, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. East Pointe is an applicant in the RFA that requested an allocation of $4,680,000 in CDBG Development funding and $690,979 in non-competitive housing credits. The East Pointe Application, assigned number 2020-053D, was deemed eligible and preliminarily selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, and, for purposes of these consolidated cases, is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is tasked with distributing a portion of the CDBG-DR funding allocated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), pursuant to the State of Florida Action Plan for Disaster Recovery. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS AND RFA 2019-102 Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits and other named funding by section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process. Rule 67-60.009(1) provides that parties wishing to protest any aspect of a Florida Housing competitive solicitation must do so pursuant to section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a request for applications. Rule 67-60.009(4) provides that a request for application is considered a “request for proposal” for purposes of section 120.57(3)(f). The RFA was issued on July 30, 2019, with responses due on August 27, 2019. The RFA was modified four times and the application deadline was extended to September 24, 2019. No challenges were made to the terms and specifications of the RFA. Section Five of the RFA included a list of 48 “eligibility items” that an applicant was required to satisfy to be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection. Applications that met the eligibility standards would then be awarded points for satisfying RFA criteria, with the highest scoring applications being selected for funding. No total point items are in dispute. Proximity Point items are contested as to the Beacon Place, East Pointe, and Bembridge Applications. Applicants could select whether they would be evaluated as Priority I, II, or III applications. All of the parties to these consolidated cases identified themselves as Priority I applications. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award an estimated $76,000,000 of CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding to areas impacted by Hurricane Irma, and in areas that experienced a population influx because of migration from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands due to Hurricane Irma. Florida Housing will award up to $66,000,000 for CDBG Development funding and an additional $10,000,000 for CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Applicants were not required to request CDBG Land Acquisition Program funding. Forty-four applications were submitted in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible for funding. The Review Committee found 8 applications ineligible, including that of Berkeley. Two applications were withdrawn. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On December 13, 2019, the Board met and accepted the recommendations of the Review Committee. The Board preliminarily awarded funding to 12 applications, including those of Sierra Bay, Solaris, Metro Grande, East Pointe, and Bembridge. Petitioners Berkeley, Brisas, Northside, Beacon Place, and Bella Vista timely filed Notices of Protest and Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing. THE BERKELEY APPLICATION As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to identify an Authorized Principal Representative. According to the RFA, the Authorized Principal Representative: must be a natural person Principal of the Applicant listed on the Principal Disclosure Form; must have signature authority to bind the Applicant entity; (c) must sign the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form submitted in this Application; (d) must sign the Site Control Certification form submitted in this Application; and (e) if funded, will be the recipient of all future documentation that requires a signature. As an eligibility item, the RFA required applicants to submit an Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. As an eligibility item, the RFA also required applicants to submit a Site Control Certification form executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. In section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A of the RFA, the applicant is directed to enter the contact information of its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley entered the name, organization, and contact information for Jennie D. Lagmay as its Authorized Principal Representative, in response to section 3.e.(1). The name of Jennie D. Lagmay was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form required by the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment form and the Site Control Certification form were executed by Jonathan L. Wolf, not Jennie D. Lagmay, the designated Authorized Principal Representative. On both forms, Mr. Wolf is identified as “Manager of Berkeley Landing GP, LLC; General Partner of Berkeley Landing, Ltd.” Jonathan L. Wolf is listed on the Principal Disclosure Form. Aside from section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, Jennie D. Lagmay’s name is not found in the Berkeley Application. Florida Housing determined that the Berkeley Application was ineligible for an award of funding for three reasons: 1) the Authorized Principal Representative listed was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form; 2) the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative; and 3) the Site Control Certification was not signed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Two other applications for this RFA were found ineligible for identical reasons: Thornton Place, Application No. 2020-020D; and Berkshire Square, Application No. 2020-034D. In these, as in the Berkeley Application, Jennie D. Lagmay was named as the Authorized Principal Representative in section 3.e.(1) of Exhibit A, but Jonathan L. Wolf executed the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form and the Site Control Certification form as the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley concedes it made an error in placing the name of Ms. Lagmay in section 3.e.(1), but argues that this constituted a minor irregularity that should have been waived by Florida Housing. Berkeley contends that the entirety of its Application makes plain that Jonathan D. Wolf is in fact its Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley argues that Florida Housing should waive the minor irregularity and determine that the Berkeley Application is eligible for funding. Berkeley points out that only two members of the Review Committee, Rachel Grice and Heather Strickland, scored the portions of the Berkeley Application that led to the ineligibility recommendation. Ms. Grice determined that the Authorized Principal Representative listed in the Berkeley Application was not disclosed on the Principal Disclosure form. Ms. Strickland determined that neither the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form nor the Site Control Certification form was executed by the Authorized Principal Representative. Neither Ms. Grice nor Ms. Strickland conducted a minor irregularity analysis for the Berkeley Application. Rule 67-60.008, titled “Right to Waive Minor Irregularities,” provides as follows: Minor irregularities are those irregularities in an Application, such as computation, typographical, or other errors, that do not result in the omission of any material information; do not create any uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the competitive solicitation have been met; do not provide a competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants; and do not adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public. Minor irregularities may be waived or corrected by the Corporation. Berkeley contends that because a minor irregularity analysis was not conducted by the Review Committee members, the Board was deprived of a necessary explanation for the preliminary recommendations of Ms. Grice and Ms. Strickland. Marisa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Allocations, agreed that the Review Committee members did not perform a minor irregularity analysis but testified that none was required given the nature of the discrepancy in the Berkeley Application. Ms. Button performed a minor irregularity analysis as Florida Housing’s corporate representative in this proceeding and concluded that the error could not be waived or corrected without providing an unfair competitive advantage to Berkeley. Ms. Button testified that the fact that the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms could not be considered a minor irregularity because the application demonstrated conflicting and contradictory information, creating uncertainty as to the applicant’s intentions. She stated that Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of the application. Ms. Button stated that Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to decide what the applicant intended when the information provided in the application is contradictory. Berkeley points to the fact that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form, signed by Mr. Wolf, includes the following language: “The undersigned is authorized to bind the Applicant entity to this certification and warranty of truthfulness and completeness of the Application.” Berkeley argues that it should have been clear to Florida Housing that Mr. Wolf is the person authorized to bind the company and that the inclusion of Ms. Lagmay’s name in section 3.e.(1) was in the nature of a typographical error. Florida Housing points out that the Application Certification and Acknowledgement form also includes the following language below the signature line: “NOTE: Provide this form as Attachment 1 to the RFA. The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Florida Housing notes that the Site Control Certification form includes similar language: “This form must be signed by the Authorized Principal Representative stated in Exhibit A.” Berkeley contends that Florida Housing was well aware that Jonathan L. Wolf has been the named Authorized Principal Representative on multiple applications filed under the umbrella of Wendover Housing Partners, the general developer behind Berkeley. In at least one of those previous applications, Ms. Lagmay, an employee of Wendover Housing Partners, was identified as the “contact person.” Ms. Button responded that Review Committee members are specifically prohibited from using personal knowledge of a general development entity in a specific application submitted by a single purpose entity. She further testified that if Florida Housing employees were to use their personal knowledge of an experienced developer to waive errors in a specific application, applicants who had not previously submitted applications would be at a competitive disadvantage. Ms. Button testified that Berkeley was established as a single purpose entity in accordance with the RFA’s requirements. She testified that she has known general developers to structure these single purpose entities in different ways, depending on the requirements of an RFA. An applicant might designate an employee, such as Ms. Lagmay, as a principal to give her experience as a developer. Again, Ms. Button emphasized that Florida Housing is not in a position to decide what the applicant “really meant” when there is a discrepancy in the information provided. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing has determined in prior RFAs that an applicant was ineligible because the person identified as the Authorized Principal Representative was not the same person who signed the certification forms. Florida Housing rightly concluded that there are only two possible ways to interpret the Berkeley Application. If Ms. Lagmay was the Authorized Principal Representative, then the application is nonresponsive because she was not listed on the Principal Disclosure form and she did not sign the required certification forms. If Ms. Lagmay was not the Authorized Principal Representative, the application is nonresponsive because no Authorized Principal Representative was identified. There is no way to tell from the four corners of the application which of these alternatives is the correct one. Florida Housing cannot step in and cure the defect in the application by making its own educated guess as to the intended identity of the Authorized Principal Representative. Berkeley has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of ineligibility was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA, or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE SIERRA BAY APPLICATION The parties stipulated to the facts regarding the Sierra Bay Application, which are incorporated into this Recommended Order. Florida Housing deemed the Sierra Bay Application eligible and, pursuant to the terms of the RFA, preliminarily selected Sierra Bay for funding. In order to demonstrate site control, the RFA required execution of the Site Control Certification form. Site control documentation had to be included in the application. One way to demonstrate site control was to include an “eligible contract.” The RFA required that certain conditions be met in order to be considered an “eligible contract.” One of those requirements was that the contract “must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance.” Sierra Bay acknowledged that the site control documentation included within its application did not meet the “eligible contract” requirement because it failed to include language regarding specific performance as a remedy for the seller’s default. Sierra Bay agreed that the omission of the specific performance language was not a minor irregularity and that Sierra Bay’s Application is ineligible for funding under the terms of the RFA. THE SOLARIS APPLICATION The RFA specified that a Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must hold 100 percent ownership in the land of any qualifying Priority I application. The RFA defined “Community Land Trust” as: A 501(c)(3) which acquires or develops parcels of land for the primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease which retains a preemptive option to purchase any such structural improvement at a price determined by a formula designed to ensure the improvement remains affordable in perpetuity. The RFA provided that if a Community Land Trust is the Land Owner, the Community Land Trust must provide the following documentation as Attachment 2 to the application to demonstrate that it qualifies as a Community Land Trust: The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier and that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is to provide or preserve affordable housing; and The Community Land Trust must provide a list that meets one of the following criteria to demonstrate experience of the Community Land Trust with owning property: (i) at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns; or (ii) one parcel of land that the Community Land Trust owns, consisting of a number of units that equals or exceeds at least 25 percent of the units in the proposed Development. The RFA required that the proposed development must be affordable in perpetuity. For purposes of the RFA, “perpetuity” means 99 years or more. Solaris identified Residential Options of Florida, Inc. (“Residential Options”), as the Community Land Trust owner in its Priority 1 Application. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included the Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Original Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on July 30, 2014. The purpose of the corporation as stated in the Original Articles was as follows: Said corporation is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, educational, and scientific purposes, including for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Residential Options (“Amended Articles”), filed with the Division of Corporations on September 20, 2019. The Amended Articles retained the boilerplate statement of purpose of the Original Articles, but added the following paragraph: This shall include the purpose of empowering individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to successfully obtain and maintain affordable and inclusive housing of their choice and to provide affordable housing and preserve the affordability of housing for low- income or moderate income people, including people with disabilities, in perpetuity. Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application also included the Articles of Incorporation of ROOF Housing Trust, Inc. (“ROOF Housing Trust”) filed with the Division of Corporations on July 17, 2017. The purpose of the corporation as stated in these Articles includes the following: “to acquire land to be held in perpetuity for the primary purpose of providing affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities.” Finally, Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application included Articles of Merger, which were filed with the Division of Corporations on September 10, 2019. The Articles of Merger indicated that the Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust had merged, with Residential Options standing as the surviving corporation. The petitioners contesting the Solaris Application raise several issues. The first issue is whether the RFA requires only that the entity named as the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether the entity had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. The Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application, Residential Options, existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. The second issue is whether the June 28, 2018, date applies only to the existence of the Community Land Trust or whether the RFA requires that the Community Land Trust have been in existence and have had a stated purpose to provide or preserve affordable housing and have met the ownership experience criteria as of June 28, 2018. It is questionable whether Solaris would be eligible for funding if the RFA required the latter, because Residential Options did not have a stated purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing prior to its merger with ROOF Housing Trust, at least no such purpose as could be gleaned from the four corners of the Solaris Application. The third issue is whether the RFA’s definition of “Community Land Trust” requires the qualifying entity to have existing ground leases at the time of the application. Florida Housing and Solaris concede that Residential Options did not have operative ground leases at the time Solaris submitted its application. Hurricane Irma struck Puerto Rico and Florida in September 2017. Ms. Button testified that in creating this RFA, Florida Housing wanted to weed out opportunistic community land trusts created only for the purpose of obtaining this funding. Florida Housing initially proposed an RFA requirement that the community land trust have existed as of September 2017, but discovered through workshops with interested parties that the early date would exclude legitimate Community Land Trusts that had been established in response to the storm. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s intent was to make this RFA as inclusive as practicable. Florida Housing therefore selected June 28, 2018, as a date that would exclude opportunists without penalizing the genuine responders to the natural disaster. Both Florida Housing and Solaris point to the text of the RFA requirement to demonstrate that the date of June 28, 2018, should be read to apply only to whether the Community Land Trust existed as of that date. Solaris argues that the RFA states three independent criteria for eligibility: 1) that the Community Land Trust “has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier”; 2) that a purpose of the Community Land Trust is1 to provide or preserve affordable housing; and 3) the Community Land Trust must demonstrate its property ownership experience, one means of doing which is to name at least two parcels of land that the Community Land Trust currently owns. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the first criterion by providing its Articles of Incorporation showing it has existed since July 30, 2014. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the second criterion by providing its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, which stated the purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity. Florida Housing argues that Solaris met the third criterion by identifying two properties in Immokalee, Independence Place, and Liberty Place as parcels that it currently owns. Florida Housing thus reached the conclusion that Residential Options met the definition of a Community Land Trust in the RFA as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing argues that, according to the definition in the RFA, a Community Land Trust must be a 501(c)(3) corporation, which Residential Options clearly is. It must acquire or develop parcels of land, which it has done. Finally, it must have the “primary purpose of providing or preserving affordable housing in perpetuity through conveyance of the structural improvement subject to a long term ground lease.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing’s interpretation of the RFA’s Community Land Trust definition was that if Residential Options had the primary purpose of providing affordable housing in perpetuity through the use of long term ground leases, the definition has been met even if Residential Options had not actually entered into any ground leases at the 1 Both Florida Housing and Solaris emphasize that the second criterion is stated in the present tense, which suggests that it does not intend a backward look to June 28, 2018. time it submitted its application. This is not the only way to read the RFA’s definition, but it is not an unreasonable reading, particularly in light of Florida Housing’s stated intent to make the RFA as inclusive as possible in terms of the participation of legitimate community land trusts. Sheryl Soukup, the Executive Director of Residential Options, testified via deposition. Ms. Soukup testified that in 2017, Residential Options realized there was a need for housing for people with disabilities and decided to become a nonprofit housing developer of properties that would be kept affordable in perpetuity. To that end, ROOF Housing Trust was created to act as the community land trust for the properties developed by Residential Options. The two companies had identical Boards of Directors and Ms. Soukup served as Executive Director of both entities. In its application to the IRS for 501(c)(3) status, ROOF Housing Trust included the following: The organization does not own any property yet. ROOF Housing Trust intends to own vacant land, single family homes, and multi-family units. Some of the units will be provided as rental units. ROOF Housing Trust will sell some of the houses for homeownership, while retaining the land on which they are located. The land will be leased to homeowners at a nominal fee to make the purchase price affordable, using the community land trust model. Ground leases and warranty deeds not been developed yet [sic], but will be based on the sample documents provided by the Florida Community Land Trust Institute.[2] Ms. Soukup described ROOF Housing Trust as “a vehicle by which Residential Options of Florida could act as a community land trust…. [I]t was always the intention of Residential Options of Florida to develop and put into 2 The ROOF Housing Trust 501(c)(3) application was not a part of the Solaris Application. It was included as an exhibit to Ms. Soukup’s deposition. a community land trust property so that it would remain affordable in perpetuity for use by people of intellectual and development [sic] disabilities.” Residential Options acquired the aforementioned Independence Place and Liberty Place properties but never conveyed ownership to ROOF Housing Trust. Residential Options acted as a de facto community land trust. No ground leases have yet been entered into because the properties are at present rented directly by Residential Options to persons with developmental disabilities. Ms. Soukup testified that at the time ROOF Housing Trust was created, the Board of Residential Options was undecided whether to create a separate entity to act as a community land trust or to incorporate that function into the existing entity. The decision to incorporate ROOF Housing Trust was based on the Board’s intuition that a separate corporation would “allow us the most flexibility in the future.” In any event, Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were functionally the same entity. Ms. Soukup testified that plans to merge the two companies emerged from a situation in which Collier County refused to allow Residential Options to convey its two properties to ROOF Housing Trust. The Board that controlled both companies decided that there was no point in maintaining separate legal entities if ROOF Housing Trust could not perform its main function. As noted above, Articles of Merger were filed on September 10, 2019. Northside points to minutes from Residential Options’s Board meetings in August and September 2019, as indicating that the Board itself did not believe that Residential Options was a community land trust prior to the merger with ROOF Housing Trust. Northside contends that the September 2019 merger was initiated and completed mainly because Residential Options had been approached about serving as the Community Land Trust for the applications of Solaris and Sierra Bay in this RFA. Northside points to the “frenzied activity” by Residential Options to create an entity meeting the definition of Community Land Trust in the days just before the September 24, 2019, application deadline. Northside argues that Residential Options is the very kind of opportunistic community land trust that the June 28, 2018, date of creation was intended to weed out. Northside’s argument is not persuasive of itself, but it does point the way to an ultimate finding as to the Solaris Application. Both Florida Housing and Solaris gave great emphasis to Ms. Soukup’s testimony to refute the suggestion that Residential Options acted opportunistically. Ms. Soukup was a credible witness. Her explanation of the process by which Residential Options first created then merged with ROOF Housing Trust dispelled any suggestion that Residential Options was a community land trust created solely to cash in on this RFA. The problem is that Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee when it evaluated the Solaris Application. The only information about Residential Options that the Review Committee possessed was Attachment 2 of the Solaris Application. The dates of the merger documents and Amended Articles certainly give some credence to the suspicions voiced by Northside. However, the undersigned is less persuaded by the implications as to the intentions of Residential Options than by the contradictions between Florida Housing’s statements of intent and its reading of the RFA in relation to the Solaris Application. The decision to find the Solaris Application eligible for funding founders on the first issue stated above: whether the RFA requires only that the Community Land Trust have been in existence in some form as of June 28, 2018, or whether it had to exist as a Community Land Trust as of that date. Ms. Button testified that the June 28, 2018, date was settled upon as a way of including community land trusts created in the wake of Hurricane Irma, while excluding those created to cash in on this RFA. During cross- examination by counsel for Northside, Ms. Button broadened her statement to say that Florida Housing’s intention was to exclude entities that had not been involved in affordable housing at all prior to June 28, 2018. Nonetheless, the RFA language is limited to Community Land Trusts. The RFA states: “The Community Land Trust must provide its Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws demonstrating that it has existed since June 28, 2018 or earlier…” The Solaris Application shows that Residential Options existed prior to June 28, 2018, but not as a Community Land Trust. Residential Options did not become a Community Land Trust until it completed its merger with ROOF Housing Trust and filed the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019. Ms. Button’s statement of intent is accepted as consistent with the plain language of the RFA: the date of June 28, 2018, excludes Community Land Trusts created subsequently. It is inconsistent for Florida Housing to also read the RFA language to say that the qualifying entity need not have existed as a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018. It would be arbitrary for Florida Housing to set a date for the creation of Community Land Trusts then turn around and find that the date does not apply to this particular Community Land Trust. Ms. Soukup’s testimony was that Residential Options and ROOF Housing Trust were effectively a single entity and that Residential Options was in fact operating as a community land trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger. However, Ms. Soukup’s explanation was not before the Review Committee, which was limited to one means of ascertaining whether an entity was a Community Land Trust prior to June 28, 2018: the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws. Residential Options’s Original Articles included no language demonstrating that it was a Community Land Trust prior to the September 10, 2019, merger with ROOF Housing Trust and the filing of the Amended Articles on September 20, 2019.3 As set forth in the discussion of the Berkley Application above, Florida Housing is required to limit its inquiry to the four corners of an application. It was contrary to the provisions of the RFA for Florida Housing to find that Residential Options’s mere existence as a legal entity prior to June 28, 2018, satisfied the requirement that the Community Land Trust must demonstrate that it existed prior to June 28, 2018. Ms. Button’s own testimony demonstrated that Florida Housing intended to exclude Community Land Trusts created after June 28, 2018. ROOF Housing Trust existed as a Community Land Trust in 2017, but ROOF Housing Trust was not the Community Land Trust named in the Solaris Application. Ms. Soukup’s explanation of the circumstances showed that Residential Options was well intentioned in its actions, but her explanation was not a part of the Solaris Application that was before Florida Housing’s Review Committee. THE METRO GRANDE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Metro Grande Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, the Metro Grande Application was preliminarily selected for funding. Petitioner Brisas contends that the Metro Grande Application should have been found ineligible for failure to include mandatory site control documentation. Metro Grande submitted a Priority I application that was not seeking Land Acquisition Program funding. The site control requirements for such applicants are as follows: 3 This finding also disposes of Solaris’s arguments regarding the legal effect of corporate mergers. The RFA provided one simple way of demonstrating whether an entity was a Community Land Trust as of June 28, 2018. Florida Housing’s Review Committee could not be expected to delve into the complexities of corporate mergers to answer this uncomplicated question. The Local Government, Public Housing Authority, Land Authority, or Community Land Trust must already own the land as the sole grantee and, if funded, the land must be affordable into Perpetuity.[4] Applicants must demonstrate site control as of Application Deadline by providing the properly executed Site Control Certification form (Form Rev. 08-18). Attached to the form must be the following documents: A Deed or Certificate of Title. The deed or certificate of title (in the event the property was acquired through foreclosure) must be recorded in the applicable county and show the Land Owner as the sole Grantee. There are no restrictions on when the land was acquired; and A lease between the Land Owner and the Applicant entity. The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline. Metro Grande did not include a deed or certificate of title in its application. In fact, no deed or certificate of title for the Metro Grande site exists. Miami-Dade County owns the Metro Grande site. Miami-Dade County acquired ownership of the Metro Grande site by eminent domain. The eminent domain process culminated in the entry of four Final Judgments for individual parcels which collectively compose the Metro Grande site. The Final Judgments were not attached to Metro Grande’s Application. There was no requirement in the RFA that Metro Grande include these Final Judgments in its application. The Final Judgments were produced during discovery in this proceeding. In its application, Metro Grande included a Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement Form executed by Maurice L. Kemp, as the Deputy Mayor of Miami-Dade County, stating that the county holds or will hold 100 percent ownership of the land where Metro Grande’s proposed 4 The RFA defined “Perpetuity” as “at least 99 years from the loan closing.” development is located. Additionally, in its application, Metro Grande stated that Miami-Dade County owned the property. The RFA expressly states that Florida Housing “will not review the site control documentation that is submitted with the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process unless there is a reason to believe that the form has been improperly executed, nor will it in any case evaluate the validity or enforceability of any such documentation.” Florida Housing reserves the right to rescind an award to any applicant whose site control documents are shown to be insufficient during the credit underwriting process. Thus, the fact that no deed or certificate of title was included with Metro Grande’s site control documents was not considered by Florida Housing during the scoring process. Ms. Button testified that while this was an error in the application, it should be waived as a minor irregularity. The purpose of the documentation requirements was to demonstrate ownership and control of the applicant’s proposed site. There was no question or ambiguity as to the fact that Miami- Dade County owned the Metro Grande site. Florida Housing was not required to resort to information extraneous to the Metro Grande Application to confirm ownership of the site. The Land Owner Certification and Acknowledgement form, executed by the Deputy Mayor as the Authorized Land Owner Representative, confirmed ownership of the parcels. Metro Grande’s failure to include a deed or certificate of title, therefore, created no confusion as to who owned the property or whether Miami-Dade County had the authority to lease the property to the applicant. There was no evidence presented that the failure to include a deed or certificate of title resulted in the omission of any material information or provided a competitive advantage over other applicants. Brisas contends that the RFA was clear as to the documents that must be included to satisfy the site control requirements. Metro Grande failed to provide those documents or even an explanation why those documents were not provided. Florida Housing ignored the fact that no deed or certificate of title was provided, instead relying on information found elsewhere in the application. It is found that Metro Grande failed to comply with an eligibility item of the RFA, but that Florida Housing was correct to waive that failure as a minor irregularity that provided Metro Grande no competitive advantage, created no uncertainty as to whether the requirements of the RFA were met, and did not adversely affect the interests of Florida Housing or the public. Brisas has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEACON PLACE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Beacon Place Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Beacon Place was not preliminarily selected for funding. The RFA provides that an application may earn proximity points based on the distance between its Development Location Point and the selected Transit or Community Service. Proximity points are used to determine whether the Applicant meets the required minimum proximity eligibility requirements and the Proximity Funding Preference. Beacon Place is a Large County Application that is not eligible for the “Public Housing Authority Proximity Point Boost.” As such, the Beacon Place Application was required to achieve a minimum Transit Point score of 2 to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must also achieve a total Proximity Point score of 10.5 in order to be eligible for funding. Beacon Place must achieve a total Proximity Point score of 12.5 or more in order to receive the RFA’s Proximity Funding Preference. Based on the information in its Application, Beacon Place received a Total Proximity Point score of 18 and was deemed eligible for funding and for the Proximity Point Funding Preference. The Beacon Place Application listed a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as its Transit Service. Applying the Transit Service Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 6 Proximity Points for its Transit Service. The Beacon Place Application listed a Grocery Store, a Pharmacy, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart in order to obtain Proximity Points for Community Services. Using the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C of the RFA, Florida Housing awarded Beacon Place 4 Proximity Points for each service listed, for a total of 12 Proximity Points for Community Services. Beacon Place has stipulated, however, that the Public School listed in its application does not meet the definition of “Public School” in the RFA and Beacon Place should not receive the 4 Proximity Points for listing a public school. The RFA defines a “Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop” as: [a] fixed location at which passengers may access public transportation via bus. The Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one bus that travels at some point during the route in either a lane or corridor that is exclusively used by buses, and the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop must service at least one route that has scheduled stops at the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop at least every 20 minutes during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year- round basis. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. The Beacon Place Application included Metrobus Route 38 (“Route 38”) as a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. Route 38 has scheduled stops at the location identified in the Beacon Place Application at the following times during the period of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. Monday through Friday: 7:01, 7:36, 7:56, 8:11, 8:26, 8:41, and 8:56. Brisas and Northside contend that Route 38 does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop because there is a gap of more than 20 minutes between the 7:01 a.m. bus and the 7:36 a.m. bus. Applicants are not required to include bus schedules in the application. Florida Housing does not attempt to determine whether an identified stop meets the RFA definitions during the scoring process. During discovery in this litigation, Florida Housing changed its position and now agrees that Route 38 does not satisfy the definition. Nonetheless, the standard of review set forth in section 120.57(3) is applicable to Florida Housing’s initial eligibility determination, not its revised position. All parties stipulated that Route 38 meets the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. If the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not also meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop as to scheduled stops during the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., Beacon Place would not be entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and would be ineligible for funding. Beacon Place cannot contest the fact that there is a 35 minute gap between the 7:01 and the 7:36 buses. Beacon Place has attempted to salvage its situation by comparing the language used in the RFA definition of a Public Bus Stop with that used in the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevant part as [a] fixed location at which passengers may access one or two routes of public transportation via buses. The Public Bus Stop must service at least one bus route with scheduled stops at least hourly during the times of 7am to 9am and also during the times of 4pm and 6pm Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, on a year round basis…. Florida Housing has interpreted the “hourly” requirement of the Public Bus Stop definition to mean that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., and at least once between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. Beacon Place suggests that Florida Housing should interpret the “every 20 minutes” requirement for a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop similarly, so that a bus must stop at least once between 7:00 a.m. and 7:20 a.m., once between 7:20 a.m. and 7:40 a.m., and once between 7:40 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. Florida Housing has rejected this interpretation, however, noting that the language in the two definitions is explicitly different. Ms. Button testified that if Florida Housing had intended these two distinct definitions to be interpreted similarly, it could easily have worded them differently. It could have required a Public Bus Stop to have stops “at least every 60 minutes,” rather than “hourly.” It could have required a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop to have “three stops per hour” rather than “every 20 minutes.” Ms. Button observed that the purpose of the Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop definition is to award points for serving the potential residents with frequent and regular stops. The idea was to be sure residents had access to the bus during the hours when most people are going to and from work. Florida Housing’s interpretation of “every 20 minutes” is consonant with the plain language of the phrase and reasonably serves the purpose of the definition. Florida Housing also rejected the idea that the failure of the identified stop to meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop in the RFA should be waived as a minor irregularity. Ms. Button testified that allowing one applicant to get points for a stop that did not meet the definition would give it a competitive advantage over other applicants, including some potential applicants who did not apply because they could not satisfy the terms of the definition. Because the bus stop listed by Beacon Place does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop, Beacon Place is not entitled to any Transit Service Proximity Points and is thus ineligible for funding. Brisas and Northside have demonstrated that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility for Beacon Place was contrary to the specifications of the RFA. Florida Housing’s original recommendation would have been contrary to the terms of the RFA. THE EAST POINTE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the East Pointe Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, East Pointe was preliminarily selected for funding. Bella Vista challenged Florida Housing’s action alleging that the Medical Facility selected by East Pointe did not meet the definition found in the RFA. East Pointe proposed a Development in Lee County, a Medium County according to the terms of the RFA. Applicants from Medium Counties are not required to attain a minimum number of Transit Service Points to be considered eligible for funding. However, such applicants must achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. The East Pointe Application identified three Public Bus Stops and was awarded 5.5 Proximity Points based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart in Exhibit C to the RFA. However, East Pointe has stipulated that Public Bus Stop 1 listed in its application does not meet the definition of a Public Bus Stop because it does not have the required scheduled stops. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, East Pointe should receive a total of 3.0 Proximity Points for Transit Services for Public Bus Stops 2 and 3. East Pointe listed a Grocery Store, a Medical Facility, and a Public School in its Community Services Chart. Based on the Community Services Scoring Charts in Exhibit C to the RFA, East Pointe received 1 Proximity Point for its Grocery Store, 4 Proximity Points for its Medical Facility, and 3 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 8 Proximity Points for Community Services. East Pointe listed Lee Memorial Health System at 3511 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Ft. Myers, Florida, as its Medical Facility. The RFA defines “Medical Facility” as follows: A medically licensed facility that (i) employs or has under contractual obligation at least one physician licensed under Chapter 458 or 459, F.S. available to treat patients by walk-in or by appointment; and (ii) provides general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person. Facilities that specialize in treating specific classes of medical conditions or specific classes of patients, including emergency rooms affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals and clinics affiliated with specialty or Class II hospitals, will not be accepted. Additionally, it must have been in existence and available for use by the general public as of the Application Deadline. If East Pointe’s selected Medical Facility does not meet the definition of “Medical Facility” in the RFA, East Pointe will lose 4 Proximity Points, reducing its total Proximity Points to 7. The East Pointe Application would still be eligible but would not receive the Proximity Funding Preference and, therefore, would fall out of the funding range of the RFA. Bella Vista alleged that East Pointe should not have received Proximity Points for a Medical Facility because the Lee Community Healthcare location specified in its application “only serves adults and therefore only treats a specific group of patients.” Lee Community HealthCare operates nine locations in Lee County, including the “Dunbar” location that East Pointe named in its application. Lee Community Healthcare’s own promotional materials label the Dunbar location as “adults only.” Robert Johns, Executive Director for Lee Community Healthcare, testified by deposition. Mr. Johns testified that as of the RFA application date of September 24, 2019, the Dunbar office provided services primarily to adults 19 years of age or over, by walk-in or by appointment. A parent who walked into the Dunbar office with a sick or injured child could obtain treatment for that child. A parent seeking medical services for his or her child by appointment would be referred to a Lee Community HealthCare office that provided pediatric services. Mr. Johns testified that the Dunbar office would provide general medical treatment to any physically sick or injured person who presented at the facility, including children. Children would not be seen by appointment at the Dunbar facility, but they would be treated on a walk-in basis. The RFA requires a Medical Facility to treat patients “by walk-in or by appointment.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing reads this requirement in the disjunctive. A Medical Facility is not required to see any and all patients by walk-in and to see any and all patients by appointment. Florida Housing finds it sufficient for the Medical Facility to see some or all patients by walk-in or by appointment. Ms. Button opined that the Dunbar office met the definition of a Medical Facility because it treated adults by walk-in or appointment and treated children on a walk-in basis. Florida Housing’s reading is consistent with the literal language of the RFA definition. While it would obviously be preferable for the Dunbar facility to see pediatric patients by appointment, the fact that it sees them on a walk-in basis satisfies the letter of the RFA provision. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. THE BEMBRIDGE APPLICATION Florida Housing deemed the Bembridge Application eligible. Pursuant to the terms of the RFA, Bembridge was preliminarily selected for funding. Bembridge proposed a development in Collier County, a Medium County in RFA terms. As an applicant from a Medium County, Bembridge was required to achieve at least 7 total Proximity Points to be eligible for funding and at least 9 Proximity Points to receive the Proximity Funding Preference. Medium County applicants are allowed, but not required, to claim both Transit Service points and Community Service points. As to Community Services, the RFA provides that an applicant may receive a “maximum 4 Points for each service, up to 3 services.” The RFA goes on to state: Applicants may provide the location information and distances for three of the following four Community Services on which to base the Application’s Community Services Score.[5] The Community Service Scoring Charts, which reflect the methodology for calculating the points awarded based on the distances, are outlined in Exhibit C. In its Application, Bembridge listed four, not three, Community Services. Bembridge was one of six Applicants that mistakenly submitted four Community Services instead of three. The Review Committee scorer reviewing Community Services in the applications stated on her scoring sheet: “After removing points for the service with the least amount of points, all still met the eligibility requirement.” 5 The four listed Community Services were Grocery Store, Public School, Medical Facility, and Pharmacy. Florida Housing interpreted the RFA as not specifically prohibiting an applicant from listing four Community Services, but as providing that the applicant could receive points for no more than three of them. As to the six applicants who submitted four Community Services, Florida Housing awarded points only for the three Community Services that were nearest the proposed development.6 Bembridge received 3 Proximity points for its Grocery Store, 3.5 Proximity Points for its Pharmacy, and 4 Proximity Points for its Public School, for a total of 10.5 Proximity Points for Community Services. Thus, as originally scored, Bembridge met the Proximity Funding Preference. Florida Housing did not score the Medical Facility listed by Bembridge, which was the farthest Community Service from the proposed development. Ms. Button testified that this fourth Community Service was treated as surplus information, and because it did not conflict with any other information in the application or cause uncertainty about any other information, it was simply not considered. Ms. Button likened this situation to prior RFAs in which applicants included pharmacies as Community Services even though they were not eligible in proposed family developments. Florida Housing disregarded the information as to pharmacies as surplus information. It did not consider disqualifying the applicants for providing extraneous information. Ms. Button also made it clear that if one of the three Community Services nearest the proposed development was found ineligible for some reason, the fourth Community Service submitted by the applicant would not be considered. The fourth Community Service was in all instances to be disregarded as surplusage in evaluating the application. 6 When queried as to whether the fourth Community Service was removed because it was worth the fewest points, as the reviewer’s notes stated, or because it was farthest away from the proposed development, Ms. Button replied that the distinction made no difference because the service that is farthest away is invariably the one that receives the fewest points. Florida Housing did not consider disqualifying Bembridge and the other five Applicants that mistakenly listed an extra Community Service in their applications. Ms. Button stated, “They provided in all of them, Bembridge and the others that were listed in this, they did provide three Community Services. And so I don’t think it is reasonable to throw out those applications for providing a fourth that we would just not consider nor give benefit to for those point values.” Bella Vista contends that Florida Housing should have rejected the Bembridge application rather than award points for the three nearest Community Services. Ms. Button testified that this was not a reasonable approach if only because there was nothing in the RFA stating that an application would be rejected if it identified more Community Services than were required. Ms. Button also noted that this was one of the first RFAs to allow applicants to select among four Community Services. She believed the novelty of this three-out-of-four selection process led to six applications incorrectly listing four Community Services. She implied that the Community Services language would have to be tweaked in future RFAs to prevent a recurrence of this situation, but she did not believe it fair to disqualify these six applicants for their harmless error. The Review Committee scorer did not perform a minor irregularity analysis relating to the fourth Community Service provided by Bembridge and the other applicants. Ms. Button opined that the addition of an extra Community Service amounts to no more than a minor irregularity because it provided no competitive advantage to the applicant and created no uncertainty that the terms and requirements of the RFA have been met. The RFA allows up to six proximity points for Transit Services. It specifically provides: Up to three Public Bus Stops may be selected with a maximum of 2 points awarded for each one. Each Public Bus Stop must meet the definition of Public Bus Stop as defined in Exhibit B, using at least one unique bus route. Up to two of the selected Public Bus Stops may be Sister Stops that serves the same route, as defined in Exhibit B. The RFA defines “Sister Stop” as: two bus stops that (i) individually, each meet the definition of Public Bus Stop, (ii) are separated by a street or intersection from each other, (iii) are within 0.2 miles of each other, (iv) serve at least one of the same bus routes, and (v) the buses travel in different directions. The Bembridge Application listed two Public Bus Stops, the definition of which is set forth at Finding of Fact 107 above. Based on the Transit Service Scoring Chart, Bembridge received a total of 1.0 Proximity Point for Transit Services for its two Public Bus Stops. Numerous questions were asked at the hearing about whether Bembridge’s identified bus stops were “Sister Stops” as defined in the RFA, and the evidence on that point was not definitive. However, whether they are Sister Stops is irrelevant because each stop identified by Bembridge independently met the definition of “Public Bus Stop” in the RFA and was therefore eligible for Transit Proximity Points. Bella Vista has failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing’s preliminary determination of eligibility and selection for funding was contrary to the applicable rules, statutes, policies, or specifications of the RFA or was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to RFA 2019-102 finding that: The Berkeley Application is ineligible for funding; The Sierra Bay Application is ineligible for funding; The Solaris Application is ineligible for funding; The Metro Grande Application is eligible for funding; The Beacon Place Application is ineligible for funding; The East Pointe Application is eligible for funding and entitled to the Proximity Funding Preference; and The Bembridge Application is eligible for funding. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson & Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Anthony L. Bajoczky, Jr., Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley & McMullen, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award funding pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-103, Housing Credit and State Apartment Incentive Loan ("SAIL") Financing to Develop Housing in Medium and Large Counties for Homeless Households and Persons with a Disabling Condition (the "RFA"), Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing" or "Respondent"), acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. The question of whether the application of Northside Commons Residential, LLC ("Northside"), met the requirements of the RFA with respect to demonstrating the availability of water and sewer services as of the Application Deadline is the only question at issue in this case. No other parts of its Application are being challenged, and the parties all agree that its Application was otherwise properly scored. No parties have raised objections to any parts of Warley Park's application, and all parties agree that its Application was properly scored.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Warley Park, Ltd., is the applicant entity of a proposed affordable housing development to be located in Seminole County, Florida. Petitioners Warley Park Developer, LLC, and Step Up Developer, LLC, are Developer entities as defined by Florida Housing in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(28). Northside is a Florida limited liability company based in Miami-Dade County, Florida, in the business of providing affordable housing. 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 Programs The low income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify. These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect of this is to reduce the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of up 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. SAIL provides low-interest loans on a competitive basis to affordable housing developers each year. This money often serves to bridge the gap between the development's primary financing and the total cost of the development. SAIL dollars are available to individuals, public entities, not-for-profit, or for-profit organizations that propose the construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to very low-income individuals and families. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate housing tax credits, SAIL funding, and other funding by means of request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48) and adopted chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its housing tax credits, which 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). The RFA 2017-103 Housing tax credits and SAIL funding are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a RFA. A RFA is equivalent to a "request for proposal" as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). The RFA at issue here is RFA 2017-103, which was issued on March 22, 2017. A modification was issued on April 11, 2017, and responses were due April 20, 2017. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $6,075,000 of housing tax credits, along with $11,500,000 of SAIL financing, to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments. A review committee, made up of Florida Housing staff, reviews and scores each application. Florida Housing scored applicants in six areas worth a total of 145 points: General Development Experience; Management Company Experience with Permanent Supportive Housing; Tenant Selection for Intended Residents; Community-Based General Services and Amenities Accessible to Tenants; Access to Community-Based Resources and Services that Address Tenants' Needs; and Approach Toward Income and Credit Status of Homeless Households Applying for Tenancy. Florida Housing scored Northside as the highest scoring applicant, awarding it 128 points. Warley Park was the fourth highest scored applicant with 112 points. These scores are presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation is presented to Florida Housing's Board of Directors ("the Board") for final agency action. On June 16, 2017, Petitioners and all other participants in RFA 2017-103 received notice that the Board had determined which applications were eligible or ineligible for consideration for funding and selected certain applications for awards of tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two spreadsheets, one listing the "eligible" and "ineligible" applications and one identifying the applications that Florida Housing proposed to fund, on Florida Housing's website, www.floridahousing.org. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to three developments, including Northside. Warley Park's application was deemed eligible, but it was not selected for funding. The RFA at Section Four A.5.g. requires the applicant to demonstrate its "Ability to Proceed" by including the following as attachments to its application: Availability of Water. The Applicant must demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline water is available to the entire proposed Development site by providing as Attachment 9 to Exhibit A: The properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form (Form Rev. 08-16); or A letter from the water service provider that is Development-specific and dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline. The letter may not be signed by the Applicant, by any related parties of the Applicant, by any Principals or Financial Beneficiaries of the Applicant, or by any local elected officials. Availability of Sewer. The Applicant must demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline sewer capacity, package treatment or septic tank service is available to the entire proposed Development site by providing as Attachment 10 to Exhibit A: The properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form (Form Rev. 08-16); or A letter from the waste treatment service provider that is Development-specific and dated within 12 months of the Application Deadline. The letter may not be signed by the Applicant, by any related parties of the Applicant, by any Principals or Financial Beneficiaries of the Applicant, or by any local elected officials. (emphasis added). Section 5.g. of Exhibit A to RFA 2017-103, the Application and Development Cost Pro Forma, requires that the applicant include the following information: Ability to Proceed: As outlined in Section Four A.5.g. of the RFA, the Applicant must provide the following information to demonstrate Ability to Proceed: Availability of Water. The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 9 to Exhibit A, an acceptable letter from the service provider or the properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form (Form Rev. 08-16). Availability of Sewer. The Applicant must provide, as Attachment 10 to Exhibit A, an acceptable letter from the service provider or the properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form (Form Rev. 08-16). The Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Sewer Capacity, Package Treatment, or Septic Tank form requires the service provider to certify that on or before the submission deadline for the RFA, "Sewer Capacity or Package Treatment is available to the proposed Development." Similarly, the Verification of Availability of Infrastructure – Water form requires the service provider to certify that on or before the submission deadline for the RFA, "Potable water is available to the proposed Development." Each form also includes the following caveat: To access such [waste treatment] [water] service, the Applicant may be required to pay hook-up, installation and other customary fees, comply with other routine administrative procedures, and/or install or construct line extensions and other equipment, including but not limited to pumping stations, in connection with the construction of the Development. The RFA does not define the term "Development- specific," and the term is not used in Section 5.g. of Exhibit A to RFA 2017-103 where the requirement for the water and sewer letters is included. Further, the term "Development-specific" is not defined in any Florida Housing rule. Miami-Dade County has had a longstanding practice of refusing to complete Florida Housing's water and sewer verification forms. Florida Housing added the water and sewer letter as an additional method to demonstrate availability in light of the county's refusal. Thus, an applicant, such as Northside, has no alternative when proposing a Miami-Dade project other than providing a water and sewer letter as opposed to Florida Housing's Verification form. Northside's Water and Sewer Letter Accordingly, in response to this RFA requirement, Northside submitted a letter from Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department as Attachment 9 to its application. The letter was sought by Oscar Sol, one of the principals of the developer working with the applicant in the project at issue in this case. The WASA letter at issue in this case was dated December 12, 2016. It was addressed to "Northside Commons LTD," and referenced water and sewer availability for "Northside Commons," construction and connection of 108 apartments, located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The identical WASA letter was submitted as Attachments 10 and 11 to application 2017-155C in response to a prior RFA, RFA 2016-114. That prior application was submitted by Northside Commons, Ltd., for a 108-unit elderly development called Northside Commons, located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami- Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The application deadline for RFA 2016-114 was December 15, 2016. In the present case, Northside's application for RFA 2017-103, application 2017-254CSN, was submitted by Northside Commons Residential, LLC. It was for an 80-unit development for homeless persons and persons with disabling conditions, also to be called "Northside Commons," located at 8301 Northwest 27th Avenue, Miami-Dade County, Florida, Folio #30-3110-000-0210. The application deadline for RFA 2017-103 was April 20, 2017. The WASA letter contains several paragraphs of details about hookups to water and sewer service, and also includes the following boilerplate language: "This letter is for informational purposes only and conditions remain in effect for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter. Nothing contained in this letter provides the developer with any vested rights to receive water and/or sewer service." Warley Park raised three issues regarding the WASA letter. First, was the letter valid for more than 30 days after it was signed? Second, did the letter meet the requirement of the RFA that it be "development specific?" Third, did the letter demonstrate the availability of sewer services? Was the WASA letter valid for more than 30 days after it was signed? Florida Housing and Northside contend that there is no provision in the WASA letter stating that it becomes "invalid" after 30 days, or that water and sewer services will not be available after 30 days. Douglas Pile, the representative for Miami-Dade County, testified that the second and third paragraphs of the letter included the conditions necessary to service the availability of water and sewer, and that it was these conditions that remained in effect for 30 days. He described the purpose of the 30-day language as follows: We're not saying that availability disappears or terminates after 30 days. We're just saying this letter is good for informational purposes for 30 days. We don't want people to come back a year later and say I bought this property based upon this letter of availability saying I have water and sewer under certain conditions, and then a year later the conditions are different and maybe they have to put in a water main extension or maybe their local pump station is in moratorium. When asked specifically whether the entire letter was valid for only 30 days, he responded, "Right. Well, the conditions are – the nearby water and sewer facilities that the project would connect to." Mr. Pile explained that the letter is "a snapshot of what our facilities are at the time they make the request." He further stated that: the letter . . . has to have an expiration date either explicit or implicit. If a utility is going to give a letter saying they have water and sewer availability, that cannot be forever, you know. You assume a natural termination point . . . we just explicitly say this letter is good for 30 days. In its Pre-Hearing Position Statement, Florida Housing argued that it did not interpret this language to mean that the letter became invalid after 30 days. However, according to Mr. Reecy,1/ there was no "interpretation" done by Florida Housing. Specifically, when asked how Florida Housing interpreted the phrase, he stated: We have basically ignored that phrase. We actually do not know what--given the context of this situation, how, within 30 days, the--that information is only good for 30 days. So we have not considered that to be a relevant factor in our consideration of the information provided in the letter. A plain and common reading of the quoted language indicates Miami-Dade limited the validity of the information in the letters to 30 days. Florida Housing provided no explanation for its decision to ignore the language and made no attempt to inquire of Miami-Dade County as to what it intended by including the language. This 30-day limitation is generally known by the applicants and nearly every previously funded application included a letter from Miami-Dade County dated within 30 days of the application deadline. Only one Miami-Dade WASA letter submitted by applicants within the last two RFAs was dated outside of the 30-day window. That letter was deemed ineligible for other reasons. Had Petitioner wanted to demonstrate availability as of the application deadline, it only needed to request a letter from Miami-Dade County within the 30 days prior to the application deadline, giving Miami-Dade sufficient time to respond. In fact, the letter was initially submitted as part of a response to RFA 2016-114, with a due date of December 15, 2016. Because the letter was issued on December 12, 2016, it remained valid through the application deadline for RFA 2016-114. There is no limit to the number of times a developer can obtain a letter of availability from Miami-Dade County. The requirements of the RFA are clear that water and sewer availability must be shown "as of the Application Deadline." Because the WASA letter submitted with Petitioner's Application only provided a snapshot of availability for a 30-day window after the issuance of the letter (or until January 11, 2017), the letter failed to address the availability of water or sewer services as of April 20, 2017. As a practical matter, the WASA letter provides that water hook-up is readily available to existing infrastructure and sewer availability is dependent upon a developer building a pumping station. It could be inferred that these conditions would remain available at this location for 12 months. However, the testimony of Mr. Pile makes clear that Miami-Dade County is not willing to make that assumption for a period beyond 30 days due to the possibility of intervening events.2/ Presumably, this is why the vast majority of applicants for this type of RFA secures and provides a Miami-Dade WASA letter dated within 30 days of the RFA application deadline. Because the WASA letter was not valid beyond January 11, 2017, Petitioner cannot demonstrate availability of water and sewer as of the Application Deadline. The fact that the WASA letter was no longer valid is fatal to Petitioner's application in that it failed to satisfy a mandatory requirement of RFA 2017-103, i.e., the availability of water and sewer services. Was the WASA letter "development specific?" The RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate water and sewer service availability for "the entire proposed Development site," and it also requires that the letter from the service provider be "Development-specific." The application in this matter was filed by Northside Commons Residential, LLC, for an 80-unit development for the homeless and persons with disabling conditions. However, the WASA letter was issued to, and discussed the availability of water and sewer service for, a different entity, Northside Commons, Ltd., the applicant for a 108-unit elderly development. According to Mr. Reecy, the reuse of a letter that was previously submitted in a different application does not follow the "letter" of the criteria in the RFA. Florida Housing and Northside even agree that the letter does not reference the specific proposed development that is at issue and instead focuses on the location of the proposed development. Mr. Sol, Northside's representative, suggested that it is "irrelevant" to which entity the letter is issued because what is relevant is whether water and sewer availability exists. However, as stated by Mr. Reecy, what Florida Housing considers when determining whether a letter of availability is "Development-specific" is the location, the number of units, and the applicant. Because the WASA letter was issued to a entirely different applicant, based upon Mr. Reecy's testimony, it is not "Development-specific." However, Mr. Reecy noted that such a letter could be considered a Minor Irregularity if there is some commonality between the applicant entities. Northside argues that the failure of the letter to be "Development-specific" should be waived as a Minor Irregularity. This issue was not considered during scoring, nor was it a determination made by the Board of Florida Housing prior to awarding funding to Northside. Mr. Reecy acknowledged that it is a judgment call when determining whether a letter addressed to a different entity with different principals is a Minor Irregularity. That call depends upon the number of common principals. While the number of principals that must be the same is discretionary, there must be at least some commonality of principals for it to be considered a Minor Irregularity. The principals of Northside Commons, Ltd., the entity to which the letter was actually issued and the applicant that originally submitted the WASA letter, are completely different from the principals of Northside Commons Residential, LLC. Despite a full understanding of all the similarities between the two applications and the differences in the requirements of the RFA and being given a number of opportunities to change his position, Mr. Reecy repeatedly declined to do so. Mr. Sol suggested that it is common practice for Florida Housing to accept letters issued to entities other than the applicant and with different principals. After hearing Mr. Sol's opinion and discussing the issue further with Northside, Mr. Reecy remained steadfast in his position that the error in the Letter could not be waived as a Minor Irregularity. At the request of Northside, Mr. Reecy agreed to review past practices of the agency during a break in the hearing. As stated by counsel for Florida Housing, if it is established that Florida Housing has a long-standing practice of accepting similar letters, then the question is whether Northside Commons may rely upon that practice. The review during the break was limited to the issue of whether Florida Housing had previously accepted Miami-Dade letters addressed to an entity who was not the applicant and who shared no principals in common with the applicant. No such long- standing practice was demonstrated. Mr. Reecy directed staff to pull all of the Miami-Dade letters of availability from the last two RFAs, to determine, first, whether or not there were sewer letters addressed to someone other than the applicant entity. Second, for those so identified, staff was to compare the principals of the applicant entity and the entity that was the addressee for commonality. Mr. Reecy was provided a list of approximately a dozen letters from the past several RFAs that compared the applicant entity and the addressee entity. This list did not identify whether or not the letters were submitted by successful credit applicants. Based upon this list, Mr. Reecy then reviewed each letter to determine whether or not it was issued to the applicant. He then reviewed the principals list for the applicant as identified in the application and compared that to data from the state of Florida's Sunbiz.org website for the addressee of the letter. Mr. Reecy compared this information to determine if the two had any principals in common. After reviewing this information, Mr. Reecy recanted his earlier testimony and stated that he felt that Florida Housing historically accepted letters with addressees that were not the applicant entity and did not have common principals. Mr. Reecy further testified that based upon this understanding of Florida Housing's past practice, the Northside's letter should be accepted. The information Mr. Reecy reviewed, specifically that obtained from the state of Florida's Sunbiz.org website, did not demonstrate, as Mr. Reecy believes, that Florida Housing previously accepted Miami-Dade WASA letters from applicants in a similar position to that of Northside. Notably, Florida Housing does not accept documentation from the Sunbiz.org website to demonstrate the principals of the Application as required by this and other RFAs. The Sunbiz.org website does not identify the level of detail of principals which Florida Housing requests in its "Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form". Further, even if Sunbiz.org did identify all of the principals Florida Housing requires to be disclosed, in this case, the Sunbiz.org information reviewed was dated 2017.3/ As this information was filed after the application deadlines for the respective RFAs, it fails to identify any of the principals related to the entities in the "comparable" letters for the 2015 and 2016 RFAs. No information was provided as to any of the principals in either 2015 or 2016. Accordingly, Mr. Reecy and Mr. Sol's belief that Florida Housing had previously accepted letters in a similar position to that of Northside Commons' letter has not been demonstrated. Because Mr. Reecy's new position, that Northside Commons' letter should be accepted, is based upon this incorrect understanding, and the alleged prior agency action was not demonstrated, Mr. Reecy's initial testimony is found to be more credible. Therefore, the record demonstrates that the WASA letter was not "Development-specific" and, therefore, contrary to the solicitation specifications. Did the letter demonstrate availability of sewer services? The RFA requires each applicant to provide a form or letter demonstrating that "as of the Application Deadline sewer capacity, package treatment or septic tank service is available to the entire proposed Development site." Petitioner presented the testimony of Jon Dinges, P.E., an environmental engineer with expertise in designing wastewater systems who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering, specifically in the area of sewer infrastructure and design. Mr. Dinges' testimony was simply that the problem with the WASA letter in this case is that it does not actually say that capacity is available. In a prior RFA, Florida Housing rejected an application that included a Miami-Dade WASA letter because it specifically stated that no gravity sewer capacity analysis had been conducted. According to Mr. Dinges, without conducting a gravity sewer capacity analysis, it is not possible to determine whether capacity, if any, exists. However, the RFA makes no mention of requiring a gravity sewer capacity analysis to demonstrate availability. Mr. Reecy testified that Florida Housing has been accepting WASA letters without mention of gravity analysis from Miami-Dade County for many years. He stated that the detailed description of how a proposed project could connect to an existing sewer service met the requirement of the RFA that the Applicant demonstrate the availability of sewer service. He also testified that if Florida Housing were to change its position and determine that the form of the letter was not adequate to demonstrate capacity, it would do so in a public process. The testimony was clear that Florida Housing does not do any independent analysis of whether water and sewer service is actually available to a proposed development, but instead relies on the expertise of the local government to do this analysis. Applicants are not required to include or demonstrate the specific requirements or technical specifications of how a connection to water or sewer services will be made. This interpretation is consistent with the specifications of the RFA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order amending its preliminary decision awarding funding to Warley Park by: finding Northside ineligible for funding; and awarding funding to Warley Park as the next highest scoring eligible applicant. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("Florida Housing") properly rescinded the preliminary funding awarded to RST Fruitland Housing, L.P. ("RST"), pursuant to applicable rules, prior agency practice, and the existing case law.
Findings Of Fact RST is a limited partnership authorized to do business in Florida and is controlled by Roundstone Development, LLC ("Roundstone"). Roundstone is in the business of providing affordable rental housing. In addition to Florida, Roundstone operates in Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Michael Hartman, the consultant for Roundstone, has been involved in the development of over 70 affordable housing developments, including many in Florida. Florida Housing is a public corporation created by Section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Florida Housing's statutory authority and mandates appear in Part V of Chapter 420, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of nine individuals appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. On July 31, 2009, Florida Housing issued RFP 2009-04 (the "RFP") setting forth criteria and qualifications for developers to seek funding for affordable housing projects from funds that Florida received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5 ("ARRA"). ARRA was enacted in 2009 by Congress as part of federal economic stimulus efforts. RST received notice of the RFP through e-mail notification on July 31, 2009. The RFP required applicants to submit proposals to Florida Housing no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 14, 2009. RST submitted an application and intended to seek financing for its affordable housing project by applying for funding from the sources that are proposed to be allocated through the RFP. Florida Housing's Programs Florida Housing administers numerous programs aimed at assisting developers to build affordable housing. These programs include: the Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program ("MMRB") established under Section 420.509, Florida Statutes; the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program ("SAIL") created pursuant to Section 420.5087, Florida Statutes; and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (the "Tax Credit program") established under the authority of Section 420.5093, Florida Statutes. These funding sources are allocated by Florida Housing to finance the construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing. A portion of the units constructed based upon funding from these programs must be set aside for residents earning a certain percentage of area median income ("AMI"). For purposes of these proceedings, the primary program of interest is the Tax Credit program. Tax Credits The Tax Credit program was created in 1986 by the federal government. Tax Credits come in two varieties: competitively awarded nine percent tax credits, and non- competitively awarded four percent tax credits. For the nine percent credits, the federal government annually allocates to each state a specific amount of tax credits using a population- based formula. Tax Credits are a dollar for dollar offset to federal income tax liability over a 10-year period. A developer awarded Tax Credits will often sell the future stream of Tax Credits to a syndicator who in turn sells them to investors seeking to shelter income from federal income taxes. The developer receives cash equity with no debt associated with it. Thus, Tax Credits provide an attractive subsidy and, consequently, are a highly sought after funding source. Florida Housing is the designated agency in Florida to allocate Tax Credits to developers of affordable housing. Every year since 1986, Florida Housing has received an allocation of Tax Credits to be used to fund the construction of affordable housing. Universal Application Florida Housing has historically allocated funds from the MMRB, SAIL, and Tax Credit programs through a single annual application process. Since 2002, Florida Housing has administered the three programs through a combined competitive process known as the "Universal Cycle." The Universal Cycle operates much the same as an annual competitive bidding process in which applicants compete against other applicants to be selected for limited funding. Florida Housing has adopted rules which incorporate by reference the application forms and instructions for the Universal Cycle as well as general policies governing the allocation of funds from the various programs it administers. Typically, Florida Housing amends its Universal Cycle rules, forms, and instructions every year. The typical process used by Florida Housing to review and approve the Universal Cycle applications operates as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004, and is summarized as follows: Interested developers submit applications by a specified date. Florida Housing reviews all applications to determine if certain threshold requirements are met. A score is assigned to each application. Applications receive points towards a numerical score, based upon such features as programs for tenants, amenities of the development as a whole and of tenants' units, local government contributions to the specific development, and local government ordinances and planning efforts that support affordable housing in general. Florida Housing has built into its scoring and ranking process a series of "tiebreakers" to bring certainty to the selection process. The tiebreakers are written into the application instructions which, as indicated above, are incorporated by reference into Florida Housing's rules. After the initial review and scoring, a list of all applications, along with their scores, is published by Florida Housing on its website. The applicants are then given a specific period of time to alert Florida Housing of any errors they believe Florida Housing made in its initial review of the applications. An appeal procedure for challenging the scores assigned by Florida Housing is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.005. Following the completion of the appeal proceedings, Florida Housing publishes final rankings which delineate the applications that are within the "funding range" for the various programs. In other words, the final rankings determine which applications are preliminarily selected for funding. The applicants ranked in the funding range are then invited into a "credit underwriting" process. Credit underwriting review of a development selected for funding is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. In the credit underwriting process, third party financial consultants (selected by Respondent, but paid for by the individual applicants) determine whether the project proposed in the application is financially sound. The independent third party examines every aspect of the proposed development, including the financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning verification, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. Subsection (10) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 67- 48.0072 expressly requires that an appraisal (as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice), and a market study be ordered by the Credit Underwriter, at the applicant's expense. The Credit Underwriter is required to consider the market study, as well as the development's financial impact on other developments in the area previously funded by Florida Housing, and make a recommendation to approve or disapprove a funding allocation. RST's Application in the 2008 Universal Cycle RST timely submitted an application in the 2008 Universal Cycle seeking an award of Tax Credits and a supplemental loan to construct a 100-unit garden style apartment complex ("Plata Lago") in Fruitland Park, Lake County, Florida. RST complied with all of the requirements of the 2008 Universal Cycle Application and Instructions, and achieved a perfect score for its application. RST also achieved maximum tie-breaker points. As a result, RST was allocated by Florida Housing $1,334,333 in Tax Credits from the Universal Cycle allocation. Based on the final ranking of its application, RST was invited into the credit underwriting process on October 6, 2008. RST timely accepted the invitation and paid the necessary underwriting fees. Credit Underwriting Under the credit underwriting process, a professional credit underwriter is appointed by Florida Housing to review the proposed project that qualified for funding as a result of the Universal Cycle. The credit underwriter reviews and assesses numerous financial, demographic, and market factors concerning the proposed project. The credit underwriter selected by Florida Housing to review the RST application was Seltzer Management Group, Inc. ("Seltzer"). As required by the applicable 2008 Universal Cycle Application requirements and rule, the credit underwriting process required the preparation of a Market Study by an independent appraiser. Seltzer engaged Meridian Appraisal Group ("Meridian") to perform an independent appraisal and market study as required by the RFP. This initial Market Study was issued with the identified purpose defined as follows: Provide a site analysis for the subject property. Provide regional and neighborhood analyses for the subject property. Provide an Apartment Market Overview for the subject market area. Provide an evaluation of market demand within the competitive area for affordable rental apartment products. Identify and evaluate the relevant competitive supply of affordable apartments. Perform an income band analysis for the subject property based on achievable restricted rents. Perform a Capture Rate analysis for the subject property as a restricted property, and estimate an absorption rate. Establish rental estimates for the subject, both as a market rate project and as restricted by the Housing Credit program. Illustrate the difference between our estimate of the market rental rates and restricted rental rates. Estimate the impact of the subject project on the existing rental inventory. Economic Downturn By the fall of 2008, significant changes were taking place in the economic environment and the affordable housing market in particular. Many of the projects that had been awarded funding through Florida Housing allocation process were encountering difficulties and in many instances were unable to close. By the latter part of 2008, it became evident that the market for Tax Credits had precipitously dropped as a result of the changed economic environment. Shortly before RST was to complete the credit underwriting process, the syndicator who had originally expressed its intent to purchase the Tax Credits awarded to RST announced that it would not go forward with the syndication. This withdrawal was a direct result of the nationwide downturn in economic conditions. Many other projects that were awarded Tax Credits during the 2007 and 2008 (and later the 2009) Universal Cycles similarly experienced difficulty in finding syndicators to purchase the awarded Tax Credits and were also unable to proceed to closing. In early 2009, in recognition of the collapse of the housing market and the difficulty in marketing Tax Credits, the federal government, as part of its economic stimulus efforts, established mechanisms to assist in the development of affordable housing and offset some of the economic devastation to developers. ARRA The ARRA enacted by Congress and signed by the President on February 17, 2009, included specific provisions intended to address the collapse of the Tax Credit market. ARRA gives states the ability to return to the federal government previously awarded Tax Credits that had not been utilized. These Tax Credits are exchanged for a cash distribution of 85 cents for each tax credit dollar returned. The money that is awarded to the states for the return Tax Credits (the "Exchange Funds") is to be used by Florida Housing to fund developers who were unable to syndicate their Tax Credits due to the economic downturn. In other words, the Tax Credits that had not been utilized as a result of the declining economic conditions were allowed to be converted into cash from the federal government to be allocated to developers who were ready to proceed with their affordable housing projects but for the inability to syndicate their Tax Credits. ARRA also included a direct allocation of funds to state housing finance agencies under the Tax Credit Assistance Program ("TCAP"). These funds were allocated to the states to "resume funding of affordable rental housing projects across the nation while stimulating job creation in the hard-hat construction industry." TCAP is a separate program included as part of ARRA to provide gap financing for affordable housing projects that have been affected by the economic downturn. The RFP In response to ARRA, on July 31, 2009, Florida Housing issued RFP 2009-04 (the "RFP"), setting forth criteria and qualifications for developers to seek funding for affordable housing projects from money that had been allotted by the federal government as part of economic stimulus efforts. RST received notice of the RFP through e-mail notification on July 31, 2009. The RFP required applicants to submit proposals to Florida Housing by no later than 2:00 p.m. on August 14, 2009. The RFP solicits proposals from applicants with an "Active Award" of Tax Credits who were unable to close and are seeking alternate funding to construct affordable housing utilizing Exchange Funds from the Tax Credit Exchange Program authorized under Section 1602 of ARRA. The RFP provides a general description of the type of projects that will be considered eligible for this alternate funding. The RFP also sets forth eligibility criteria that are a precondition to award of an allocation of Exchange Funds, and also specifies that projects allocated Exchange Funds and also specifies that projects allocated Exchange Funds will be required to meet new credit underwriting standards. Occupancy Standards Section 5B.1b. of the RFP states that a tentative funding award under the RFP will be rescinded "if the submarket of the Proposed Development does not have an average occupancy rate of 92% or greater for the same Demographic population, as determined by a market study ordered by the Credit Underwriter, and analyzed by the Credit Underwriter and Florida Housing staff, as well as approved by the Board." The RFP does not define "submarket." Likewise, there was no definition of "submarket" in the rules which governed the 2008 or 2009 Universal Cycle. The word "submarket" is included in the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule, but it is not defined. RST timely submitted a response to the RFP on August 14, 2009, which sought additional funding for the Plata Lago project. On August 20, 2009, Florida Housing issued a Notice of Awards for RFP #2009-04. Based on the Notice, RST was one of the responders awarded funds subject to successfully completing the underwriting criteria listed in the RFP. Accordingly, RST was once again invited into credit underwriting. By accepting the invitation, RST was required by the credit underwriter to update its Market Study ("2009 Study"). This Second Market Study, which was completed approximately eight months after the 2008 study, was also prepared by Meridian on July 14, 2009. Likewise, Seltzer was the assigned underwriter. On September 9, 2009, Seltzer issued a letter to Florida Housing concerning the Plata Lago project. In essence, Seltzer in the letter considered the 2009 Market Study and concluded that "the submarket average occupancy rate for the subject does not meet the minimum requirement of 92%." On October 23, 2009, Florida Housing's Board of Directors considered Seltzer's letter and a staff recommendation and voted to rescind funding to RST because of the alleged failure to satisfy the 92 percent occupancy requirement. This action effectively stopped the underwriting process. While RST timely filed its petition with the Division, it also intervened in a challenge to the provisions of the RFP. The challenge specifically involved a review of the 92 percent occupancy standard. In that matter, Elmwood Terrace Ltd. P'ship v. Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp., Case No. 09-4682BID, 2009 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. Lexis 816 (Final Order entered December 7, 2009), the administrative law judge entered a Recommended Order on November 12, 2009, holding that the provision of the RFP which required a 92 percent occupancy rate is contrary to Florida Housing's governing statutes and rules. The administrative law judge concluded that Florida Housing is limited to using the 90 percent occupancy test established at Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072(10). Florida Housing issued its Final Order in the Elmwood case on December 7, 2009, adopting the administrative law judge's Recommended Order. Based upon the Final Order in Elmwood, Florida Housing has reevaluated the RST Market Study under the provisions of the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule which established a 90 percent occupancy test. Florida Housing has now concluded that RST's Market Study indicates an 87 percent occupancy rate. Accordingly, Florida Housing has not changed its previous position and refuses to allow Petitioner to move forward in the underwriting process. Unstipulated Findings of Fact Two market studies were commissioned by Florida Housing and Seltzer regarding the proposed Plata Lago development, the first in November 2008 and the second in July 2009. Both the First and Second Market Studies were performed by Meridian Appraisal Group and Robert Von, a state- certified general appraiser. While purported to be a new stand-alone study, the Second Market Study is identical in many respects to the First Market Study. However, the First Market Study predated the requirement of the occupancy test in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072(10), while the Second Market Study included the 90 percent occupancy test analysis. In each of the two studies, a circle is drawn extending out 10 miles from the proposed location of the Plata Lago development. That circle represents the primary market area ("PMA") which includes Fruitland Park, Lady Lake, and Leesburg. The PMA is where generally two-thirds to three-quarters of the demand for a facility originates. In the Second Market Study, when the occupancy rate of the three existing senior apartment developments within the PMA is considered, the threshold requirement of 90 percent is met. If the PMA alone were considered, Florida Housing would not have rescinded the Tax Credits, and Petitioner would be entitled to move forward with its project. The Second Market Study, performed in 2009, added an additional factor to the analysis. The concept of a Competitive Market Area ("CMA") was introduced. A CMA was not designated in the 2008 Market Study. CMA is neither defined in the 2009 Universal Cycle Rule or RFP 2009-04. The delineation of a CMA was not a requirement of the RFP, nor was it otherwise requested by Florida Housing. CMA is not a term defined in either the development or market analysis industries. The term appears to have been created or borrowed by Florida Housing's designated market analyst based upon his experience as a certified appraiser. Unlike the PMA, the CMA was not mapped or otherwise designated in the Second Market Study. However, both the First and Second Market Studies included information regarding a development known as Lake Point Senior Village ("Lake Point"). Both Plata Lago and Lake Point are affordable housing developments targeted at the elderly demographic category. Lake Point is not in the PMA of the proposed Plata Lago development as PMA is defined in the Second Market Study. The PMA as defined in the Second Market Study is a predetermined geographic area used for purposes of demographic analysis, but not for competitive analysis. A set unmovable circle on a map could lead to skewed or absurd results if the nature and character of the developments within and without the circle are not considered by the appraiser. Lake Point is an elderly affordable housing development located 13 miles from the proposed location of Plata Lago. It is located in Tavares which is outside the 10-mile radius from the proposed development and is past two lakes that separate Tavares from those developments contained within the PMA. The analysis by Florida Housing's expert was that an individual moving into the Lake County area would look for elderly housing developments in close proximity to his or her work, shopping, health care, and other amenities they deemed important. The tenant does not necessarily look to see if other elderly housing developments are nearby. This is especially true when only four elderly developments are located in the county. Plata Lago and Lake Point are similar to each other, both serve the elderly demographic category, and each would compete with the other for residents if the Plata Lago development were built. It was appropriate for the Second Market Study to include Lake Point in its analysis of occupancy data for the purpose of determining whether Plata Lago passed the test set forth in the rule requiring a 90 percent occupancy rate in its applicable submarket. To address the requirement of the rule regarding occupancy rates for the submarket of the Plata Lago development, it was necessary for Florida Housing's consultant to determine what developments would compete with the proposed project. To do a competitive analysis, it is necessary for the consultant to move beyond the fixed PMA to a study of the market as real people in the real world look at it. In the Second Market Study, the term CMA is used to describe the "submarket" as it applies to the occupancy test of the rule, as well as to distinguish this area from the PMA and from other incidental uses of the term "submarket." Florida Housing's consultant investigated all the comparable properties and interviewed the manager of Lake Point about where the competition lay. The manager mentioned a property around the corner from the proposed Plata Lago (Silver Pointe) as a competitor which led the consultant to expand the CMA to include Lake Point. The manager at Silver Pointe named Lake Point as part of its competition. Florida Housing's appraiser considers the submarket to be where a project's competitive property is located. In this case, the submarket or competitive market is larger than the PMA. Lake Point suffered a drop in its occupancy between the First and Second Market Studies. This was most likely attributable to the nature of elderly developments. Elderly residents tend to expire or suffer health issues that cause them to move to facilities providing health care or assisted living services. On October 23, 2009, Florida Housing's Board of Directors met and considered the market study letter prepared by Seltzer along with its finding that the Plata Lago development did not pass the required occupancy test of 90 percent set forth in the rule. Based upon the occupancy rate being only 87 percent, as well as the results of the market study and credit underwriter recommendations, the Board voted to rescind Florida Housing's commitment to fund the Plata Lago development.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order rescinding funding to the Plata Lago development for failing to pass the occupancy standard set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-48. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Wellington H. Meffert, II, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Della Harrell, Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329
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 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 is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing” or “FHFC”) properly rescinded the preliminary funding awarded to SAS Fountains of Pershing Park, Ltd. (“Pershing Park”), pursuant to applicable rules, prior agency practice, and the existing case law.
Findings Of Fact Pershing Park is a Florida limited partnership whose business address is 655 West Morse Boulevard, Suite 212, Winter Park, Florida 32789. Pershing Park is engaged in the development of affordable housing in this state. Pershing Park is an "Applicant," as defined in Florida Administrative Code 67-8, and RFP 2010-04. Florida Housing is a public corporation created by Section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing of affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Florida Housing’s statutory authority and mandates appear in Part V of Chapter 420, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing is governed by a Board of Directors consisting of nine individuals, representing various affordable housing stakeholder interests1/ and two consumer members appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs sits as a voting ex officio member of the board. On February 26, 2010, Florida Housing issued RFP 2010- 04 (the “RFP”) setting forth criteria and qualifications for applicants to seek funding for affordable housing projects from funds that Florida received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, PL 111-5 (“ARRA”). ARRA was enacted in 2009 by Congress as part of federal economic stimulus efforts. The RFP was issued on February 26, 2010, and required applicants to submit proposals to Florida Housing no later than 2:00 p.m. on March 12, 2010. Pershing Park submitted an application and intends to seek financing for its affordable housing project by applying for funding from the sources that are proposed to be allocated through the RFP. Florida Housing’s Programs Florida Housing administers several programs aimed at assisting developers to provide affordable multifamily rental housing for low-income Floridians. These programs include: the Multi-Family Mortgage Revenue Bond Program (“MMRB”) established under Section 420.509, Florida Statutes; the State Apartment Incentive Loan Program (“SAIL”) created pursuant to Section 420.5087, Florida Statutes; and the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program (the “Tax Credit program”) established in Florida under the authority of Section 420.5093, Florida Statutes. Most relevant to this case is the Tax Credit Program, the allocation of which is governed by Section 420.5099, Florida Statutes. These funding sources are allocated by Florida Housing to finance the construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing. A portion of the units constructed based upon funding from these programs must be set aside for residents earning a certain percentage of area median income (“AMI”). Historically, the units have typically been targeted to tenants earning 60 percent of AMI or below. Tax Credits The Tax Credit program was created in 1986 by the federal government. Tax Credits come in two varieties: competitively awarded 9 percent tax credits, and non- competitively awarded 4 percent tax credits. For the 9 percent credits, the federal government annually allocates to each state a specific amount of tax credits using a population-based formula. Tax Credits are a dollar-for-dollar offset to federal income tax liability over a ten-year period. A developer awarded Tax Credits will often sell the future stream of Tax Credits to a syndicator who in turn sells them to investors seeking to shelter income from federal income taxes. The developer receives cash equity with no debt associated with it. Thus, Tax Credits provide an attractive subsidy and, consequently, are a highly sought-after funding source. Florida Housing is the designated agency in Florida to allocate Tax Credits to developers of affordable housing. Every year since 1986, Florida Housing has received an allocation of Tax Credits to be used to fund the construction of affordable housing. As required by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code, each year Florida Housing adopts a Qualified Allocation Plan ("QAP"), which sets forth the allocation methodology for the competitive (9 percent) tax credits. The QAP must be approved by the Governor each year. The QAP is also adopted and incorporated by reference in Florida Housing's rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 67-48.002(88). The 2009 QAP includes the following provision: "In order for the Corporation to implement the provisions of The Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the "2009 Stimulus Act"), any funds received pursuant to the 2009 Stimulus Act may be allocated by a competitive request for proposal or competitive application process as approved by the Board. Any such process will be governed by Section 42, IRC, and Chapter 67-48, F.A.C., as applicable, or, an emergency rule authorized by the Florida Legislature specifically for the 2009 Stimulus Act, if any." The 2009 QAP was adopted as part of the 2009 Universal Cycle rules by Florida Housing's Board of Directors on March 13, 2009. Universal Application Florida Housing has historically allocated funds from the MMRB, SAIL, and Tax Credit programs through a single annual application process. Since 2002, Florida Housing has administered the three programs through a combined competitive process known as the “Universal Cycle.” The Universal Cycle operates much the same as an annual competitive bidding process in which applicants compete against other applicants to be selected for limited funding. The Universal Cycle and the attendant application review process are intended to equitably and reasonably distribute affordable housing throughout the state. Florida Housing has adopted rules which incorporate by reference the application forms and instructions for the Universal Cycle as well as general policies governing the allocation of funds from the various programs it administers. Typically, Florida Housing amends its Universal Cycle rules, forms, and instructions every year. Each year, the Universal Cycle provides a mechanism for selecting applications to meet statutory geographic requirements, specific targeting goals that address housing needs of particular demographic groups (such as farm workers, commercial fishery workers, the homeless, or the elderly), as well as specific set asides or targeting goals aimed at addressing identified needs (such as the Florida Keys, inner city areas, or rural development), and for preservation of existing affordable housing complexes. Each set-aside group essentially has its own separate funding from its share of the funds distributed by Florida Housing. The typical process used by Florida Housing to review and approve the Universal Cycle applications operates as set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.004, and is summarized as follows: Interested developers submit applications by a specified date. Florida Housing reviews all applications to determine if certain threshold requirements are met. A score is assigned to each application. Applications receive points towards a numerical score, based upon such features as programs for tenants, amenities of the development as a whole and of tenants’ units, local government contributions to the specific development, and local government ordinances and planning efforts that support affordable housing in general. Florida Housing has built into its scoring and ranking process a series of “tiebreakers” to bring certainty to the selection process. The tiebreakers are written into the Application Instructions which, as indicated above, are incorporated by reference into Florida Housing’s rules. After the initial review and scoring, a list of all applications, along with their preliminary scores, is published by Florida Housing on its website. The applicants are then given a specific period of time to alert Florida Housing of any errors they believe Respondent made in its initial review of competitors' applications. These potential scoring errors are submitted through a Notice of Possible Scoring Error, or "NOPSE". After Florida Housing staff has reviewed the NOPSEs, a revised scoring summary (the "NOPSE Scores") is published. Applicants can then attempt to "cure" certain items within their applications by supplementing, correcting or amending the application or its supporting documentation. Following the timely submittal of "cures", an applicant's competitors have an opportunity to comment on the attempted cures by filing a Notice of Alleged Deficiency, or "NOAD." Florida Housing staff reviews all of the submitted cures and NOADs and prepares its "final" scoring summary for all applications. An appeal procedure for challenging the final scores is set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.005. Following the completion of any appeal proceedings, Florida Housing publishes final rankings which delineate the applications that are within the “funding range” for the various programs. In other words, the final rankings determine which applications are preliminarily selected for funding. The applicants ranked in the funding range are then invited into a “credit underwriting” process. Credit underwriting review of a development selected for funding is governed by Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072. In the Credit Underwriting Process, third party financial consultants (selected by Respondent, but paid for by the individual applicants) determine whether the project proposed in the application is financially sound. The independent third party looks at every aspect of the proposed development, including the financing sources, plans and specifications, cost analysis, zoning verification, site control, environmental reports, construction contracts, and engineering and architectural contracts. Pershing Park’s Application in the 2009 Universal Cycle Pershing Park timely submitted an application in the 2009 Universal Cycle seeking an award of Tax Credits and a supplemental loan to construct a 92-unit affordable rental housing development in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. The application proposed total development costs of $16,321,711 of which $14,429,558 were considered "allowable" costs on which an allocation of Housing Credits could be based. Pershing Park projected that approximately $8.8 million in construction financing and approximately $9.77 million in permanent financing would be generated from the sale of housing credits. The 2009 Universal Cycle also permitted applicants to project that a portion of their construction and permanent financing would be sought from funding made available through the ARRA. Pershing Park proposed in its application that $3.38 million in construction and permanent financing would result from an anticipated award of ARRA funding. The Pershing Park application was the subject of multiple NOPSEs, which questioned whether it was part of a pool of related applications (which would have relegated it to Priority II status under the 2009 rules); whether the required developer experience was demonstrated; whether the density on site allowed construction of 92 units; and whether the development site had a valid address. None of these NOPSEs was adopted by Florida Housing. Pershing Park complied with all of the requirements of the 2009 Universal Cycle Application and Instructions, and achieved a perfect score for its application. Pershing Park also achieved maximum tie-breaker points. As a result, Pershing Park was allocated $1,502,550 in annual Tax Credits. Economic Downturn and ARRA By the fall of 2008, significant changes were taking place in the economic environment and the affordable housing market in particular, and it became evident that the market for Tax Credits had dropped precipitously. Many projects that were awarded Tax Credits during the 2007 and 2008 Universal Cycles experienced difficulty in finding syndicators to purchase the awarded Tax Credits, or to purchase them at previously available rates, and, thus, were unable to proceed to closing. In February, 2009, in recognition of the collapse of the housing market and the difficulty in marketing and syndicating Tax Credits, Congress, as part of its economic stimulus efforts, enacted the ARRA, which established mechanisms to assist in the development of affordable housing and offset some of the economic devastation to developers. Congress included specific provisions in the ARRA intended to address the condition of the Tax Credit market. Section 1602 of the ARRA authorized the state Tax Credit allocating agencies to return up to 40 percent of the state's 2009 annual Tax Credit allocation, as well as Tax Credits awarded in 2007 and 2008 to the federal government, to be exchanged for a cash distribution of 85 cents for each tax credit dollar returned. The exchange of 2007 and 2008 Tax Credits generated a pool of $578,701,964 for the State of Florida. The RFP In response to ARRA, on February 26, 2010, Florida Housing issued RFP 2010-04 (the “RFP”), setting forth criteria and qualifications for developers to seek funding for affordable housing projects from money that had been allotted by the federal government as part of economic stimulus efforts. Except as specified otherwise in the RFP, the provisions of (Fla. Admin. Code) R. 67-48 (2009), governed the allocation of Exchange funds. The RFP solicited proposals from applicants with an “Active Award” of 9 percent (competitively awarded) Tax Credits. Pershing Park and 29 other applicants submitted proposals in response to the RFP, seeking awards ranging from $1.8 million to $5.0 million. Pershing Park and 28 of the 29 other applicants met the threshold requirements of the RFP. Pershing Park was preliminarily awarded $4.1 million in Exchange funding, and was invited into the credit underwriting process for both its 2009 award of tax credits and its 2010 award of Exchange funding. Credit Underwriting The representations contained in the applications for funding through FHFC are essentially taken at "face value" during the application scoring process. However, if invited to enter the underwriting process, the applicant's information is examined with an elevated level of scrutiny. Indeed, RFP 2010- 04 expressly advised applicants of this additional layer of review: An analysis of the Sponsor shall be completed with more in-depth consideration to key topics than typically completed by Florida Housing, including liquidity, net worth, unrestricted assets, and contingent liabilities. An analysis of the credit worthiness of the Developer shall be completed with more in-depth review than typically considered, including areas of past performance, default history, failed conversions, guarantor performance, and outstanding contingencies. (RFP 2010-04, Section Five, C.1.f, g.) Under the Credit Underwriting process, a professional credit underwriter is appointed by Florida Housing to review the proposed project that qualified for funding as a result of the Universal Cycle. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.0072, Fla. Admin. Code, the credit underwriter reviews and assesses numerous financial, demographic, and market factors concerning the proposed project. The credit underwriter selected by Florida Housing to review the Pershing Park application was First Housing Development Corporation (“First Housing”). The credit underwriting process resulted in a negative recommendation from First Housing, based primarily on the "Developer Experience," contained at Exhibit 11 of Pershing Park's application. On June 18, 2010, Florida Housing’s Board of Directors considered First Housing's recommendation and voted to rescind funding to Pershing Park. This action effectively stopped the underwriting process. At hearing, Douglas McCree, CEO of underwriter First Housing, elaborated on his concerns regarding the Developer which formed the basis for his recommendation to deny funding to Pershing Park: The experience provided by the Developer's Principal (Mr. White) is more than 25 years old and involved a project completed before the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program existed; One of the two projects identified as developer experience was foreclosed upon shortly after being placed in service; The Developer was not forthcoming with requested information, and in particular, did not reveal an action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission against one of Mr. White's former companies (Whitemark Homes, Inc.); Mr. White apparently took no part in any activity as Principal of the Developer, and that all work normally done by or at the instance of the Principal was done by others without input from the Developer's Principal; The Pershing Park application was prepared and delivered to Florida Housing by employees of the GC, not the Developer. The Applicant, Developer, and General Contractor Southern Affordable Services, Inc. ("SAS") was formed in 2009 when more opportunities opened up for the development of affordable housing by non-profit entities. SAS is the sole member of the general partner and of the limited partner in SAS Fountains at Pershing Park, Ltd., the limited partnership which is the applicant. In Florida Housing's application process, the applicant is the owner. The owner directly contracts with the architect, the engineer, the developer, the general contractor ("GC"), and the management company. The applicant signs the notes for the financing and signs the loans. The applicant entity will become the owner of the project upon its completion. Applicants for Tax Credit financing are single asset, single purpose entities, usually established as limited partnerships, often with the same entity initially serving in the capacity of both a fractional (0.01%) general partner and a majority (99.99%) limited partner. A Housing Credit Syndicator purchases the limited partnership interest and either sells the credits to investors or uses the credits itself to offset tax liability. SAS is also the sole member of the developer, Southern Affordable Development, LLC. If SAS makes a profit from the Pershing Park development, such profit would be held and used to further the mission of the 50l(c)(3) corporation that is SAS. That mission is to help those who are disadvantaged, poor, and distressed, particularly in the area of housing. SAS also anticipates engaging in some wellness services and wellness care within its affordable housing developments. Scott Culp is a Principal with CPG Construction, LLLP ("CPG") and a licensed GC in the State of Florida. CPG is a multi-family residential builder almost exclusively of affordable rental housing. CPG is a general contracting company, but the services it provides to its clients include anything that relates in any manner to the construction of multi-family communities. CPG would be the GC on the Pershing Park project if the FHFC funding is restored. Mr. Culp has been involved in the development of approximately 75 affordable rental housing developments from 1995-2010, containing over 20,000 units. Over 50 of those 75 developments are in Florida. He has been involved in preparing and submitting between 400 and 500 applications to FHFC for financing. SAS relied on CPG and its Principal, Mr. Culp, to do the mechanical preparation of the forms, and particularly to give SAS guidance on how to prepare them correctly, and avoid errors. SAS's President, Scott Clark, understood the process to be very complicated and exacting, and one that was beyond his expertise. Thus, he leaned on the expertise of Mr. Culp and CPG to see that it was done correctly. Mr. Clark has known Mr. Culp for over 20 years. Generally, the primary role of the GC is to build the project. The GC's role is different from the Developer, in that the GC's obligation in a construction contract is for the construction in accordance with the plans and specifications, the contract documents, and whatever the owner has chosen to include in those documents. Typically, the Developer is involved with the owner making sure all those contract documents accurately reflect what the owner wants. The contractor is ultimately responsible for the actual construction in accordance with those contract documents. Pershing Park did not use a paid consultant to prepare its application. CPG assisted SAS with most parts of the application, but did not charge SAS a consulting fee for its services. CPG did the work because it was trying to maintain construction volume, and will likely be the GC on the project and earn a GC fee if the funding is approved. There is no requirement in Florida Housing's rules that a Principal of the owner or applicant must personally fill in the dots and check the boxes in the application submission process. However, there is a certification page included in the application that the owner must sign, indicating what he is proposing and what he is committing to. In this instance, the certification was appropriately signed by Scott Clark as President of SAS, the sole member of the general partner and of the limited partner in the applicant, SAS Fountains at Pershing Park, Ltd. In the development of affordable housing, as with any real estate development, a team approach is taken to development. The owner/applicant is ultimately responsible for the project, but the development team must be identified in the application. FHFC defines the development team to include the Developer, Management Agent, General Contractor, Architect/Engineer, Attorney, and Accountant. Florida Housing's rules define "Developer" as "any individual, association, corporation, joint venturer, or partnership which possesses the requisite skill, experience, and credit worthiness to successfully produce affordable housing as required in the Application." Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 48.002(29). The developer routinely relies on the work of other professionals to perform their part of the job. For example, the developer relies on the architect to review plans for compliance with code, and if deemed necessary, the developer or contractor may even hire a third party architect to do peer review to ensure the project architect got it right. However, despite the developer’s hiring an architect to do code review, the developer is still responsible to the owner to perform his tasks with regard to ensuring those things are done. The developer does not have a contract with the architect; rather, the developer is coordinating that professional's work on behalf of the owner. While the developer may be responsible for seeing that necessary steps for the construction of the development have been done, there are many tasks which the developer does not and cannot personally do. For example, the developer may be responsible for assuring that the project is appropriately engineered to accommodate site conditions and utilities, but it is the project's licensed engineer that directly performs that work. And the developer may be ultimately responsible for the design and location of the buildings on the site to comply with site planning requirements, but the developer would rely on a licensed architect to design the buildings, and possibly a licensed engineer as to their configurations on the site. Similarly, the developer may be responsible for the design and location of landscaping features, but would rely on the landscape architect to perform those functions. And again, the developer may be responsible for compliance within environmental constraints on the site, and for ensuring that soil and other site conditions are conducive to the site development plan, but would rely on soil scientists and environmental consultants to actually perform those tasks. Although the developer is responsible for delivery of the finished product, FHFC's own rules specify that it is the GC who bears the responsibility for managing and controlling the construction of the development. Fla. Admin. Code R. 67- 48.0072(17)(e). By contrast, FHFC's rules do not specifically identify any task of the developer which is not delegable. Developer Experience The 2009 Universal Cycle Application Instructions set forth the experience that a Developer must demonstrate in order to be a candidate for funding in that cycle: Each experienced Developer or Principal of Developer must demonstrate experience in the completion; i.e., the certificate of occupancy has been issued for at least one building, of at least two affordable rental housing developments, at least one of which consists of a total number of units no less than 50 percent of the total number of units in the proposed Development, by providing a prior experience chart behind a tab labeled “Exhibit 11”. If providing experience acquired from a previous affordable housing Developer entity, the person signing the Developer or Principal of Developer Certification form must have been a Principal or Financial Beneficiary of that Developer entity. (Instructions, Part II B.1.C.) (Emphasis in original.) As noted, the Developer entity for Pershing Park, Southern Affordable Development, LLC, is a newly formed company with no development experience in its own right. Pursuant to FHFC rules, the developer identified as its manager Kenneth L. (Larry) White as bringing development experience to the organization.2/ It was necessary to have an experienced developer like Mr. White involved in this project. Otherwise, Mr. Clark, as president of the sole member of Southern Affordable Development, would have to run the development. But Mr. Clark is not a developer, and recognized he was in no position to run the development. Rather, he needed someone who had been in the development arena before, and knew that Mr. White was an experienced developer. Mr. White was retained as manager by the Developer entity through an Independent Services Agreement. As such, he is not part of the ownership structure, nor is he an employee. Rather, he is an independent contractor, engaged with particular duties as the manager of that business. Mr. White's scope of services is set out in Article 3 of the Agreement, and requires him to serve as an officer or manager of the Developer entity. Specifically, Mr. White is to provide the Developer entity with his expertise and advice relating to the development of affordable housing as the Developer entity deems necessary. The Agreement also states that Mr. White has no authority to bind the Developer entity, and cannot make any discretionary decisions on behalf of the Company. Mr. White reasonably understands this latter restriction to mean he may not exceed his scope of services. Mr. White's specific direction from SAS's President was to see that the construction of the project is done in a timely and appropriate manner. Consistent with the 2009 Universal Cycle Instructions, the Pershing Park application identified two affordable housing developments that Mr. White had been involved in developing: the 180-unit Holly Creek Apartments in Texas; and the 168-unit Woodbridge Apartments in Orlando, Florida. Both of these developments were developed as affordable housing, and Mr. White played a key role in their development. Holly Creek was completed in 1984, and Woodbridge was developed from 1985 to 1986. Notably, FHFC rules impose no standard for how recently a development must have been constructed in order for it to serve as proof of developer experience. Florida Housing does not dispute that Pershing Park's developer experience as set forth in Exhibit 11 of Petitioner's application facially satisfies the threshold requirements of the 2009 Universal Cycle. FHFC Concern over the Woodbridge Development Respondent's (and First Housing's) concerns regarding reliance on the Woodbridge development as a source of developer experience is that shortly after its completion in 1985 a foreclosure action was initiated. However, the unrebutted evidence established that the foreclosure was unrelated to any deficiency in the development of the project, or in Mr. White's services as the developer of the project. Rather, the foreclosure was apparently the result of the owner, Goldenrod Partnership, not making required payments on the debt incurred to construct the project. Although Mr. White was a general partner of the owner entity, he was not personally involved in the decisions not to service the debt. The evidence established that those decisions were made by the two financial partners in Goldenrod, Robert Brunson and Barry Ellis. Respondent does not contend that Mr. White failed to satisfactorily exercise his duties relating to the design, permitting, construction, and lease-up of the project. The fact that subsequent to the completion of the Woodbridge project a summary judgment of foreclosure was entered against Goldenrod Partnership and its general partners, does not negatively reflect on Mr. White's abilities as a developer. And given the circumstances of the foreclosure as established in this record, nor should it tarnish Mr. White's credit worthiness. The unrebutted evidence established that, following the foreclosure on Woodbridge, Mr. White has had a successful career in residential real estate development, and has had no trouble accessing credit to do so. Mr. White has constructed roughly ten multi-family developments containing approximately 2,000 units, and more than 40 single-family developments, containing over 3,000 units. FHFC Concern over Whitemark and the SEC Respondent’s other primary concern over Mr. White's development experience centers on his service as CEO of Whitemark Homes, Inc., a publicly traded company, at the time that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") investigated some financial reporting issues regarding Whitemark. Those reporting issues concerned how Whitemark prepared consolidated financial statements after its acquisition of another company in north Florida. Specifically, the acquired company had certain contracts and options to purchase valuable beachfront property for condominium development. Whitemark's chief financial officer (not Mr. White) and the company's certified public accounting firm agreed on the approach to valuing and reporting these assets on financial disclosures filed with the SEC. At hearing, unrebutted testimony established that the CFO and the accounting firm took additional due diligence steps to verify that the manner of reporting these assets was appropriate. The SEC disagreed with that conclusion and initiated an enforcement action. Ultimately, after spending a significant amount of money, energy, and attention on the SEC matter, Mr. White and Whitemark elected to settle the matter with the SEC. According to the terms of the settlement, Mr. White was ordered to disgorge the proceeds of certain sales of stock he had engaged in as part of a regular, structured stock sale. He also was required to pay interest connected with those stock sales. No fines or penalties were imposed, and no restrictions regarding Mr. White's service to the company were imposed.3/ Neither the SEC order, nor the underlying factual basis for it, related to Mr. White's skills or abilities as a developer. They were not the result of any failed or incomplete developments, nor of any misappropriation of company funds or shareholder money. Rather, the matter appears to have resulted from a difference of professional opinion on a complex accounting matter. More importantly, the entry of the cease and desist order did not affect Mr. White's credit worthiness. It has not impaired his ability to access credit for development activities. Although the company with which Mr. White is now associated, Lifeway Homes, is not currently developing home sites due to economic conditions and the poor market for new construction, Mr. White has successfully engaged in development activities after the entry of the cease and desist order, developing five projects totaling around 700 units. At hearing, First Housing's representative criticized the Applicant for not providing complete information during the credit underwriting process. However, there is no competent substantial evidence of record that the Applicant or its representatives or Development team members withheld or concealed any information from the credit underwriter, or failed to provide information in response to a request from the underwriter.4/
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a Final Order directing SAS Fountains at Pershing Park, LTD; proceed to closing on its requested tax credit and Exchange Program financing. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 30th day of September, 2010.
The Issue Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) intended decision to award Respondent, Brixton Landing, Ltd., low-income housing tax credits is contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Florida Housing, is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes (2015). Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Petitioners, Madison Hollow, LLC, and American Residential Development, LLC (Madison Hollow or Petitioners), are Florida limited liability corporations engaged in the business of affordable housing development. Brixton Landing, is a Florida limited liability corporation also engaged in the business of affordable housing development. Florida Housing is the housing credit agency for the State of 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, which are made available to the states annually by the United States Department of the Treasury. The State Housing Tax Credit Program is established in Florida under the authority of section 420.5093, Florida Statutes. Florida Housing is the designated entity in Florida responsible for allocating federal tax credits to assist in financing the construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing. Because the demand for tax credits provided by the federal government far exceeds the supply available under the State Housing Tax Credit Program, qualified affordable housing developments must compete for this funding. On November 21, 2015, Florida Housing issued Request for Applications 2014-115, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties (the RFA). No challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA. According to the RFA, Florida Housing expected to award up to approximately $15,553,993 in tax credits for qualified affordable housing projects in those six large counties. Florida Housing received approximately 58 applications in response to the RFA. Madison Hollow, Brixton Landing, Sheeler Club Apartments, Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II, Banyan Station, Lauderdale Place, and Lake Sherwood timely submitted applications in response to the RFA requesting financing of their affordable housing projects from the funding proposed to be allocated through the RFA. Petitioners requested an allocation of $2,110,000 in annual tax credits for their development, Madison Hollow, located in Orange County. Brixton Landing requested an allocation of $1,330,000 in annual tax credits for Brixton Landing’s proposed development in Orange County. On May 8, 2015, the Board of Directors of Florida Housing approved the preliminary rankings and allocations, and issued its Approved Preliminary Awards/Notice of Intended Decision (Notice of Intended Decision), in which Florida Housing scored both Madison Hollow’s and Brixton Landing’s projects as eligible for funding and awarded each application 23 points. In addition, Sheeler Club Apartments, Sheeler Club Apartments- Phase II, Banyan Station, Lauderdale Place, and Lake Sherwood were all found to be eligible applications. On that same date, Florida Housing published on its website the Notice of Intended Decision, which included a three- page spreadsheet listing all applications made in response to the RFA and identifying those which were eligible and ineligible. Ranking and Selection Process Applications were evaluated for eligibility and scoring by a Review Committee appointed by Florida Housing’s executive director. Applications were considered for funding only if they were deemed “eligible,” based on the terms of the RFA. Of the 58 timely-submitted applications, 52 were deemed eligible and six were deemed ineligible. The highest scoring applications were determined by first sorting all eligible applications from highest score to lowest score. Pursuant to the RFA, applicants could achieve a maximum score of 23 points. Eighteen (18) of those 23 points were attributable to “proximity” scores based on the distance of the proposed development from services needed by tenants. The remaining five points were attributable to Local Government Contributions. In scoring housing tax credit applications, many applicants achieved tie scores. In anticipation of that occurrence, Florida Housing designed the RFA and rules to incorporate a series of “tie breakers” to separate any scores that tied as follows: First by the Application’s eligibility for the “SAIL RFA 2014-111 Unfunded Preference”, which is outlined in Section One 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.5.c.(1)(a)(iii) 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.12.e. of the RFA, (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next by the Application’s Leveraging Classification (applying the multipliers outlined in Exhibit C below and having the Classification of A be the top priority); Next 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 Finally by lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The Leveraging Classification is essentially a ranking of eligible applications based upon the cost per unit (referred to in the RFA as Total Corporation Funding Per Set-Aside Unit), with the most cost-effective project at the top of the list and the least cost-effective at the bottom. The top 90 percent of applications on the list were classified as Group A and the bottom 10 percent of applications classified as Group B. Applicants in Group B are not eligible for funding until all applicants in Group A are funded. Pursuant to Item 9 of Exhibit C to the RFA, Florida Housing classified Brixton Landing and Madison Hollow in the Group A Leveraging Classification, and classified Sheeler Club Apartments, Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II, Banyan Station, and Lauderdale Place in the Group B Leveraging Classification. Both Brixton Landing and Madison Hollow were scored identically by Florida Housing, and both developments are located in Orange County. Because the RFA provided that only one project will be funded in each county, and because Brixton Landing had a lower lottery number than Madison Hollow, Brixton Landing was selected for funding. A total of 52 applications were found to be eligible for funding. According to the leveraging calculations, the Group B applications were removed from consideration for funding. Brixton Landing was number 45 on the list, thus classified in Group A. Brixton Landing will be moved to Group B classification, if at least two of the five applications in Group B are found to be ineligible. If Brixton Landing is moved into Group B, Madison Hollow will be eligible for funding. The Challenged Applications Madison Hollow alleges that the applications for Sheeler Club Apartments and Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II should have each been found ineligible for failure to demonstrate the “ability to proceed” required in the RFA. Madison Hollow also alleges that the applications for Banyan Station and Lauderdale Place should have each been found ineligible for failure to fully disclose the principals of the applicant and developer.1/ Madison Hollow is thus in the unusual position of challenging four applicants who were not selected for funding and are not parties to this case. Brixton Landing is in the equally unusual position of defending the applications of those four unfunded applicants. Sheeler Club Atlantic Housing Partners (Atlantic) submitted two applications in response to the RFA. Sheeler Club Apartments was an application for development of affordable multifamily units to serve a family demographic. Sheeler Club Apartments- Phase II was an application for development of multi-family garden homes to serve an elderly demographic. The projects were proposed to be located adjacent to each other. The RFA sets forth the following specific requirements for applicants to demonstrate the ability to proceed: 5.f. Ability to Proceed: The Applicant must demonstrate the following Ability to Proceed elements as of Application Deadline, as outlined below. * * * Status of Site Plan Approval. The Applicant must demonstrate the status of site plan approval as of the Application Deadline by providing, as Attachment 7 to Exhibit A, the properly completed and executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval for Multifamily Developments form (Form Rev. 11-14). Appropriate Zoning. The Applicant must demonstrate that as of the Application Deadline the proposed Development site is appropriately zoned and consistent with local land use regulations regarding density and intended use or that the proposed Development site is legally non-conforming by providing, as Attachment 8 to Exhibit A, the applicable properly completed and executed verification form: The Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations form (Form Rev. 11-14); or The Florida Housing Finance Corporation Local Government Verification that Permits are not Required for this Development form (Form Rev. 11-14). Similarly, the RFA requires applicants to submit forms to demonstrate availability of electricity, water, sewer, and roads to serve the proposed development. The Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval form (Site Plan form) must be completed by the local government official responsible for determination of issues related to site plan approval within the applicable jurisdiction. The official must choose between two optional paragraphs related to proposals for new construction: (1) the proposed development “requires additional site plan approval or similar process” and the “final site plan . . . was approved on or before the submission deadline for the” RFA; or (2) the proposed development “requires additional site plan approval or similar process” and either the jurisdiction requires preliminary or conceptual site plan approval, “which has been issued,” or (b) the jurisdiction provides neither preliminary nor conceptual site plan approval, “nor is any other similar process provided prior to issuing final site plan approval,” but the site plan, in the applicable zoning designation, has been reviewed. Orange County provides neither preliminary nor conceptual site plan approval. Thus, the local government official must certify that the site plan for the proposed project has been reviewed. The Local Government Verification that Development is Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations form (Zoning form), requires that the local government official responsible for issues related to comprehensive planning and zoning certify the following: (1) the zoning designation applicable to the property; (2) that the proposed number of units and intended use are consistent with current land use regulations and the zoning designation; (3) that there are no additional land use regulation hearings or approvals required to obtain the zoning classification or density proposed; and (4) that there are no known conditions that would preclude construction of the proposed development on the site. It is undisputed that Atlantic submitted both verification forms with its application. Olan Hill, Chief Planner for Orange County, reviewed, completed, and signed each of these forms, attesting that in his opinion both of the proposed projects would be in compliance with local zoning and land use regulations. Mr. Hill was fully authorized to sign the forms on behalf of Orange County. The two Atlantic projects are proposed adjacent to one another on a site which has a Planned Development (PD) zoning approval for development of 152 single-family townhome units in the Medium Density Residential Future Land Use category (MDR), which allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre. The County’s PD zoning approval was based on review of Atlantic’s Land Use Plan (LUP) for the site. According to Mr. Hill, the LUP is a “bubble plan” outlining the general entitlements and development program for the site. In the case at hand, the Atlantic site also has an approved preliminary subdivision plan (PSP), which is the first step to subdivide the property. Under the PSP, the property is proposed to be subdivided into 152 lots for development of single-family townhomes. For purposes of certifying the Site Plan and Zoning forms, Mr. Hill reviewed the PD LUP, not the PSP. Regarding the Site Plan form, Mr. Hill certified that, although the County requires no preliminary or conceptual site plan approval process and the final site plan approval has not yet been issued, the site plan for the project in the applicable zoning classification, the PD LUP, had been reviewed. With respect to the Zoning form, Mr. Hill first certified that the proposed number of units and intended use are consistent with current land use regulations and the PD zoning designation. The PD LUP limits the total number of units to 152, which would accommodate either of the Sheeler Club applications (Sheeler Club Apartments proposes 88 units, while Sheeler Club-Phase II proposes 64 units). The MDR land use category allows the multi-family uses proposed for the development up to 20 units per acre. Under the MDR category, the 21.4-acre site could be approved for well over 152 units. Mr. Hill next certified that there are no additional land use regulation hearings or approvals required to obtain the zoning classification or density described in that zoning classification. The PD zoning is final and is not dependent upon whether Atlantic goes forward with subdivision of the property as proposed in the existing PSP. Atlantic could subdivide the property for a different number of lots, or in a different configuration, without changing the zoning of the property. Finally, Mr. Hill certified that there are no known conditions that would preclude construction of the referenced Development on the proposed site, assuming compliance with the applicable land use regulations. There are numerous county approvals needed throughout the development approval process. The Zoning form does not require the local government official to certify that no additional approvals are needed following site plan review, or that the proposed project is ready to begin construction. Petitioners contend that neither of the Sheeler Club applications should have been deemed eligible because, despite Mr. Hill’s authorized certifications to the contrary, the projects do not have the ability to proceed. Petitioners do not contend that Mr. Hill was not authorized to execute the forms, or that the certifications were obtained through fraud or other illegality. As to the Site Plan form, Petitioners contend first that Mr. Hill did not review a site plan for either project proposed by Atlantic: Sheeler Club Apartments, 88 multi-family units; or Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II, 64 garden apartments. Instead, Mr. Hill reviewed and certified the site plan for Sheeler Avenue Townhomes PD, which provides for development of single-family townhomes in a single phase over the entire site. Petitioners argue that the PD is conditioned upon development of townhomes in single ownership complying with section 38-79(20) of the Orange County Code of Ordinances, which is unrelated to construction of the “garden apartments” proposed by Atlantic in its application to Florida Housing for financing. Thus, Petitioners conclude, Mr. Hill has not reviewed a site plan for either Sheeler Club Apartments or Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II. Mr. Hill testified that his certification did not depend on whether either or both of the proposed projects was eventually developed, but that the overall site has a PD zoning approval for a total of 152 units. Ken Reecy is the Director of Multi-family Programs for Florida Housing. He testified the purpose of the Site Plan form, and, for that matter, the Zoning form, is to verify “high- level” approval of the site. For example, if the applicant proposes a 64-unit project, Florida Housing wants verification that the developer will be able to deliver 64 units. As to the Zoning form, Petitioners present a parade of objections. Petitioners argue that the proposed use of the property for multi-family apartments and garden apartments is inconsistent with the zoning approval for single-family townhomes; thus, additional land use regulation approvals are required, contrary to the certified Zoning form. Petitioners point to the PSP approved for the subdivision of the property and argue that neither Sheeler Club project could be built in conformity with the PSP, which proposes to subdivide the property into 152 townhome lots. Relying on the PSP, Petitioners also argue that Sheeler Club Apartments-Phase II has no public road access without the Sheeler Club Apartments development, thus, Mr. Hill’s certification as to Phase II was incorrect and the project is not ready to proceed. Moreover, Petitioners argue that Atlantic “gerrymandered” the boundaries of the two projects in order to secure the most advantageous location for the “development location point”; therefore, the lot layout proposed in the PSP cannot be achieved on either of the two projects. Likewise, Petitioners argue the boundary is a change from the approved PSP, which requires additional land use approvals from the Board of County Commissioners. It is Florida Housing’s practice to accept the zoning and land use certifications by local officials, which it followed in this case. Florida Housing does not have the expertise, resources, or authority to evaluate local zoning and land use decisions. Petitioners would have the undersigned perform the analysis that Florida Housing did not and make a determination whether the Atlantic projects, as proposed, meet the requirements for zoning and land use approvals set forth in the certifications signed by Mr. Hill. Petitioners would have this tribunal interpret the Orange County Code of Ordinances and make findings regarding: whether the LUP PD would have to be amended for Atlantic to build the projects proposed in its funding application to Florida Housing; whether said amendments would constitute “substantial changes” to the approved PD, thus requiring additional public hearings; and, ultimately, whether the Site Plan and Zoning forms were executed in error. The undersigned declines to do so, as set forth more fully in the Conclusions of Law. In this particular case, Mr. Reecy testified that Orange County was aware of the issues raised by Madison Hollow and that he relied on Mr. Hill’s knowledge to make the right call on these forms. While there was certainly an abundance of testimony attempting to call into question the decisions of the Orange County authorities, the evidence does not support a finding that Florida Housing’s proposed action is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the solicitation specifications, or that it was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. In light of that finding, the audio recordings of Orange County Commission Meetings proffered by both Petitioners and Brixton Landing are not admitted. The recordings are irrelevant in this proceeding and have not been relied upon by the undersigned. Banyan Station and Lauderdale Place Madison Hollow alleges that two other applications, Banyan Station and Lauderdale Place, should have been found ineligible for failure to disclose the principals of the applicant and the developers, as required by RFA section Four.A.3. Both the applicants for, and developers of, Banyan Station and Lauderdale Place are limited liability companies (LLCs). Section Four.A.3.d.(2) requires applicants that are LLCs to provide a list identifying the principals of the applicant and the principals of each developer as of the application deadline. The RFA also directs applicants to Section 3 of Exhibit C “to assist the [a]pplicant in compiling the listing.” Exhibit C provides, “[t]he Corporation is providing the following charts and examples to assist the Applicant in providing the required list[.] The term Principal is defined in Section 67-48.002, F.A.C.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 67-48.002(93) reads, in relevant part, as follows: (93) ‘Principal’ means: With respect to an Applicant or Developer that is a limited liability company, any manager or member of the Applicant or Developer limited liability company, and, with respect to any manager or member of the Applicant or Developer limited liability company that is: 3. A limited liability company, any manager or member of the limited liability company. Exhibit C provides the following chart applicable to disclosures by LLC applicants: Identify All Managers And Identify all Members and For each Manager that is a Limited Partership: For each Manager that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Manager that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder and For each Member that is a Limited Partnership: For each Member that is a Limited Liability Company: For each Member that is a Corporation: Identify each General Partner Identify each Manager Identify each Officer and and and Identify each Limited Partner Identify each Member Identify each Director and Identify each Shareholder For any Manager and/or Member that is a natural person (i.e., Samuel S. Smith), no further disclosure is required. Exhibit C further provides examples of fictitious applicants and developers followed by disclosure listings of managers, members, general and limited partners, officers, directors, and shareholders, as applicable. Banyan Station, applicant, HTG Banyan is a limited liability company. HTG Banyan listed its managers as Matthew and Randy Rieger, and its members as Camillus-Banyan, LLC, and Housing Trust Group, LLC. It then listed Camillus House, Inc., and RER Family Partnership, Ltd., as sole members of those LLCs, respectively. Applicant’s developer is also a limited liability company, HTG Banyan Developer, LLC. HTG Banyan Developer listed Matthew and Randy Rieger as the developer’s managers, and Camillus-Banyan, LLC, HTG Affordable, LLC, and Reiger Holdings, LLC, as its members. It listed Camillus House, Inc., RER Family Partnership, Ltd., and Balogh Family Investments Limited Partnership, as members of those LLCs. HTG Banyan Developer disclosed Matthew Reiger as the sole member of Rieger Holdings. Likewise, Lauderdale Place applicant, HTG Anderson, LLC, identified its managers and members, although some members were identified as LLCs. In each case, the applicant identified the principals of the applicant and the developer down “two levels” of organizational structure, even though in some cases this did not result in the disclosure of natural persons. Petitioners urge an interpretation of the disclosure requirement that would require an LLC to continue to identify members and managers until natural persons are identified. Respondents maintain that the rule and the RFA require disclosure of only “two levels” of organizational structure, as shown on the charts in Exhibit C. Petitioners did not make a showing that Florida Housing’s interpretation of the rule and the RFA is unreasonable. The definition of “principal” of an LLC includes members which are likewise LLCs. The assistive chart includes disclosures at only two levels of organizational structure. Furthermore, in Exhibit C, example 3, the disclosure for ABC, LLC, includes XYZ, LLC, as a member without further disclosure. In support of its argument, Petitioners rely upon the language below the chart which states, “[f]or any Manager and/or Member that is a natural person (i.e., Samuel S. Smith), no further disclosure is required.” The plain language of the chart states that when disclosing managers and members of an LLC, for any manager or member who is a natural person, no further disclosure is required. The language does not state, as Petitioners would prefer, when disclosing managers and members of an LLC, disclosure must be made until all natural persons are disclosed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order affirming Brixton Landing for funding under RFA 2014-115. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2015.
