The Issue The issues are whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2020-208 (“RFA”), titled “SAIL and Housing Credit Financing for the Construction of Workforce Housing,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications and, if so, whether the challenged award was contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and/or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: THE PARTIES Quail Roost was an applicant for funding in the RFA. Quail Roost’s application was assigned number 2020-461SC and was preliminarily deemed eligible for consideration for funding, but was not selected for funding. Ali Baba was an applicant for funding in the RFA. Ali Baba’s application was assigned number 2020-476BS and proposed a development named City Terrace in Miami-Dade County. Ali Baba’s application was preliminarily deemed eligible and was selected for funding under the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. Its purpose is to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. § 420.5099, Fla. Stat. Florida Housing has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. For purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. THE COMPETITIVE APPLICATION PROCESS The low-income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. Housing credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for qualifying rental housing projects. These credits are then typically sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect is to reduce the amount of money that the developer is required to borrow commercially. In return for the subsidized debt reduction, a housing credit property is required to offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers must also agree to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of thirty to fifty years. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate low-income housing tax credits, SAIL funding, and other named funding by section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process. Rule 67-60.009(1) provides that parties wishing to protest any aspect of a Florida Housing competitive solicitation must do so pursuant to section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes. Funding is made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a request for applications. Rule 67-60.009(4) provides that a request for application is considered a “request for proposal” for purposes of section 120.57(3)(f). Applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing credits to be awarded to the applicant each year for a period of ten years. A successful applicant usually sells the rights to the future income stream of housing credits to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. This sale is usually by way of an ownership interest in the applicant entity. The amount of funding that Florida Housing can award to an applicant depends on such factors as an RFA-designated percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated areas of some counties. The RFA was issued on February 24, 2020, with responses due on March 30, 2020. The RFA was modified on March 13, 2020, and March 19, 2020, but the application deadline was unchanged. No challenges were made to the terms of the RFA. Florida Housing expects to award up to $17,954,000 in SAIL funding and up to $2,980,000 of housing credits through the RFA. Florida Housing received 22 applications in response to the RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (the “Board”). The Review Committee found 19 applications eligible and three applications ineligible for funding. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the RFA, three applications were preliminarily recommended for funding, including that submitted by Ali Baba. The Review Committee developed charts listing its eligibility and funding recommendations to be presented to the Board. On June 11, 2020, Florida Housing’s Board met and considered the recommendations of the Review Committee. Also, on June 11, 2020, at approximately 4:35 p.m., Quail Roost and all other applicants in the RFA received notice via the Florida Housing website of the Board’s eligibility determinations and of the preliminary selection of certain eligible applicants for funding, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. The notice consisted of two spreadsheets, one listing the Board approved scoring results in RFA 2020-208 and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Ali Baba’s was one of the applications proposed for funding. Under the scoring and ranking mechanism of the RFA explained below, Quail Roost’s application would be selected for funding were Ali Baba’s application to lose points or be found ineligible. Quail Roost timely filed the Petition. Ali Baba timely intervened. The Petition was referred to the DOAH. The RFA provided point scoring for mandatory “eligibility items.” The RFA then set forth an “Application Sorting Order” of funding goals and priorities that were used to break ties in the point scoring. Only applications that met all the eligibility items could participate in the ranking scheme that determined funding selection. The RFA included only one point scoring item. Applicants could receive five points for submission of a Principals Disclosure Form stamped by Florida Housing as “Approved” during the Advance Review Process. The Advance Review Process is available online and includes instructions and samples to assist the applicant in completing the Principals Disclosure Form. Section Four A.3.c.(2) of the RFA states: “Note: It is the sole responsibility of the Applicant to review the Advance Review Process procedures and to submit any Principals Disclosure Form for review in a timely manner in order to meet the Application Deadline.” The stated goal of the RFA was to fund one application in Monroe County and one application in a “Large County,” i.e., Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, Orange, Palm Beach, or Pinellas County. The Application Sorting Order was set forth as follows at Section Five B.2. of the RFA: The highest scoring Applications will be determined by first sorting together all eligible Applications from highest score to lowest score, with any scores that are tied separated in the following order: First, by the Application’s eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application’s Leveraging Level which is outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that have a lower Leveraging Level listed above Applications with a higher Leveraging Level); Next, by the Application’s eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference (which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; and By lottery number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. The RFA’s “Funding Test” provision at Section Five B.3. stated that applications “will only be selected for funding if there is enough Workforce SAIL funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Workforce SAIL Request Amount, and, Monroe County Applications will only be selected for funding if there is enough Workforce SAIL funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Workforce SAIL Request Amount, and enough Competitive 9% Housing Credit funding available to fully fund the Applicant’s Competitive 9% Housing Credit Request Amount.” The total available amount was $17,954,000 in SAIL funding, with at least $2,520,000 of that amount reserved for Monroe County. Section Five B.4. of the RFA described a “County Award Tally” that provided as follows: As each Application is selected for tentative funding, the county where the proposed Development is located will have one Application credited towards the County Award Tally. The Corporation will prioritize eligible unfunded Applications that meet the Funding Test and are located within counties that have the lowest County Award Tally above other eligible unfunded Applications with a higher County Award Tally that also meet the Funding Test, even if the Applications with a higher County Award Tally are higher ranked. The RFA’s “Funding Selection Order” was set forth as follows at Section Five B.5.: The first Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Application that is eligible for Monroe County Goal. The next Application selected for funding will be the highest ranking eligible Application that is eligible for the Large County Goal. Once the goals are met or if there are no eligible Applications that can meet the goals, then the Corporation will select the highest ranking eligible unfunded Application(s) subject to the Funding Test and County Award Tally. If funding remains after funding all eligible Application(s) that can meet the Funding Test or because there is no eligible unfunded Application that can be fully funded, then no further Applications will be selected for funding and any remaining Total Remaining SAIL funding, as well as any unallocated 9% HC funding, will be distributed as approved by the Board. PRINCIPALS DISCLOSURE FORM The RFA required applicants to upload the Principals Disclosure Form, the full title of which is “Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form” (Form Rev. 05-2019). As an eligibility item, Section Four A.3.c.(1) of the RFA required that the Principals Disclosure Form: must identify, pursuant to Subsections 67- 48.002(94), 67-48.0075(8) and 67-48.0075(9), F.A.C., the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. As stated above, applicants received 5 points if the uploaded Principals Disclosure Form was stamped “Approved” during the Advance Review Process. Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form went through the Advance Review Process and was stamped “Approved for Housing Credits” by Florida Housing staff on March 16, 2020. Ali Baba’s application was awarded the requisite 5 points. Rule 67-48.002(94)(a) defines “Principal” for entities including corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, trusts, and public housing authorities. For a corporation, “Principal” means “each officer, director, executive director, and shareholder of the corporation.” Quail Roost alleges that Ali Baba is ineligible for funding and should lose 5 points for failure to disclose all of the principals of the applicant and its developer, Opa-Locka Community Development Corporation, Inc. (“Opa- Locka Corp.”). Specifically, Quail Roost alleges that the name of Chad Jackson, a member of the Board of Directors of Opa-Locka Corp., was not disclosed on Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. Ali Baba concedes that members of the Board of Directors of the Opa- Locka Corp. are by definition principals who must be included on the Principals Disclosure Form. Ali Baba also conceded that Mr. Jackson was a member of the Board of Directors and was not included on Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. Dr. Willie Logan, the President and CEO of Opa-Locka Corp., testified that Mr. Jackson is a local low-income housing resident who is an appointed member of the Board of Directors of Opa-Locka Corp. Dr. Logan testified that a resident such as Mr. Jackson must be on the Board of Directors in order for Opa-Locka Corp. to receive funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Though Mr. Jackson’s name is not included on the Principals Disclosure Form, Ali Baba did disclose Mr. Jackson’s name in a list of its 2019-2020 Board of Directors included as part of Attachment 3 of its application. Non-Profit entities are required to submit “the names and addresses of the members of the governing board of the Non-Profit entity” in Attachment 3. Ali Baba argues that this submission should be sufficient to render Ali Baba’s failure to include Mr. Jackson’s name on the Principals Disclosure Form a minor irregularity. Marisa Button, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, testified as to the reasons Florida Housing requires disclosure of all principals on the Principals Disclosure Form. The RFA includes a financial arrearage requirement stating that an application will be deemed ineligible for funding if the applicant or any affiliated entity is in financial arrears to Florida Housing. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing uses the information on the Principals Disclosure Form to ensure that the financial arrearage requirement is met and no principals are in financial arrearages to Florida Housing. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing also uses the Principals Disclosure Form as a cross-reference to determine whether any of the disclosed entities or individuals have been de-obligated or barred from participation in Florida Housing’s programs. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing considers it a material deviation from the RFA requirements when an applicant fails to disclose a principal on the Principals Disclosure Form. She testified that the disclosure of Mr. Jackson’s name elsewhere in Ali Baba’s application does not change the analysis because Florida Housing cannot take it upon itself to presume that an individual not named in the Principals Disclosure Form is a principal of the applicant. Ms. Button explained that before adopting the RFA process in which a number of solicitations are issued for various funding sources over the course of a year, Florida Housing used a single annual application called the “Universal Cycle.” She stated that Attachment 3 is a holdover from the Universal Cycle process, which did not require the filing of a Principals Disclosure Form. Florida Housing used Attachment 3 to verify an applicant’s status as a nonprofit entity for those projects that included funding goals for nonprofits. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing currently reviews Attachment 3 to ensure that entities designating themselves as nonprofits have included their supporting information. It is in no way interchangeable with the Principals Disclosure Form. Ms. Button also noted that the list of Ali Baba’s Board of Directors included in Attachment 3 was dated March 26, 2020. The application deadline was March 30, 2020. Ms. Button testified that, even if Florida Housing were inclined to allow Attachment 3 to supplement the Principals Disclosure Form, the time difference between the two documents would render Attachment 3 unreliable as an indicator of Ali Baba’s principals as of the application deadline. Quail Roost pointed to another discrepancy in Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form. As stated above, the name of the applicant entity is “675 Ali Baba, LLC.” The project manager of 675 Ali Baba, LLC, is “675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” However, Ali Baba’s Principals Disclosure Form identified the manager as “Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” Ali Baba concedes that its manager was not accurately disclosed on the Principals Disclosure Form. Dr. Logan testified that this was a mere typographical error and that to his knowledge no entity called “Ali Baba Manager, LLC,” existed. Ali Baba pointed to multiple other places in its application that correctly identified the manager as “675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC.” Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing considers the misnaming of the management entity to be a material error for the same reason it finds the omission of an individual principal to be a material error: Florida Housing cannot perform due diligence checks on the entity if it is not correctly identified. Ms. Button acknowledged that Florida Housing has treated typographical or grammatical errors as minor irregularities in the past; however, this was not a minor irregularity because the failure to correctly name the manager affected Florida Housing’s ability to investigate the entity for financial arrears or debarment. As in the case of Mr. Jackson, the fact that 675 Ali Baba Manager, LLC, was correctly identified elsewhere in Ali Baba’s application did not affect the analysis. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing does not, and cannot, under its rules and the principles of competitive bidding, look beyond the Principals Disclosure Form to determine the identities of the applicant’s principals. SCATTERED SITES As an eligibility requirement in the RFA, applicants were required to provide information regarding the location of their proposed developments. Section Four A.5.d.(1) of the RFA required that a Development Location Point (“DLP”) be stated for the latitude/longitude coordinates in decimal degrees, rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. The DLP identified by Ali Baba is not in dispute in this proceeding. Section Four A.5.d.(2) of the RFA stated that if the proposed development consists of Scattered Sites, i.e, non-contiguous parcels,2 then in addition to the DLP information, the applicant must “provide the latitude and longitude coordinates of one point located anywhere on the Scattered Site” for each Scattered Site. As with the DLP, the coordinates for the Scattered Sites were required to be stated in decimal degrees and rounded to at least the sixth decimal place. In its application, Ali Baba proposed a development that included three Scattered Sites. Ali Baba provided the following latitude and longitude coordinates for those sites: A) 25.901060, -80.251883; B) 25.901267, -80.251473; and C) 25.901884, -80.253365. Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing takes the coordinates in the application at face value and does not verify whether the coordinates provided for the Scattered Sites are actually on the proposed sites. During discovery in this proceeding, Quail Roost established that, due to a mapping error, Ali Baba’s identified coordinates for the three Scattered Sites were not located on the Scattered Sites, but approximately 35, 73, and 75 feet off the Scattered Sites, respectively. As an eligibility item, the RFA included a mandatory distance requirement. In Miami-Dade County, the distance between the DLP and the coordinates provided for any Scattered Sites must be at least 0.5 miles from the closest development that is identified as serving the same demographic as that proposed by the applicant. Ms. Button testified that the mandatory distance requirement ensures that Florida Housing does not fund developments in close proximity to other 2 A detailed definition of “Scattered Sites” is set forth in rule 67-48.002(106). recently funded developments serving the same demographic, thus avoiding issues with leasing and occupancy rates for new developments. To confirm distances from other developments, the RFA instructs applicants to use Florida Housing’s Development Proximity List, dated August 16, 2019 (“Proximity List”). The Proximity List contains information on recently funded developments, including latitude and longitude coordinates, addresses, and whether the demographic of the development is classified as Family, Elderly, Non-ALF, ALF, or Workforce Housing. Florida Housing uses the DLP and Scattered Sites coordinates provided by successful applicants to develop the Proximity List for the next funding cycle of applications. The developments receiving funding in this RFA will be added to the Proximity List for prospective applicants in the 2020-2021 funding cycle to evaluate for the mandatory distance requirement. Florida Housing has created a draft Proximity List for the next funding cycle that includes the coordinates provided in the Ali Baba application. The draft Proximity List puts future applicants on notice of applications that are in litigation, including the Ali Baba application. In its application, Ali Baba selected the Workforce Housing demographic. According to the Proximity List, the closest Workforce Housing development is approximately 5 miles from Ali Baba’s proposed development. Ali Baba argues that its inaccurate Scattered Sites coordinates should be considered a minor irregularity because the distances from the sites are less than 100 feet and did not change the finding that the Ali Baba development would not be located within 0.5 miles of the closest Workforce Housing development funded by Florida Housing. Ali Baba argues that because the draft Proximity List provides notice that its application is subject to litigation, no reasonable prospective applicant would rely on Ali Baba’s coordinates. Ali Baba notes that Florida Housing retains the authority to revise the coordinates on the draft Proximity List. Ali Baba contends that the purpose of the mandatory distance requirement is to measure proximity to the nearest development and that it is undisputed that Ali Baba’s proposed development is more than 0.5 miles away from the nearest Workforce Housing development funded by Florida Housing. Ali Baba urges that the minimal error as to the Scattered Sites coordinates in its application should be deemed a minor irregularity that conferred no competitive advantage on Ali Baba. Ms. Button testified that the error in Ali Baba’s coordinates for its Scattered Sites is a material deviation that renders the Ali Baba application ineligible for funding. The fact that the next closest Workforce Housing development was over 5 miles away does not make Ali Baba’s error a waivable minor irregularity because the coordinates provided did not meet the requirements of the RFA. Ms. Button testified that Scattered Sites coordinates are an eligibility item and Ali Baba’s error thus renders its application ineligible for funding. Absent litigation, Florida Housing would have no way of knowing that an applicant’s Scattered Sites coordinates were not accurate. Florida Housing takes the coordinates at face value and does not take measurements or have surveyors confirm the information. Instead, it relies on the application and the fact that the applicant certifies that the information in the application is true and correct. Ms. Button testified that inaccurate coordinates can affect a prospective applicant’s decision on whether to apply for funding because applicants rely on the coordinates in the Proximity List to determine whether or not they can meet the mandatory distance requirement. Florida Housing reasonably concludes that an applicant bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the information submitted in its application. The fact that litigation has in this case provided a correction to Ali Baba’s erroneous Scattered Sites coordinates does not transform Ali Baba’s failure to comply with an eligibility item into a minor irregularity.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order as to 2020-208 finding that Ali Baba is ineligible for funding and awarding funding to Quail Roost, subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue 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.
The Issue Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation created under Florida law to administer the governmental function of financing or refinancing affordable housing and related facilities in Florida. Florida Housing administers a competitive solicitation process to implement the provisions of the housing credit program, under which developers apply and compete for funding for projects in response to RFAs developed by Florida Housing. The RFA in this case was specifically targeted to provide affordable housing in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The RFA introduction provides: 2 As this Recommended Order of Dismissal is based upon a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of the three Petitions filed by the Petitioners in this consolidate case are accepted as true, and the Findings of Fact are derived from the four corners of those Petitions, see Madison Highlands. LLC v. Florida Housing Finance Corp., 220 So. 3d 467, 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017), and facts that are not otherwise in dispute. This Request for Applications (RFA) is open to Applicants proposing the development of affordable, multifamily housing located in Miami- Dade County. Under this RFA, Florida Housing Finance Corporation (the Corporation) expects to have up to an estimated $7,195,917 of Housing Credits available for award to proposed Developments located in Miami-Dade County. After Florida Housing announced its preliminary funding award decisions for RFA 2019-112 for Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County, each of the Petitioners filed Petitions challenging the decisions. Petitioners do not allege that Florida Housing improperly scored or evaluated the applications selected for funding, nor do they contend that Petitioners' applications should be funded. Instead, Petitioners allege that the evaluation was fundamentally unfair and seeks to have the entire RFA rescinded based on alleged improprieties of one responding entity and its affiliates. Petitioners claim that the evaluation process was fundamentally unfair is based entirely on allegations that several entities associated with Housing Trust Group, LLC (HTG), combined to submit 15 Priority I applications in contravention of the limitation in the RFA on the number of Priority I applications that could be submitted. Even assuming Petitioners' assertions are correct, there is no scenario in which Petitioners can reach the funding range for this RFA. In order to break ties for those applicants that achieve the maximum number of points and meet the mandatory eligibility requirements, the RFA sets forth a series of tie-breakers to determine which applications will be awarded funding. The instant RFA included specific goals to fund certain types of developments and sets forth sorting order tie-breakers to distinguish between applicants. The relevant RFA provisions are as follows: Goals The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) proposed Development that (a) selected the Demographic Commitment of Family at questions 2.a. of Exhibit A and (b) qualifies for the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/SADDA Goal as outlined in Section Four A. 11. a. The Corporation has a goal to fund one (1) proposed Development that selected the Demographic Commitment of Elderly (Non-ALF) at question 2.a. of Exhibit A. *Note: During the Funding Selection Process outlined below, Developments selected for these goals will only count toward one goal. Applicant Sorting Order All eligible Priority I Applications will be ranked by sorting the Applications as follows, followed by Priority II Applications. First, from highest score to lowest score; Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Proximity Funding Preference (which is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the RFA) with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference; Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Per Unit Construction Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.lO.e. of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Application's eligibility for the Development Category Funding Preference which is outlined in Section Four A.4.(b)(4) of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); Next, by the Applicant's Leveraging Classification, applying the multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications having the Classification of A listed above Applications having the Classification of B); Next, by the Applicant's eligibility for the Florida Job Creation Funding Preference which is outlined in Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with Applications that qualify for the preference listed above Applications that do not qualify for the preference); and And finally, by lotterv number, resulting in the lowest lottery number receiving preference. This RFA was similar to previous RFAs issued by Florida Housing, but included some new provisions limiting the number of Priority I applications that could be submitted. Specifically, the RFA provided: Priority Designation of Applications Applicants may submit no more than three (3) Priority I Applications. There is no limit to the number of Priority II Applications that can be submitted; however, no Principal can be a Principal, as defined in Rule Chapter 67- 48.002(94), F.A.C., of more than three ( 3) Priority 1 Applications. For purposes of scoring, Florida Housing will rely on the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Rev. 05-2019) outlined below in order to determine if a Principal is a Principal on more than three (3) Priority 1 Applications. If during scoring it is determined that a Principal is disclosed as a Principal on more than three (3) Priority I Applications, all such Priority I Applications will be deemed Priority II. If it is later determined that a Principal, as defined in Rule Chapter 67-48.002(94), F.A.C., was not disclosed as a Principal and the undisclosed Principal causes the maximum set forth above to be exceeded, the award(s) for the affected Application(s) will be rescinded and all Principals of the affected Applications may be subject to material misrepresentation, even if Applications were not selected for funding, were deemed ineligible, or were withdrawn. The Petitioners all timely submitted applications in response to the RFA. Lottery numbers were assigned by Florida Housing, at random, to all applications shortly after the applications were received and before any scoring began. Lottery numbers were assigned to the applications without regard to whether the application was a Priority I or Priority II. The RFA did not limit the number of Priority II Applications that could be submitted. Review of the applications to determine if a principal was a principal on more than three Priority 1 Applications occurred during the scoring process, well after lottery numbers were assigned. The leveraging line, which would have divided the Priority I Applications into Group A and Group B, was established after the eligibility determinations were made. All applications were included in Group A. There were no Group B applications. Thus, all applications were treated equally with respect to this preference. The applications were ultimately ranked according to lottery number and funding goal. . If Florida Housing had determined that an entity or entities submitted more than three Priority I Applications with related principals, the relief set forth in the RFA was to move those applications to Priority II. Florida Housing did not affirmatively conclude that any of the 15 challenged applications included undisclosed principals so as to cause a violation of the maximum number of Priority I Applications that could be submitted. All of the applications that were deemed eligible for funding, including the Priority II Applications, scored equally, and met all of the funding preferences. After the applications were evaluated by the Review Committee appointed by Florida Housing, the scores were finalized and preliminary award recommendations were presented and approved by Florida Housing's Board. Consistent with the procedures set forth in the RFA, Florida Housing staff reviewed the Principal Disclosure Forms to determine the number of Priority I Applications that had been filed by each applicant. This review did not result in a determination that any applicant had exceeded the allowable number of Priority I Applications that included the same principal. One of the HTG Applications (Orchid Pointe, App. No. 2020-148C) was initially selected to satisfy the Elderly Development goal. Subsequently, three applications, including Slate Miami, that had initially been deemed ineligible due to financial arrearages were later determined to be in full compliance and, thus, eligible as of the close of business on January 8, 2020. The Review Committee reconvened on January 21, 2020, to reinstate those three applications. Slate Miami was then recommended for funding. The Review Committee ultimately recommended to the Board the following applications for funding: Harbour Springs (App. No. 2020-101C), which met the Geographic Areas of Opportunity/SADDA Goal; Slate Miami (App. No. 2020-122C), which met the Elderly (non-ALF) Goal; and Naranja Lakes (App. No. 2020-117C), which was the next highest-ranked eligible Priority I Application. The Board approved the Committee's recommendations at its meeting on January 23, 2020, and approved the preliminary selection of Harbour Springs, Slate Miami, and Naranja Lakes for funding. The applications selected for funding held Lottery numbers 1 (Harbour Springs), 2 (Naranja Lakes), and 4 (Slate Miami). Petitioners' lottery numbers were 16 (Quail Roost), 59 (Sierra Meadows) and 24 (Ambar Trail). The three applications selected for funding have no affiliation or association with HTG, or any of the entities that may have filed applications in contravention of the limitation in the RFA for Priority I applications. The applications alleged in the Petitions as being affiliated with HTG received a wide range of lottery numbers in the random selection, including numbers: 3, 6, 14, 19, 30, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 49, 52 through 54, and 58. If Petitioners prevailed in demonstrating an improper principal relationship between the HTG applications, the relief specified in the RFA (the specifications of which were not challenged) would have been the conversion of the offending HTG applications to Priority II applications. The relief would not have been the removal of those applications from the pool of applications, nor would it have affected the assignment of lottery numbers to any of the applicants, including HTG. The Petitions do not allege any error in scoring or ineligibility with respect to the three applications preliminarily approved for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioners lack standing and dismissing the Petitions with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 (eServed) Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500 Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 (eServed) Donna Elizabeth Blanton, Esquire Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed) M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) J. Stephen Menton, Esquire Tana D. Storey, Esquire Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202 Post Office Box 551 (32302) Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Housing's proposed action to deem Madison Landing eligible for an award of housing tax credit funds, as contemplated under Request for Applications 2020-202 Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties ("the 2020 RFA"), is contrary to governing statutes, rules or policies, or the 2020 RFA specifications. The standard of proof is whether Florida Housing's proposed action is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.
Findings Of Fact Florida Housing is a public corporation organized pursuant to Chapter 420, Part V, Florida Statutes, whose address is 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and for the purposes of these proceedings, an agency of the State of Florida. Madison Landing is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $1,950,000 in competitive housing credits in in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-021C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. Madison Park is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,881,960 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-004C, was deemed eligible, but was not selected for funding by Florida Housing. WRDG is an Applicant requesting an allocation of $2,375,000 in competitive housing credits in the 2020 RFA. Its application, 2021-025C, was deemed eligible and was preliminarily selected for funding by Florida Housing. Florida Housing administers various affordable housing programs, including the Housing Credit Program, pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRC" or "the Code") and section 420.5099, under which Florida Housing is designated as the Housing Credit agency for the State of Florida within the meaning of Section 42(h)(7)(A) of the IRC, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 67-48 and 67-60. Florida Housing has established, by rule, a competitive solicitation process known as the Request for Applications ("RFA") to assess the relative merits of proposed developments, pursuant to chapters 67-48 and 67-60. An RFA sets forth the information required to be provided by an Applicant, which includes a general description of the type of projects that will be considered eligible for funding and delineates the submission requirements. While there are numerous references to Florida Housing's rules throughout the RFA, RFAs themselves are not adopted or incorporated by rule. Florida Housing issues many RFAs each year. Although an issued RFA may be similar to these issued in previous years, each RFA is unique. The RFA process begins when Florida Housing requests the Florida Housing Board of Directors ("the Board") to approve Florida Housing's plan for allocating its resources through the various RFAs. If the plan is approved by the Board, Florida Housing begins working on each individual RFA. Florida Housing posts draft documents to its website for public review, such as a draft of the RFA, and holds a workshop in which the RFA is discussed in detail, highlighting language that changed from the previous year. The public is given the opportunity to ask questions and submit written comments for further suggestions and/or additional edits prior to the RFA's issuance. Marisa Button, Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing, credibly and persuasively testified that Questions and Answers are provided as guidance, but do not provide new requirements to override the terms of an RFA. In the event of an inconsistency between Questions and Answers and another form of guidance for applicants, Florida Housing has maintained the position that the least restrictive guidance controls. Rule 67-60.006 provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he failure of an Applicant to supply required information in connection with any competitive solicitation pursuant to this rule chapter shall be grounds for a determination of non-responsiveness with respect to its Application." By applying, each Applicant certifies that: Proposed Developments funded under this RFA will be subject to the requirements of the RFA, inclusive of all Exhibits, the Application requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., the requirements outlined in Rule Chapter 67-48, F.A.C. and the Compliance requirements of Rule Chapter 67-53, F.A.C. On August 26, 2020, Florida Housing issued the 2020 RFA, proposing to provide an estimated $18,669,520 of Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties. Modifications to the 2020 RFA were made on September 11 and October 12, 2020. The Application Deadline for the 2020 RFA was October 20, 2020. On or about October 20, 2020, 35 applications were submitted in response to the 2020 RFA. A Review Committee was appointed to review the applications and make recommendations to the Board. The Review Committee found 34 applications eligible and one application ineligible. Through the ranking and selection process outlined in the 2020 RFA, eight applications were recommended for funding. In accordance with the funding selection process set forth in the 2020 RFA, one application was selected from each of Duval, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange counties; two applications were selected from Broward County; and one application (WRDG) was selected from any of these counties. On December 4, 2020, the Board approved these recommendations. On December 17, 2020, Madison Landing timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0146BID. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and MHP FL II, LLC. On January 13, 2021, Madison Landing dismissed all of its allegations against MHP FL II, LLC. On December 17, 2020, Madison Park timely filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings, which was referred to DOAH and assigned Case No. 21-0147BID. An amended petition was filed on January 13, 2021. This petition challenged the eligibility of both WRDG and Madison Landing. On January 26, 2021, all parties entered into a Stipulation for Entry of Findings of Fact in which WRDG conceded that its application should have been found ineligible. WRDG is ineligible for funding under the 2020 RFA. With WRDG ineligible for funding, Madison Landing would be selected for funding in place of WRDG. If both WRDG and Madison Landing were found to be ineligible for funding, Madison Park would be selected for funding in place of WRDG and Madison Landing. No other Applicant selected for funding will be impacted regardless of the outcome of this case. No challenges were made to the terms of the 2020 RFA. Madison Landing's application includes an executed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form, which provides, "The Applicant, the Developer and all Principals are in good standing among all other state agencies and have not been prohibited from applying for funding." The phrase "good standing among all other state agencies" is not defined; and no evidence was presented as to the definitive meaning of the phrase. No evidence was presented that Madison Landing's Principals are not in good standing with any state agency or have been prohibited from applying for funding. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.a. provides that Applicants must disclose the name of the Applicant entity and provide evidence that it is legally formed: (2) The Applicant must be a legally formed entity [i.e., limited partnership, limited liability company, etc.] qualified to do business in the state of Florida as of the Application Deadline. Include, as Attachment 2 to Exhibit A, evidence from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, that the Applicant satisfies the foregoing requirements. Such evidence may be in the form of a certificate of status or other reasonably reliable information or documentation issued, published or made available by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. Rule 67-48.002(9) (6/23/2020), defines "Applicant" as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule Chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a 'legal entity' means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company. The 2020 RFA at Section Four A.3.c. provides that Applicants must disclose Principals of both the Applicant and Developer entities. The 2020 RFA provides in pertinent part: c. Principals Disclosure for the Applicant and for each Developer (5 points) (1) Eligibility Requirements To meet the submission requirements, upload the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form (Form Rev. 05-2019) ("Principals Disclosure Form") as outlined in Section Three above. Prior versions of the Principal Disclosure Form will not be accepted. To meet eligibility requirements, the Principals Disclosure Form must identify, pursuant to Subsections 67-48.002(94), 67-48.0075(8) and 67- 48.0075(9), F.A.C., the Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) as of the Application Deadline. A Principals Disclosure Form should not include, for any organizational structure, any type of entity that is not specifically included in the Rule definition of Principals. For Housing Credits, the investor limited partner of an Applicant limited partnership or the investor member of an Applicant limited liability company must be identified on the Principal Disclosure Form. Rule 67-48.002(94) defines "Principal" as follows: (94) "Principal" means: For a corporation, each officer, director, executive director, and shareholder of the corporation. For a limited partnership, each general partner, and each limited partner of the limited partnership. For a limited liability company, each manager and each member of the limited liability company. For a trust, each trustee of the trust and all beneficiaries of majority age (i.e., 18 years of age) as of the Application Deadline. Page 10 of 22. For a Public Housing Authority, each officer, director, commissioner, and executive director of the Authority. The requirement to provide evidence that the Applicant is a legally formed entity, as well as the requirement to provide a Principals for Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form, are identified as "Eligibility Items." Section Five A.1. of the 2020 RFA states that "only Applications that meet all of the following Eligibility Items will be eligible for funding and considered for funding selection." Madison Landing submitted Principals of the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure Form(s) with its application. Both forms were approved during the Advance Review Process. On the Principals of the Applicant form, Madison Landing II, LLC, was identified as the Applicant entity. The Principals of the Applicant entity were identified as Patrick E. Law, Manager; Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, Non-Investor Member; and Patrick E. Law, Investor Member. Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, filed Articles of Organization for Florida Limited Liability Company with the Florida Division of Corporations on January 5, 2021, with an effective date of December 31, 2020. The 2020 RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline; however, there is no explicit requirement in the 2020 RFA that each Principal of the Applicant demonstrate that it is a legally formed entity as of the Application Deadline. Ms. Button testified that her initial view was that the failure of Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, to incorporate by the application deadline should render the application ineligible. However, upon further research, she changed her position, believing that Florida Housing was precedentially bound by a previous final order, which found that an application was eligible under similar legal and factual circumstances. The previous case, on which Florida Housing relied, was decided before Florida Housing adopted the current RFA procedures for awarding funding. Ms. Button testified, however, that while some of the processes followed during the Universal Cycle, in place at that time, were different than the RFA process, the requirements for disclosure of Principals were essentially the same. Florida Housing allows interested parties to submit written questions to be answered by Florida Housing staff for each RFA that is issued. The Question-Answer period is referenced specifically within each RFA. The following Question and Answer are posted on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-111: Question 12: Do the entities listed on the Principal Disclosure Form have to be active as of the stamped "Approved" date or as of the Application Deadline? Answer: As of the Application Deadline. The Applicant may upload a Principals Disclosure Form stamped "Approved" during the Advance Review Process provided (a) it is still correct as of the Application Deadline, (b) it was approved for the type of funding being requested (i.e., Housing Credits or Non-Housing Credits) The same Question and Answer above are on Florida Housing's website for RFA 2018-110; RFA 2018-112; and RFA 2018-113. The same Question and Answer, however, do not appear in Questions and Answers for the 2020 RFA at issue in this case. Although Questions and Answers from past RFAs remain on the Florida Housing website, they are discrete to the specific RFA for which they were issued. Rule 67-48.002(9) (7/2018) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legal entity of the type and with the management and ownership structure described herein that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a competitive solicitation pursuant to rule chapter 67-60, F.A.C., for one or more of the Corporations programs. For purposes of rules 67-48.0105. 67-48.0205 and 67- 48.031, F.A.C., Applicant also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Unless otherwise stated in a competitive solicitation, as used herein, a legal entity means a legally formed corporation, limited partnership or limited liability company with a management and ownership structure that consists exclusively of all natural persons by the third principal disclosure level. For Applicants seeking Housing Credits, the Housing Credits Syndicator/Housing Credit investor need only be disclosed at the first principal level and no other disclosure is required. The terms "first principal disclosure level" and "third principal disclosure level" have the meanings attributed to them in the definition of "Principal." Rule 67-48.002(9) (11/2011) defines Applicant as follows: (9) "Applicant" means any person or legally formed entity that is seeking a loan or funding from the Corporation by submitting an Application or responding to a request for proposal for one or more of the Corporation's programs. For purposes of Rules 67-48.0105, 67-48.0205 and 67-48031, F.A.C., Applicants also includes any assigns or successors in interest of the Applicant. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's Principal, Madison Landing II Apartments, LLC, did not demonstrate that it was a legally- formed entity as of the Application Deadline, and therefore, Madison Landing's Principal Disclosure Form did not satisfy the 2020 RFA's requirements. Madison Park argues that Madison Landing's application should be deemed ineligible for funding as a result. Based on the weight of the credible evidence and the language of the 2020 RFA and the governing law, the undersigned finds that Florida Housing did not contravene the 2020 RFA, or any other applicable authority, through the process by which it determined that Madison Landing's application was eligible for the award.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: (1) finding the application of WRDG ineligible for funding; (2) finding the application of Madison Landing eligible for funding; and (3) dismissing the protest of Madison Park. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2021. J. Timothy Schulte, Esquire Zimmerman, Kiser & Sutcliffe, P.A. 315 East Robinson Street Post Office Box 3000 (32802) Orlando, Florida 32801 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation 227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 1400 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 3-231 Tallahassee, Florida 32312
The Issue 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 At issue in this proceeding is whether the actions of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2016-110, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the “RFA”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious. Specifically, the issue is whether Florida Housing acted contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications in finding that the applications of Petitioners JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership (“JPM Outlook”) and Grande Park Limited Partnership (“Grande Park”) were ineligible for funding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: JPM Outlook is a Florida limited partnership based in Jacksonville, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Grande Park is a Florida limited partnership based in Jacksonville, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Hammock Ridge is a Florida limited liability company based in Coconut Grove, Florida, that is in the business of providing affordable housing. Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes. For the purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. Its purpose is to promote public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing affordable housing in Florida. Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish procedures for allocating and distributing low-income housing tax credits. The low income housing tax credit program was enacted to incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental housing. These tax credits are awarded competitively to housing developers in Florida for rental housing projects that qualify. The credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to raise capital for their projects. The effect of this sale is to reduce the amount that the developer would have to borrow otherwise. Because the total debt is lower, a tax credit property can (and must) offer lower, more affordable rents. Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for periods of 30 to 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax credits. Housing tax credits are not tax deductions. For example, a $1,000 deduction in a 15-percent tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax liability by $150, while a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax liability by $1,000. The demand for tax credits provided by the federal government exceeds the supply. Florida Housing is authorized to allocate housing tax credits and other funding by means of a request for proposal or other competitive solicitation in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing has adopted chapter 67-60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for several different programs, including the program for tax credits. Chapter 67-60 provides that Florida Housing allocate its housing tax credits, which are made available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U.S. Treasury, through the bid protest provisions of section 120.57(3). In their applications, applicants request a specific dollar amount of housing tax credits to be given to the applicant each year for a period of 10 years. Applicants will normally sell the rights to that future stream of income tax credits (through the sale of almost all of the ownership interest in the applicant entity) to an investor to generate the amount of capital needed to build the development. The amount which can be received depends upon the accomplishment of several factors, such as a certain percentage of the projected Total Development Cost; a maximum funding amount per development based on the county in which the development will be located; and whether the development is located within certain designated area of some counties. This, however, is not an exhaustive list of the factors considered. Housing tax credits are made available through a competitive application process commenced by the issuance of a Request for Applications. A Request for Applications is equivalent to a “request for proposal,” as indicated in rule 67-60.009(3). The RFA in this case was issued on October 7, 2016. A modification to the RFA was issued on November 10, 2016, and responses were due December 2, 2016. A challenge was filed to the terms, conditions, or requirements of the RFA by parties not associated with the instant case, but that challenge was dismissed prior to hearing. Through the RFA, Florida Housing seeks to award up to an estimated $12,312,632 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments in Medium Counties, as well as up to an estimated $477,091 of housing tax credits to qualified applicants to provide affordable housing developments in Small Counties other than Monroe County. By the terms of the RFA, a review committee made up of Florida Housing staff reviewed and scored each application. These scores were presented in a public meeting and the committee ultimately made a recommendation as to which projects should be funded. This recommendation was presented to Florida Housing’s Board of Directors (“the Board”) for final agency action. On March 24, 2017, all applicants received notice that the Board had approved the recommendation of the review committee concerning which applications were eligible or ineligible for funding and which applications were selected for awards of housing tax credits, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. The notice was provided by the posting on Florida Housing’s website (www.floridahousing.org) of two spreadsheets, one listing the “eligible” and “ineligible” applications and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing proposed to fund. Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 10 developments, including Intervenor Hammock Ridge. Petitioners JPM Outlook and Grande Park were deemed ineligible. If JPM Outlook and Grande Park had been deemed eligible, each would have been in the funding range based on its assigned lottery number and the RFA selection criteria. If Grande Park had been deemed eligible, Hammock Ridge would not have been recommended for funding. Petitioners JPM Outlook and Grande Park timely filed notices of protest and petitions for administrative proceedings. The scoring decision at issue in this proceeding is based on Florida Housing’s decision that Petitioners failed to submit as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A the correct and properly signed version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment Form. Petitioners’ admitted failure to submit the correct Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was the sole reason that Florida Housing found Petitioners’ applications to be ineligible for funding. Section Four of the RFA was titled, “INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN APPLICATION.” Listed there among the Exhibit A submission requirements was the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form, described as follows: The Applicant must include a signed Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form as Attachment 1 to Exhibit A to indicate the Applicant’s certification and acknowledgement of the provisions and requirements of the RFA. The form included in the copy of the Application labeled “Original Hard Copy” must reflect an original signature (blue ink is preferred). The Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form is provided in Exhibit B of this RFA and on the Corporation’s Website http://www.floridahousing.org/Developers/ MultiFamilyPrograms/Competitive/2016- 110/RelatedForms/ (also accessible by clicking here). Note: If the Applicant provides any version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement form other than the version included in this RFA, the form will not be considered. The final sentence of the quoted language is referred to by Florida Housing as the “effects clause.” The November 10, 2016, modifications to the RFA were communicated to applicants in three ways. First, Florida Housing provided a Web Board notice. The Florida Housing Web Board is a communication tool that allows interested parties and development partners to stay apprised of modifications to procurement documents. Second, each RFA issued by Florida Housing, including the one at issue in this proceeding, has its own specific page on Florida Housing's website with hyperlinks to all documents related to that RFA. Third, Florida Housing released an Official Modification Notice that delineated every modification, including a “blackline” version showing the changes with underscoring for emphasis. Brian Parent is a principal for both JPM Outlook and Grande Park. Mr. Parent received the Web Board notification of the RFA modifications via email. Upon receiving the email, Mr. Parent reviewed the modifications on the Florida Housing website. The modification to the RFA, posted on Florida Housing’s website on November 10, 2016, included the following modification of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form, with textual underscoring indicating new language: Pursuant to Rule 67-60.005, F.A.C., Modification of Terms of Competitive Solicitations, Florida Housing hereby modifies Item 2.b.(4) of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form to read as follows: (4) Confirmation that, if the proposed Development meets the definition of Scattered Sites, all Scattered Sites requirements that were not required to be met in the Application will be met, including that all features and amenities committed to and proposed by the Applicant that are not unit- specific shall be located on each of the Scattered Sites, or no more than 1/16 mile from the Scattered Site with the most units, or a combination of both. If the Surveyor Certification form in the Application indicates that the proposed Development does not consist of Scattered Sites, but it is determined during credit underwriting that the proposed Development does meet the definition of Scattered Sites, all of the Scattered Sites requirements must have been met as of Application Deadline and, if all Scattered Sites requirements were not in place as of the Application Deadline, the Applicant’s funding award will be rescinded; Note: For the Application to be eligible for funding, the version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form reflecting the Modification posted 11-10-16 must be submitted to the Corporation by the Application Deadline, as outlined in the RFA. Rule 67-48.002(105) defines “Scattered Sites” as follows: “Scattered Sites,” as applied to a single Development, means a Development site that, when taken as a whole, is comprised of real property that is not contiguous (each such non-contiguous site within a Scattered Site Development, is considered to be a “Scattered Site”). For purposes of this definition “contiguous” means touching at a point or along a boundary. Real property is contiguous if the only intervening real property interest is an easement, provided the easement is not a roadway or street. All of the Scattered Sites must be located in the same county. The RFA modification included other changes concerning Scattered Sites. Those changes either modified the Surveyor Certification Form itself or required applicants to correctly provide information concerning Scattered Sites in the Surveyor Certification Form. Each Petitioner included in its application a Surveyor Certification Form indicating that its proposed development sites did not consist of Scattered Sites. The Surveyor Certification Forms submitted were the forms required by the modified RFA. There was no allegation that Petitioners incorrectly filled out the Surveyor Certification Forms. However, the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form submitted by each of the Petitioners was the original form, not the form as modified to include the underscored language set forth in Finding of Fact 20 regarding the effect of mislabeling Scattered Sites on the Surveyor Certification Form. The failure of JPM Outlook and Grande Park to submit the correct Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was the sole reason that Florida Housing found them ineligible for funding. In deposition testimony, Ken Reecy, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, explained the purpose of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form: There’s a number of things that we want to be sure that the applicants are absolutely aware of in regard to future actions or requirements by the Corporation. If they win the award, there are certain things that they need to know that they must do or that they are under certain obligations, that there’s certain obligations and commitments associated with the application to make it clear what the requirements--what certain requirements are, not only now in the application, but also perhaps in the future if they won awards. At the conclusion of a lengthy exposition on the significance of the modified language relating to Scattered Sites, Mr. Reecy concluded as follows: [W]e wanted to make sure that if somebody answered the question or did not indicate that they were a scattered site, but then we found out that they were, in fact, a scattered site, we wanted to make it absolutely clear to everyone involved that in the event that your scattered sites did not meet all of those requirements as of the application deadline, that the funding would be rescinded. Petitioners argue that the failure to submit the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form should be waived as a minor irregularity. Their simplest argument on that point is that their applications did not in fact include Scattered Sites and therefore the cautionary language added to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form by the November 10, 2016, modifications did not apply to them and could have no substantive effect on their applications. Petitioners note that their applications included the substantive changes required by the November 10, 2016, modifications, including those related to Scattered Sites. Petitioners submitted the unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form as Attachment 1 to their modified Exhibit A. Petitioners further note that the “Ability to Proceed Forms” they submitted with their applications on December 2, 2016, were the forms as modified on November 10, 2016. They assert that this submission indicates their clear intent to acknowledge and certify the modified RFA and forms, regardless of their error in submitting the unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. Petitioners assert that the Scattered Sites language added to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form by the November 10, 2016, modifications was essentially redundant. Mr. Reecy conceded that the warning regarding Scattered Sites was not tied to any specific substantive modification of the RFA. The language was added to make it “more clear” to the applicant that funding would be rescinded if the Scattered sites requirements were not met as of the application deadline. Petitioners point out that this warning is the same as that applying to underwriting failures generally. Petitioners assert that the new language had no substantive effect on either the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form or on the certifications and acknowledgements required of the applicants. Even in the absence of the modified language, Petitioners would be required to satisfy all applicable requirements for Scattered Sites if it were determined during underwriting that their applications included Scattered Sites. Petitioners conclude that, even though the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was not included with either of their applications, the deviation should be waived as a minor irregularity. Florida Housing could not have been confused as to what Petitioners were acknowledging and certifying. The unmodified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was submitted with a modified Attachment 1 that included all substantive changes made by the November 10, 2016, modifications to the RFA. Petitioners gained no advantage by mistakenly submitting an unmodified version of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. The submittal of the unmodified version of the form was an obvious mistake and waiving the mistake does not adversely impact Florida Housing or the public. Mr. Reecy testified that he could recall no instance in which Florida Housing had waived the submittal of the wrong form as a minor irregularity. He also observed that the credibility of Florida Housing could be negatively affected if it waived the submission of the correct form in light of the “effects clause” contained in Section Four: Due to the fact that we did have an effects clause in this RFA and we felt that, in accordance with the rule requirements regarding minor irregularities, that it would be contrary to competition because we wanted everybody to sign and acknowledge the same criteria in the certification; so we felt that if some did--some certified some things and some certified to others, that that would be problematic. And the fact that we had very specifically instructed that if we did not get the modified version, that we would not consider it, and then if we backed up and considered it, that that would erode the credibility of the Corporation and the scoring process. Mr. Reecy testified that the modification to the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form was intended not merely to clarify the Scattered Sites requirement but to strengthen Florida Housing’s legal position in any litigation that might ensue from a decision to rescind the funding of an applicant that did not comply with the Scattered Sites requirements as of the application deadline. He believed that waiving the “effects clause” would tend to weaken Florida Housing’s legal position in such a case. Petitioners had clear notice that they were required to submit the modified Applicant Certification and Acknowledgement Form. They did not avail themselves of the opportunity to protest the RFA modifications. There is no allegation that they were misled by Florida Housing or that they had no way of knowing they were submitting the wrong form. The relative importance of the new acknowledgement in the modified form may be a matter of argument, but the consequences for failure to submit the proper form were plainly set forth in the effects clause. Florida Housing simply applied the terms of the modified RFA to Petitioners’ applications and correctly deemed them ineligible for funding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order confirming its initial decision finding JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership and Grande Park Limited Partnership ineligible for funding, and dismissing each Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Hearing filed by JPM Outlook One Limited Partnership and Grande Park Limited Partnership. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was properly denied mortgage assistance through Florida Housing Finance Corporation's ("Florida Housing") Hardest-Hit Fund Elderly Mortgage Assistance ("ELMORE") program based on a conviction for fraud allegedly in connection with a real estate transaction.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, to promote the public welfare by administering the governmental function of financing or refinancing housing. For purposes of this proceeding, Florida Housing is an agency of the State of Florida. Florida Housing is also considered the state's housing finance agency which means Florida Housing, at times, conducts business as if it were a financial institution. Florida Housing administers the Hardest-Hit Fund, using funds appropriated by the United States Congress through the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to help stabilize housing markets and prevent foreclosures. The Hardest-Hit Fund comes directly to Florida Housing from the United States Treasury through a Housing Finance Agency ("HFA") Participation Agreement. The ELMORE program is one of the programs created under the umbrella of the Hardest-Hit Fund. The ELMORE program is designed to assist senior homeowners in Florida who are facing foreclosure due to the inability to pay property charges such as property taxes, homeowners insurance, and homeowners or condo association dues after the homeowner was paid all of the equity under a reverse mortgage. The HFA agreement is a summary guideline for the ELMORE program and its general requirements. The stated goal of the program is to help senior homeowners remain in their homes. The Summary Guidelines include certain borrower eligibility criteria, property/loan eligibility criteria, and program exclusions, among other guidelines. The program exclusions reference the "Dodd-Frank exclusion for having been convicted of a mortgage-related felony in the past ten years." The Dodd-Frank Act exclusion for criminal applicants is codified 12 U.S.C. § 5220b, and states in part: (d) Prevention of qualification for criminal applicants (1) In general No person shall be eligible to begin receiving assistance from the Making Home Affordable Program authorized under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5201 et seq.), or any other mortgage assistance program authorized or funded by that Act, on or after 60 days after July 21, 2010, if such person, in connection with a mortgage or real estate transaction, has been convicted, within the last 10 years, of any one of the following: Felony larceny, theft, fraud, or forgery. Money laundering. Tax evasion. On or about February 27, 2017, Betty Baldwin, Power of Attorney for Tolz, submitted an application for mortgage assistance through Florida Housing's Hardest-Hit Fund for ELMORE benefits. On or about May 11, 2017, the application was denied. On or about November 8, 2018, Tolz submitted another application for mortgage assistance from the ELMORE program. On December 5, 2018, Florida Housing's Director of Homeownership Programs, David Westcott, issued a letter with an ineligibility determination to Tolz, which included a Notice of Rights.1/ Mr. Westcott is ultimately responsible for the final eligibility determinations on Hardest-Hit Fund mortgage assistance applications. The Denial of ELMORE Program Benefits Mr. Westcott denied Tolz's application for ELMORE program funds because she had, what Mr. Westcott determined to be, a disqualifying felony conviction in connection with a real estate transaction in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act provision. Mr. Westcott testified that pursuant to the HFA agreement with the United States Treasury, Florida Housing is prohibited from using ELMORE funds to assist applicants that have a disqualifying Dodd-Frank Act conviction. During the period of 2003 through 2010, Tolz used her position as a fiduciary in the role of bankruptcy trustee, receiver, and personal representative to misappropriate millions of dollars from bankruptcy estates, receiverships, and other matters, by writing or causing the writing of unauthorized checks from a variety of fiduciary accounts which contained funds she was appointed to safeguard. Tolz then used the misappropriated money for her own benefit and to conceal her previous misappropriations by restoring the balances of other fiduciary accounts from which she had previously taken funds in a Ponzi scheme framework. To conceal this theft, Tolz falsified documents and used a fictitious bank account. On or about December 12, 2011, Tolz was convicted in Broward County Circuit Court of grand theft in the first degree. Tolz was convicted on or about July 27, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. To secure a plea deal and in order to bolster her claim that her sentence should be reduced from the federal guidelines, prior to sentencing, Tolz surrendered five real estate properties, which she owned, to the United States government. The value of these properties was then used to offset and lessen Tolz's restitution obligation to her victims. Tolz understood that these properties would not be accepted to satisfy her restitution obligation unless they were purchased, mortgaged, or improved with the assets of her victims. In the federal criminal case, Tolz executed a Factual Basis Supporting Change of Plea ("Factual Basis") on or about April 15, 2011. Tolz agreed not to contest the information in the Factual Basis. Further, Tolz agreed that it provided a sufficient factual basis for her plea of guilty in the case, and had the case proceeded to trial, that the United States would have proven the facts beyond a reasonable doubt. Paragraph 11 of the Factual basis states: MARIKA TOLZ, directly or indirectly, utilized funds obtained through the fraudulent scheme to purchase, maintain and improve real properties, including, but not limited to the following real properties: 2344 North Federal Highway, Hollywood, Florida; 1804 Sherman Street, Hollywood, Florida; 704 SE 3rd Avenue, Hallandale, Florida; 815 SW 30th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; and 3031 North Ocean Blvd, Apartment 403, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. In making the ineligibility determination on Tolz's application for ELMORE program funds, Mr. Westcott determined that Tolz's conviction was in connection with a real estate transaction because Tolz agreed in the Factual Basis that she used funds obtained through the fraud to "purchase, maintain and improve real properties." Florida Housing determined that Tolz's conviction disqualified her from receiving mortgage assistance from the ELMORE program because: As part of the Hardest-Hit Fund, the ELMORE program funds are authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008; Tolz was convicted of the enumerated offense of a "fraud;" The conviction occurred on or about July 21, 2011, which is within the last ten years; and The conviction was in connection with a real estate transaction because Tolz used funds obtained through the fraud to "purchase, maintain and improve real properties." "In Connection With" A Mortgage or Real Estate Transaction Tolz contends that her crimes were not "in connection with a mortgage or real estate transaction." At both her sentencing hearing in federal court and at the final hearing in this proceeding, Tolz stated that she owned these surrendered properties for 30 or 40 years. Tolz now argues that because she owned these properties well before the fraud of which she was convicted occurred, no mortgage or real estate transaction was involved in the crime and, therefore, she should not be disqualified from ELMORE benefits. Tolz now claims she surrendered these properties to facilitate the forfeiture on the advice of counsel, that she was heavily medicated at the time of sentencing, and that the prosecutor and the court knew that these properties were not associated with her underlying crimes. Tolz admitted at final hearing that she surrendered these properties to do an end-run around the system to reduce the more than two million dollars she owed in restitution. However, in that same sentencing hearing, the prosecutor representing the United States stated "I'll also indicate, although it's clear from the record, that notwithstanding the picture that she's somehow a pauper, or was a pauper, the fact of the matter is the forfeiture properties indicated in the forfeiture which she agreed to were her properties, at least partially paid for by the offense."2/ An impartial reading of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that during sentencing the United States believed that the properties involved in the criminal forfeiture were, in part, paid for by the crime for which Petitioner was convicted. The undersigned finds the facts, as offered by Tolz in her 2011 "Factual Basis" offered in support of a sentence reduction and reduction of her restitution obligation, to be more credible than her denial at final hearing that these properties were not purchased, improved, or maintained with the funds from her crimes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Amended Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2019, 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 30th day of April, 2019.
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 Whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) preliminary award of funding to University Station I, LLC (“University Station”), was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to Florida Housing’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or RFA specifications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, the stipulated facts, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: Findings on Florida Housing and the RFA Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant to section 420.504, Florida Statutes, and promotes public welfare by administering the financing of affordable housing in Florida. Section 420.5099 designates Florida Housing as the State of Florida’s housing credit agency within the meaning of section 42(h)(7)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code. Accordingly, Florida Housing is responsible for establishing procedures for allocating and distributing low income housing tax credits. Florida Housing allocates housing credits and other funding via requests for proposals or other competitive solicitation methods identified in section 420.507(48). Florida Housing initiated the instant competitive solicitation by issuing the RFA on October 15, 2020, and anticipates awarding up to an estimated $88,959,045.00 in State Apartment Incentive Loan (“SAIL”)2 financing. The RFA set forth a process by which applications would be scored based, in part, on eligibility items. Only applications satisfying all of the eligibility items were eligible for funding and considered for selection. 2 Marissa Button, the Director of Multifamily Programs at Florida Housing, testified that the SAIL program finances the development of multifamily, affordable rental housing. The Florida Legislature traditionally appropriates money for the SAIL program via the State Housing Trust Fund. Site Control was an eligibility item because Florida Housing wants assurances that applicants selected for funding will be able to actually use the development sites.3 Applicants satisfy the Site Control requirement by providing a properly completed and executed Florida Housing Site Control Certification Form (“the Site Control Form”). In order for the Site Control Form to be considered complete, an applicant had to attach documentation demonstrating that it: (a) was a party to an eligible contract or lease; or (b) owned the property in question. The RFA set forth specific requirements for contracts and leases used for demonstrating site control. For example, a contract had to satisfy all of the following conditions: It must have a term that does not expire before May 31, 2021 or that contains extension options exercisable by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment of additional monies which, if exercised, would extend the term to a date that is not earlier than May 31, 2021. It must specifically state that the buyer’s remedy for default on the part of the seller includes or is specific performance; The Applicant must be the buyer unless there is an assignment of the eligible contract, signed by the assignor and the assignee, which assigns all of the buyer’s rights, title and interests in the eligible contract to the Applicant; and The owner of the subject property must be the seller, or is a party to one or more intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, or 3 Ms. Button explained that Site Control “is a component of how the applicant demonstrates its ability to proceed with the proposed development. And essentially it is the – the way that we require them to demonstrate they have control over the proposed development site.” As for why Site Control is important, Ms. Button testified that Florida Housing wants “to be assured if the – the applicant is successful in its request for funding, that the – they will be able to actually use the development site.” conveyances between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to sell the property to the seller. Any intermediate contract must meet the criteria for an eligible contract in (a) and (b) above. The language quoted above indicates that the RFA was referring to a sales contract when it used the term “contract.” If an applicant used a lease to satisfy the Site Control requirement, then the RFA provided the following: (3) Lease – The lease must have an unexpired term of at least 50 years after the Application Deadline and the lessee must be the Applicant. The owner of the subject property must be a party to the lease, or a party to one or more intermediate leases, subleases, agreements, or assignments, between or among the owner, the Applicant, or other parties, that have the effect of assigning the owner’s right to lease the property for at least 50 years to the lessee. Marissa Button, Florida Housing’s Director of Multifamily Programs, testified that the RFA did not require a lease to have a commencement date. The RFA required that Site Control documentation for leases “include all relevant intermediate contracts, agreements, assignments, options, conveyances, intermediate leases, and subleases. If the proposed Development consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated for all of the Scattered Sites.” Ms. Button provided the following testimony about this requirement: A: Florida Housing includes the requirements for that documentation to – to essentially acknowledge that there are circumstances where there may be an intermediate contract or agreement that would demonstrate one of the criteria for those different types of site control and the requirements that we want to see that -- that chain back to the requirement itself. * * * Q: So Florida Housing considers this term to broadly include all different types of potential contract agreements, et cetera; correct? A: Yes. Q: Could you give me an example of an intermediate contract or agreement? A: Yes. An intermediate contract or agreement may be where – with regard to the [ ] contract, the terms require an owner of the subject property to be a seller of the subject property. And so there may be an applicant that has a contract with the seller of the property. And that seller might not be the actual owner; so there may be an intermediate contract that we need to see between the seller to the buyer and the actual owner of the subject property. Q: And that situation that you just described, that happened in the past few years; correct? A: I can think of one example where that happened, yes. Q: Okay. And in that case Florida Housing agreed that the intermediate agreement was necessary to include with the site documentation; correct? A: Florida Housing reviewed – yes. That – Florida Housing’s position was there was an intermediate agreement necessary because the site control documentation provided did not include the owner of the subject property. As for Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, the RFA provided as follows: Note: [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. During scoring, [Florida Housing] will rely on the properly executed Site Control Certification form to determine whether an Applicant has met the requirement of this RFA to demonstrate site control. [Florida Housing] has no authority to, and will not, evaluate the validity or enforceability of any eligible site control documentation that is attached to the Site Control Certification form during the scoring process. During credit underwriting, if it is determined that the site control documents do not meet the above requirements, [Florida Housing] may rescind the award. When questioned about Florida Housing’s review of Site Control documentation, Ms. Button offered the following testimony: Q: If you look at the next page, Page 48, at the end of Subsection A there’s a note. It says Florida Housing will not review the site control during the scoring process. It will not evaluate the authority or enforceability of such documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: But even though Florida Housing does not review the site documentation during scoring, it will review the documentation during the bid protest; correct? A: Yes as it relates to the RFA requirements. * * * Q: If the documents attached to a site control documentation [do] not meet the RFA criteria, then that site control certification form would be incorrect; right? A: Yes. Q: And the applicant would be found ineligible; correct? A: Yes. The RFA and Ms. Button’s testimony indicate that Florida Housing intended, under most circumstances, to accept the representations set forth in an applicant’s Site Control documentation during the scoring process. In other words, Florida Housing did not go behind the Site Control documentation to verify the representations therein. The terms of the RFA were not challenged. Stipulated Facts Pertaining to Certain Parties Douglas Gardens and Florida Housing agree that Douglas Gardens’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. Quiet Meadows and Florida Housing agree that Quiet Meadows’ application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. MHP and Florida Housing agree that MHP’s Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA.4 MHP, Quiet Meadows, and Douglas Gardens agree that Fulham Terrace’s application remains eligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows and Florida Housing agree that the Willows Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. The Willows agrees that the HTG Astoria Application is eligible for funding via the RFA. 4 MHP, Florida Housing, Quiet Meadows, Douglas Gardens, and Fulham Terrace entered into a Settlement Agreement and Stipulation on March 26, 2021, that was entered into evidence as Fern Grove Exhibit 1. SoMi Parc, Vista, and Florida Housing agree that the SoMi Parc Application is ineligible for funding via the RFA. SoMi Parc has accepted an invitation to enter credit underwriting for the same Development in RFA 2020-203 and thus cannot be funding via the RFA. Findings Regarding the Applications of University Station and Vista Florida Housing received 90 applications in response to the RFA. Those applications were processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked pursuant to the terms of the RFA. On January 22, 2021, Florida Housing announced its intention to award funding to 17 applicants, subject to satisfactory completion of the credit underwriting process. University Station was one of the 17 successful applicants, and University Station’s Site Control documentation included: (a) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City of Hollywood, Florida (“the City”), and University Station (“the University Station I Lease”); (b) a Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD (“the University Station II Lease”); and (c) an Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement assigning University Station II, LTD’s interests in the Ground Lease Agreement between the City and University Station II, LTD to University Station.5 The University Station I Lease described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the closing date of Tenant’s construction financing for the development of the Phase I Project (the “Construction Financing”), but in no event later 5 The Assignment of Ground Lease Agreement between University Station and University Station II was a relevant intermediate document for demonstrating Site Control. than June 30, 2022. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II described its terms as follows: This lease shall be effective as of the Effective Date, but the term shall commence on the Commencement Date and expire at 11:59 p.m. on the seventy-fifth (75th) anniversary of the Commencement Date (the “Term”), unless this lease is terminated earlier pursuant to the provisions contained herein. For purposes of this Lease, the “Commencement Date” shall be the later of the closing date of Tenant’s construction loan for the development of the Project (the “Construction Loan”) and the termination of the lease of the premises to Barry University, but in no event later than June 30, 2023. Tenant’s right to take physical possession of the Leased Premises shall begin on the Commencement Date. Landlord and Tenant acknowledge that the leased premises are currently improved with an educational facility and adjacent ground parking that is leased to Barry University through November 23, 2021 and the Landlord may enter into an additional one-year extension of the lease to Barry University at Landlord’s sole discretion. Until the Commencement Date, Landlord, or its tenant, shall be solely responsible for the operation and maintenance of the leased premises and any uses on the Leased Premises. University Station’s proposed Development site consists of five Scattered Sites. Barry University currently leases a building and parking spaces located on the Scattered Site described as latitude and longitude coordinates of 26.014703, -80.148572 in Question 5.d.2 of the University Station Application. This is the site described in the University Station II Lease. The City and Barry University, Inc., are the parties to the Barry University Lease (“the Barry University Lease”). The Barry University Lease was executed on May 23, 2011, with a term of 10 and one-half years, which would expire on approximately November 23, 2021. With regard to its term, the Barry University Lease states that “[t]he term of this lease shall be for ten and one-half (10 ½) years commencing upon the execution of this lease. The parties will have the mutual option to renew this lease subject to City Commission and the Lessee’s Board of Directors approval.” A copy of the Barry University Lease was not included in University Station’s application. In contrast to the statement in the University Station II Lease that the Barry University Lease could be extended by “an additional one-year extension” at the City’s “sole discretion,” the Barry University Lease simply says that the parties have a “mutual option to renew” with no mention of a particular term. Ms. Button provided the following testimony regarding the Barry University Lease: Q: And you are aware that University Station did not submit the Barry University lease as part of its site control documentation; correct? A: Yes. Q: And does the existence of that Barry University lease change your position on whether University Station met the requirements in the RFA for a lease? A: No. Q: And why not? A: Because the documents submitted with the application meet the terms of the RFA for a lease site control documentation. Q: Did the existence of the Barry University lease impact whether or not the University Station site control documentation met the requirements for a lease? A: No. Q: As Florida Housing’s corporate representative, what is your position regarding University Station’s application? A: It is eligible for funding. Vista also applied for funding from the RFA. Florida Housing determined that Vista was eligible for funding, but Florida Housing did not preliminarily select Vista for funding. If University Station is deemed ineligible for funding, then Vista will be selected for funding subject to the successful completion of credit underwriting. Ultimate Findings Vista has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that Florida Housing’s proposed award to University Station was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Also, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that: (a) Florida Housing’s proposed action is not contrary to the RFA’s terms; and that (b) University Station will have control over the site in question. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the University Station Lease I Lease, the University Stations II Lease, and the assignment of University Station II’s interest to University Station collectively satisfied the RFA’s requirements because: (a) there is unexpired term of at least 50 years after the application deadline; (b) University Station, i.e., the lessee, was the applicant for funding; and (c) the City, as the owner of the subject property, was a party to the lease. Upon considering Florida Housing’s preliminary approval of University Station’s application without the benefit of reviewing the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Florida Housing was not clearly erroneous when it determined that the Barry University Lease was not a relevant intermediate lease within the meaning of the RFA. The University Station II Lease between the City and University Station II requires the lease to begin no later than June 30, 2023. Also, the City and University Station II acknowledge that Barry University’s Lease runs through November 23, 2021, and they agree that the City may extend Barry University’s lease by “an additional one-year.” Accordingly, the Barry University Lease will end prior to June 30, 2023, and University Station will have site control no later than that date. In other words, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. The analysis set forth above does not change if one considers the Barry University Lease.6 Even though the Barry University Lease does not limit a renewal to one year, the lease cannot be renewed without the City’s assent, and the City agreed in the University Station II Lease that any renewal would not exceed one year. Therefore, even if one considers the terms of the Barry University Lease, the greater weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that it is a relevant intermediate document that was required to be included with University Station’s application. Again, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that University Station has control over the site in question. 6 As will be explained in more detail in the Conclusions of Law below, “[n]ew evidence cannot be offered to amend or supplement a party’s response or application. § 120.57(3)(f), Fla. Stat. However, new evidence may be offered in a competitive protest proceeding to prove that there was an error in another party’s application. Intercontinental Props., supra.” Heritage at Pompano Housing Partners, Ltd. v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp., Case No. 14-1361BID, ¶ 116 (Fla. DOAH June 10, 2014; Fla. Hous. Fin. Corp. June 13, 2014).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation enter a final order: awarding funding to University Station I, LLC, via Request for Application 2020-205 subject to credit underwriting; and (b) finding that the applications submitted by Douglas Gardens IV, Ltd., MHP FL VIII, LLLP, Quiet Meadows, Ltd, RST The Willows, LP, and Residences at SoMi Parc, LLC are ineligible for funding via Request for Application 2020-205. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Zachem, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marc Ito, Esquire Parker Hudson Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Seann M. Frazier, Esquire Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, LLP Suite 750 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2021. Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC Suite 3-231 1400 Village Square Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire Carlton Fields P.A. Suite 500 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Ausley McMullen 123 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William D. Hall, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Wharton, Esquire Dean Mead and Dunbar Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Corporation Clerk Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel Florida Housing Finance Corporation Suite 5000 227 North Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329 Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 820 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel Ryan Russell, Esquire Dean Mead Suite 1200 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. Suite 300 109 North Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33602
