17-003996BID Warley Park, Ltd, Warley Park Developer, Llc, And Step Up Developer, Llc vs. Florida Housing Finance Corporation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, October 19, 2017.

Summary: Petitioner demonstrated that FHFC's intended grant was contrary to solicitation specifications because Intervenor's water and sewer letter was not development-specific and failed to show availability as of the application deadline.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

WARLEY PARK , LTD ; WARLEY PARK

DEVELOPER , LLC ; AND STEP UP

DEVELOPER , LLC ,

Petitioners ,

vs . Case No . 17 - 3996BID

FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE

CORPORATION ,

Respondent ,

and

NORTHSIDE COMMONS RESIDENTIAL ,

LLC ,

Intervenor .

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice , a formal administrative hearing was

conducted before Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy in

Tallahassee , Florida , on A ugust 18 and 2 5 , 2 017 .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner s : Douglas P . Manson , Esquire

William S . Bilenky , Esquire

Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn , P . A .

1101 W est Swann Avenue

Tampa , Florida 33606 - 2637

Craig D . Varn , Esquire

Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn , P.A.

106 East College Avenue, Suite 820

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Michael G eorge Maida , Esquire

Michae l G . Maida , P . A .

1709 Hermitage B oulevard, Suite 201

Tallahassee , F lorida 32308

For Respondent: Chris topher Dale McGuire , Esq uire

Florida Housing Finance Corporation

227 N orth Bronough Street , Suite 5000

Tallahassee , F lorida 32301 - 1329

For Intervenor: Joseph M . Goldstein , Esq uire

Shutts & Bowen LLP

200 East Broward Boulevard , Suite 2100

Fort Lauderdale , F lorida 33301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issues in this bid protest are whether , in making the

decision to award funding pursuant to Request for Applications

2017 - 103 , Housing Credit and State Apartment Incentive Loan

( " SAIL " ) Financing to Develop Housing in Medium a nd Large

Counties for Homeless Households and Persons with a Disabling

Condition (the " RFA " ) , Florida Housing Finance Corporation

( " Florida Housing " or " Respondent " ) , acted contrary to a

governing statute , rule , or solicitation specification ; and , if

so , w hether such action was clearly erroneous , contrary to

competition , arbitrary , or capricious .

The question of whether the application of Northside Commons

Residential, LLC ("Northside") , met the requirements of the RFA

with respect to demonstrating the avai lability of water and sewer

services as of the Application Deadline is the only question at

issue in this case . No other parts of its Application are being

challenged , and the parties all agree that its Application was

otherwise properly scored . No parti es have raised objections to

any parts of Warley Park ' s application , and all parties agree

that its Application was properly scored .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 22 , 2017 , Florida Housing issued the RFA . On

April 20 , 2017 , five entities submitted applic ations in response

to the RFA , including Petitioners Warley Park , Ltd ., Warley Park

Developer , LLC , and Step Up Developer , LLC (collectively " Warley

Park " or " Petitioner " ) , and Intervenor Northside . On June 16 ,

2017 , the Board of Directors of Florida Hous ing approved the

Review Committee ' s motion and staff recommendation to select

three applicants , including Northside , for funding and invited

them to enter credit underwriting .

Warley Park timely filed its notice of protest , followed by

an Amended Formal Wr itten Protest and Petition for Administrative

Hearing ( " Petition " ) pursuant to section 120 . 57(3) , Florida

Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 67 - 60 . 009

and 28 - 110 . 004 .

On July 17 , 2017 , Florida Housing forwarded the Petition to

the Division of Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ) . As a

specifically - named person whose substantial interests were being

determined in the proceeding , Northside became a party by

entering an appearance pursuant to Florida Administrative Code

R ule 28 - 106 . 205(3) .

Although i nitially submitted as an informal hearing , all

parties agreed that there were disputed issues of material fact

that required resolution at the hearing . The parties submitted a

Joint Pre - h earing Stipulation setting forth their positions ,

stipulated finding s of fact , issues of fact or mixed questions of

law or fact which remained to be litigated , agreed issues of law ,

and disputed issues of law .

The hearing was held on August 18 and August 25 , 2017 . On

August 18 , 2017 , Mr . Ken Reecy , the D irector of Multifa mily

Programs at Florida Housing for the last four years , who is

responsible for the allocation process of funding by Florida

Housing , initially testified that he considered the discrepancy

between the named addressee of the water and sewer letter ( " WASA

l etter " ) and the applicant to be a minor irregularity that could

be waived . On cross - examination , Mr . Reecy learned that the

addressee of the WASA letter had no principals in common with the

applicant , but rather only with principals of one of the

develope rs of the applicant .

Following Mr . Reecy ' s testimony , the witness for the

Intervenor , Mr . Oscar Sol , testified that it was common practice

for Florida Housing to accept WASA letters addressed to an entity

that was not the applicant and without regard to whether there

were any common principals between the listed addressee and an

applicant .

Florida Housing and Northside requested a continuance to

give Mr . Reecy an opportunity to review Florida Housing ' s records

regarding its past practice of accepting such WASA letters as

described by Mr . Sol . T he parties agreed to participate in a

conference call at 4:30 p . m . , and at that time , it would be

announced whether Mr . Reecy would be revising his testimony based

on his review of Florida Housing ' s records , requiri ng the hearing

to be reconvened after providing the parties an opportunity to

depose Mr . Reecy , or whether the parties were in agreement that

no further testimony was needed .

During the 4:30 p . m . conference call , it was announced that

Mr . Reecy would be re vising his earlier testimony . DOAH ordered

that any documents relied upon by Mr . Reec y to modify his

testimony be produced by 1:00 p . m . on August 21 , 2017 , and

Mr . Reecy would be available for deposition at 1:00 p . m . on

August 23 , 2017 . Such occurred , an d the hearing was reconvened

on August 25 , 2017 , for the limited purpose of Mr . Reecy

testifying concerning his review of the additional records and

for Petitioner or Intervenor to call any additional witnesses

necessary due to Mr . Reecy ' s anticipated chan ge in testimony .

At the hearing , the following exhibits were admitted into

evidence: Joint Exhibits 1 through 4 ; Petitioner ' s E xhibits 1 ,

2 , 4 , 5 , 1 4 , and Petitioner ' s Supplemental Exhibit 6 ;

Respondent ' s Exhibit 1 ; Intervenor ' s Exhibit s 1 and 2 ; and

In tervenor ' s Additional Exhibits 1 through 10 , 14 , 1 9 , 23 ,

and 24 .

Petitioner presented the testimony of Jon M . Dinges , P . E . , a

representative for Warley Park , and Ryan von Weller , an expert

witness , at the hearing and the following through deposition:

Do uglas Pile , individually and as the corporate representative of

the Miami - Dade County Water and Sewer Department ; Mr. Reecy ,

Director of Multifamily Programs for Florida Housing , who also

testified at the hearing for Respondent ; and William Cobb ,

another r epresentative of Florida Housing . Northside presented

Mr. Sol , Manager and Member of one of the Developers for

Northside .

The two - volume T ranscript of the hearing was filed on

August 19 , 2017 . All parties timely submitted p roposed

r ecommended o rders on A ugust 29 , 2017 . The parties ' p roposed

r ecommended o rders have been given due consideration in the

preparation of this Recommended Order . Unless otherwise

indicated, citations to the Florida Statutes or rules of the

Florida Administrative Code refer to th e versions in effect at

the time of the decision to recommend funding for Northside .

FINDING S OF FACT

The Parties

1 . Petitioner Warley Park , Ltd . , is the applicant entity of

a proposed affordable housing development to be located in

Seminole County , Flo rida . Petitioners Warley Park Developer ,

LLC , and Step Up Developer , LLC , are Developer entities as

defined by Florida Housing in Florida Administrative Code

R ule 67 - 48 . 002(28) .

2 . Northside is a Florida limited liability company based

in Miami - Dade Cou nty , Florida , in the business of providing

affordable housing .

3 . Florida Housing is a public corporation created pursuant

to section 420 . 504 , Florida Statutes . Its purpose is to promote

public welfare by administering the governmental function of

finan cing 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 est ablish procedures for allocating and distributing

low income housing tax credits .

The Programs

4 . The low income housing tax credit program was enacted to

incentivize the private market to invest in affordable rental

housing . These tax credits are award ed competitively to housing

developers in Florida for rental housing projects which qualify .

These credits are then normally sold by developers for cash to

raise capital for their projects . The effect of this is to

reduce the amount that the developer wo uld have to borrow

otherwise . Because the total debt is lower , a tax credit

property can (and must) offer lower , more affordable rents .

Developers also covenant to keep rents at affordable levels for

periods of up 50 years as consideration for receipt of the tax

credits .

5 . SAIL provides low - interest loans on a competitive basis

to affordable housing developers each year . This money often

serves to bridge the gap between the development ' s primary

financing and the total cost of the development . SAIL d ollars

are available to individuals , public entities , not - for - profit , or

for - profit organizations that propose the construction or

substantial rehabilitation of multifamily units affordable to

very low - income individuals and families .

6 . Florida Housing i s authorized to allocate housing

tax credits , SAIL funding , and other funding by means of request

for proposal or other competitive solicitation in s ection

420 . 507(48) and adopted c hapter 67 - 60 to govern the competitive

solicitation process for several dif ferent programs , including

the program for tax credits . Chapter 67 - 60 provides that Florida

Housing allocate its housing tax credits , which were made

available to Florida Housing on an annual basis by the U . S .

Treasury , through the bid protest provisions of section

120 . 57(3) .

The RFA 2017 - 103

7 . Housing tax credits and SAIL funding are made available

through a competitive application process commenced by the

issuance of a R FA . A RFA is equivalent to a " request for

proposal " as indicated in r ule 67 - 60 . 00 9(3) . The RFA at issue

here is RFA 2017 - 103 , which was issued on March 22 , 2017 . A

modification was issued on April 11 , 2017 , and responses were due

April 20 , 2017 .

8 . Through the RFA , Florida Housing seeks to award up to an

estimated $6 , 075 , 000 of hou sing tax credits , along with

$11 , 500 , 000 of SAIL financing , to qualified applicants to provide

affordable housing developments .

9 . A review committee , made up of Florida Housing staff ,

reviews and scores each application . Florida Housing scored

applicant s in six areas worth a total of 145 points: General

Development Experience ; Management Company Experience with

Permanent Supportive Housing ; Tenant Selection for Intended

Residents ; Community - Based General Services and Amenities

Accessible to Tenants ; Acc ess to Community - Based Resources and

Services that Address Tenants ' Needs ; and Approach Toward Income

and Credit Status of Homeless Households Applying for Tenancy .

Florida Housing scored Northside as the highest scoring

applicant , awarding it 128 points . Warley Park was the fourth

highest scored applicant with 112 points .

10 . These scores are presented in a public meeting and the

committee ultimately makes a recommendation as to which projects

should be funded . This recommendation is presented to Flor ida

Housing ' s Board of Directors ( " the Board " ) for final agency

action .

11 . On June 16 , 2017 , Petitioners and all other

participants in RFA 2017 - 103 received notice that the Board had

determined which applications were eligible or ineligible for

considera tion for funding and selected certain applications for

awards of tax credits , subject to satisfactory completion of the

credit underwriting process . Such notice was provided by the

posting of two spreadsheets , one listing the " eligible " and

" ineligible " a pplications and one identifying the applications

that Florida Housing proposed to fund , on Florida Housing ' s

website , www . floridahousing . org .

12 . Florida Housing announced its intention to award

funding to three developments , including Northside . Warley

Park ' s application was deemed eligible , but it was not selected

for funding .

13 . The RFA at Section Four A . 5 . g . requires the applicant

to demonstrate its " Ability to Proceed " by including the

following as attachments to its application:

(4) Availability of Water . The Applicant

must demonstrate that as of the Application

Deadline water is available to the entire

proposed Development site by providing as

Attachment 9 to Exhibit A:

(a) The properly completed and executed

Florida Housing Finance Corporatio n

Verification of Availability of

Infrastructure Î Water form (Form

Rev . 08 - 16) ; or

(b) A letter from the water service provider

that is Development - specific and dated within

12 months of the Application Deadline . The

letter may not be signed by the Ap plicant , by

any related parties of the Applicant , by any

Principals or Financial Beneficiaries of the

Applicant , or by any local elected officials .

(5) Availability of Sewer . The Applicant

must demonstrate that as of the Application

Deadline sewer capac ity , package treatment or

septic tank service is available to the

entire proposed Development site by providing

as Attachment 10 to Exhibit A:

(a) The properly completed and executed

Florida Housing Finance Corporation

Verification of Availability of

Inf rastructure Î Sewer Capacity , Package

Treatment , or Septic Tank form (Form

Rev . 08 - 16) ; or

(b) A letter from the waste treatment

service provider that is Development - specific

and dated within 12 months of the Application

Deadline . The letter may not be signed by

the Applicant , by any related parties of the

Applicant , by any Principals or Financial

Beneficiaries of the Applicant , or by any

local elect ed officials . (emphasis added) .

14 . Section 5 . g . of Exhibit A to RFA 2017 - 103 , the

Application and Deve lopment Cost Pro Forma , requires that the

applicant include the following information:

Ability to Proceed:

As outlined in Section Four A . 5 . g . of the

RFA , the Applicant must provide the following

information to demonstrate Ability to

Proceed:

(4) Availab ility of Water . The Applicant

must provide , as Attachment 9 to Exhibit A ,

an acceptable letter from the service

provider or the properly completed and

executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation

Verification of Availability of

Infrastructure Î Water form (Fo rm

Rev . 08 - 16) .

(5) Availability of Sewer . The Applicant

must provide , as Attachment 10 to Exhibit A ,

an acceptable letter from the service

provider or the properly completed and

executed Florida Housing Finance Corporation

Verification of Availabil ity of

Infrastructure Î Sewer Capacity , Package

Treatment , or Septic Tank form (Fo rm

Rev . 08 - 16) .

15 . The Verification of Availability of Infrastructure Î

Sewer Capacity , Package Treatment , or Septic Tank form requires

the service provider to certify tha t on or before the submission

deadline for the RFA , " Sewer Capacity or Package Treatment is

available to the proposed Development . " Similarly , the

Verification of Availability of Infrastructure Î Water form

requires the service provider to certify that on or before the

submission deadline for the RFA , " Potable water is available to

the proposed Development . " Each form also includes the following

caveat:

To access such [waste treatment] [water]

service , the Applicant may be required to pay

hook - up , install ation and other customary

fees , comply with other routine

administrative procedures , and/or install or

construct line extensions and other

equipment , including but not limited to

pumping stations , in connection with the

construction of the Development .

16 . The RFA does not define the term " Development -

specific ," and the term is not used in Section 5 . g . of Exhibit A

to RFA 2017 - 103 where the requirement for the water and sewer

letters is included . Further , the term " Development - specific " is

not defin ed in any Florida Housing rule .

17 . Miami - Dade County has had a longstanding practice of

refusing to complete Florida Housing ' s water and sewer

verification forms . Florida Housing added the water and sewer

letter as an additional method to demonstra te availability in

light of the c ounty ' s refusal . Thus , an applicant , such as

Northside , has no alternative when proposing a Miami - Dade project

other than providing a water and sewer letter as opposed to

Florida Housing ' s Verification form .

Northside ' s W ater and Sewer Letter

18 . Accordingly , in response to this RFA requirement ,

Northside submitted a letter from Miami - Dade County Water and

Sewer Department as Att achment 9 to its application . The letter

was sought by Oscar Sol , one of the principals of the d eveloper

working with the applicant in the project at issue in this case .

19 . The WASA letter at issue in this case was dated

December 12 , 2016 . It was addressed to " Northside Commons LTD ,"

and referenced water and sewer availability for " No rthside

Commons ," construction and connection of 108 apartments , located

at 8301 N orthwest 27th Avenue , Miami - Dade County , Florida ,

Folio #30 - 3110 - 000 - 0210 .

20 . The identical WASA letter was submitted as Attachments

10 and 11 to application 2017 - 155 C in response to a prior RFA ,

RFA 2016 - 114 . That prior application was submitted by Northside

Commons , L td., for a 108 - unit elderly development called

Northside Commons , located at 8301 N orthwest 27th Avenue , Miami -

Dade County , Florida , Folio #30 - 3110 - 000 - 0210 . The application

deadline for RFA 2016 - 114 was Decembe r 15 , 2016 .

21 . In the present case , Northside ' s application for

RFA 2017 - 103 , application 2017 - 254CSN , was submitted by Northside

Commons Residential , LLC . It was for an 80 - unit developme nt for

homeless persons and persons with disabling conditions , also to

be called " Northside Commons ," located at 8301 N orthwest 27th

Avenue , Miami - Dade County , Florida , Folio #30 - 3110 - 000 - 0210 . The

application deadline for RFA 2017 - 103 was April 20 , 2017 .

22 . The WASA letter contains several paragraphs of details

about hookups to water and sewer service , and also includes the

following boilerplate language: " This letter is for

informational purposes only and conditions remain in effect for

thirty ( 30) days from the date of this letter . Nothing contained

in this letter provides the developer with any vested rights to

receive water and/or sewer service . "

23 . Warley Park raised three issues regarding the WASA

letter . First , was the letter valid for more than 30 days after

it was signed? Second , did the letter meet the requirement of

the RFA that it be " development specific? " Third , did the letter

demonstrat e the availability of sewer services?

Was the WASA letter valid for more than 30 days af ter it was

signed?

24 . Florida Housing and Northside contend that there is no

provision in the WASA letter stating that it becomes " invalid "

after 30 days , or that water and sewer services will not be

available after 30 days .

25 . Douglas Pile , the representative for Miami - Dade County ,

testified that the second and third paragraphs of the letter

included the conditions necessary to service the availability of

water and sewer , and that it was these conditions that remained

in effect for 30 days . He described the purpose of the 30 - day

language as follows:

We ' re not saying that availability disappears

or terminates after 30 days . We ' re just

saying this letter is good for informational

purposes for 30 days . We don ' t want people

to come back a year later and say I bought

this property based upon this letter of

availability saying I have water and sewer

under certain conditions , and then a year

later the conditions are different and maybe

they have to put in a water main extension or

maybe their loca l pump station is in

moratorium .

W hen asked specifically whether the entire letter was valid for

only 30 days , he responded , " Right . Well , the conditions are Î

the nearby water and sewer facilities that the project would

connect to . "

26 . Mr . Pile e xplained that the l etter is " a snapshot of

what our facilities are at the time they make the request . " He

further stated that:

the letter . . . has to have an expiration

date either explicit or implicit . If a

utility is going to give a letter saying they

have water and sewer availability , that

cannot be forever , you know . You assume a

natural termination point . . . we just

explicitly say this letter is good for

30 days .

27 . In its Pre - Hearing Position Statement , Florida Housing

argued that it di d not interpret this language to mean that the

let ter became invalid after 30 days . However , according to

Mr . Reecy , 1/ there was no " interpretation " done by Florida

Housing . Specifically , when asked how Florida Housing

interpreted the phrase , he stated:

We have basically ignored that phrase . We

actually do not know what -- given the context

of this situation , how , within 30 days ,

the -- that information is only good for 30

days . So we have not considered that to be a

relevant factor in our consideration of the

information provided in the let ter .

28 . A plain and common reading of the quoted language

indicates Miami - Dade limited the validity of the information in

the letters to 30 days . Florida Housing provided no explanation

for its decision to ignor e the language and made no attempt to

inquire of Miami - Dade County as to what it intended by including

the language .

29 . This 30 - day limitation is generally known by t he

applicants and nearly every previously funded application

included a letter from Miami - Dade County dated within 30 days of

the application deadline . O nly one Miami - Dade WASA letter

submitted by applicants within the last two RFAs was dated

outside of the 30 - day window . That letter was deemed ineligibl e

for other re a sons .

30 . H ad Petitioner wanted to demonstrate availability as of

the application deadline , it only needed to request a letter from

Miami - Dade County within the 30 days prior to the application

deadline , giving Miami - Dade sufficient time to respond . In fact ,

the l et ter was initially submitted as part of a response to

RFA 2016 - 114 , with a due date of December 15 , 2016 . Because t h e

l etter was issued on December 12 , 2016 , it remained valid through

the application deadline for RFA 2016 - 114 . There is no limit to

the num ber of times a developer can obtain a letter of

availability from Miami - Dade County .

31 . The requirements of the RFA are clear that water and

sewer availability must be shown " as of the Application

Deadline . " Because the WASA letter submitted with P etitioner ' s

Application only provided a snapshot of availability for a 30 - day

window after the issuance of the letter (or until January 11 ,

2 017) , the letter failed to address the availab il i ty of water or

sewer services as of April 20 , 2017 .

32 . As a practical matter , the WASA letter provides that

water hook - up is readily available to existing infrastructure and

sewer availability is dependent upon a developer building a

pumping stati on . It could be inferred that these conditions

would remain availab le at this location for 12 months . However ,

the testimony of Mr . Pile makes clear that Miami - Dade County is

not willing to make that assumption for a peri od beyond 30 days

due to the possibility of intervening events . 2 / Presumably , this

is why the vast m ajority of applicants for this type of RFA

secures and provides a Miami - Dade WASA letter dated within

30 days of the RFA application deadline .

33 . Because the WASA letter was not valid beyond

January 11 , 2017 , Petitioner cannot demonstrate availabili ty of

water and sewer as of the Application Deadline . The fact that

the WASA l etter was no longer valid is fatal to Petit i oner ' s

application in that it failed to satisfy a mandatory requirement

of RFA 2017 - 103 , i . e . , the availability of water and sewer

se rvices .

Was the WASA letter " development specific? "

34 . The RFA requires that the Applicant demonstrate water

and sewer service availability for " the entire proposed

Development site ," and it also requires that the letter from the

service provider be " Development - specific . " The application in

this matter was filed by Northside Commons Residential , LLC , for

an 80 - unit development for the homeless and persons with

disabling conditions . However , the WASA l etter was issued to ,

and discussed the availabi lity of water and sewer service for , a

different entity , Northside Commons , Ltd . , the applicant for a

108 - unit elderly development .

35 . According to Mr . Reecy , the reuse of a letter that was

previously submitted in a different application does not fo llow

the " letter " of the criteria in the RFA . Florida Housing and

Northside even agree that the l etter does not r eference the

specific proposed d evelopment that is at issue and instead

focus es on the location of the proposed d evelopment .

36 . Mr . Sol , Northside ' s representative , suggested that it

is " irrelevant " to which entity the letter is issued because what

is relevant is whether water and sewer availability exists .

However , as stated by Mr . Reecy , what Florida Housing considers

when determining whether a letter of availability is

" Development - specific " is the location , the number of units , and

t he applicant . Because the WASA l etter was issued to a entirely

different applicant , based upon Mr . Reecy ' s testimony , it is not

" Development - specific . "

37 . However , Mr . Reecy noted that such a letter could be

considered a Minor Irregularity if there is some commonality

between the applicant entities . Northside argues that the

failure of the l etter to be " Development - specific " should be

waived as a M inor Irregularity . This issue was not considered

during scoring , nor was it a determination made by the Board of

Florida Housing prior to award ing funding to Northside .

38 . Mr . Reecy acknowledged that it is a judgment call when

determining whether a letter addressed to a different entity with

different principals is a Minor Irregularity . That call depends

upon the number of common principals . While the number of

principals that must be the same is discretionary , there must be

at least some commonal ity of principals for it to be considered a

Minor Irregularity .

39 . The principals of Northside Commons , Ltd . , the entity

to which the l etter was actually issued and the applicant that

originally submitted the WASA l etter , are completely different

fr om the principals of Northside Commons Residential , LLC .

Despite a full understanding of all the similarities between the

two applications and the differences in the requirements of the

RFA and being given a number of opportunities to change his

position , Mr . Reecy repeatedly declined to do so .

40 . Mr . Sol suggested that it is common practice for

Florida Housing to accept letters issued to entities other than

the applicant and with different principals . After hearing

Mr . Sol ' s opinion and discussing the issue further with

Northside , Mr . Reecy remained steadfast in his position that the

error in the Letter could not be waived as a Minor Irregularity .

41 . A t the request of Northside , Mr . Reecy agreed to review

past practices of the agency durin g a break in the hearing . As

stated by counsel for Florida Housing , if it is established that

Florida Housing has a long - standing practice of accepting similar

letters , then the question is whether Northside Commons may rely

upon that practice .

42 . The review during the break was limited to the issue of

whether Florida Housing had previously accepted Miami - Dade

letters addressed to an entity who was not the applicant and who

shared no principals in common with the applicant . N o such long -

standing pr actice was demonstrated .

43 . Mr . Reecy directed staff to pull all of the Miami - Dade

letters of availability from the last two RFAs , to determine ,

first , whether or not there were sewer letters addressed to

someone other than the applicant entity . Se cond , for those so

identified , staff was to compare the principals of the applicant

entity and the entity that was the addressee for commonality .

Mr . Reecy was provided a list of approximately a dozen letters

from the past several RFAs that compared the a pplicant entity and

the addressee entity . This list did not identify whether or not

the letters were submitted by successful credit applicants .

44 . Based upon this list , Mr . Reecy then reviewed each

letter to determine whether or not it was issued t o the

applicant . He then reviewed the principals list for the

applicant as identified in the application and compared that to

data from the s tate of Florida ' s Sunbiz . org website for the

addressee of the letter . Mr . Reecy compared this information to

dete rmine if the two had any principals in common .

45 . After reviewing this information , Mr . Reecy recanted

his earlier testimony and stated that he felt that Florida

Housing historically accepted letters with addressees that were

not the applicant entit y and did not have common principals .

Mr . Reecy further testified that based upon this understanding of

Florida Housing ' s past practice , the Northside ' s l etter should be

accepted .

46 . T he information Mr . Reecy reviewed , specifically that

obtained f rom the s tate of Florida ' s Sunbiz . org website , did not

demonstrate , as Mr . Reecy believes , that Florida Housing

previously acce pted Miami - Dade WASA letters from applicant s in a

similar position to that of Northside . Notably , Florida Housing

does not accep t documentation from the Sunbiz . org website to

demonstrate the principals of the Application as required by this

and other RFAs . The Sunbiz . org website does not identify the

level of detail of principals which Florida Housing requests in

its " Principals o f the Applicant and Developer(s) Disclosure

Form " .

47 . Further , even if Sunbiz . org did identify all of the

principals Florida Housing requires to be disclosed , in this

case , the Sunbiz . org information reviewed was dated 2017 . 3 / As

this information w as filed after the application deadlines for

the respective RFAs , it fails to identify any of the principals

related to the entities in the " comparable " letters for the 2015

and 2016 RFAs . No information was provided as to any of the

principals in either 2015 or 2016 .

48 . Accordingly , Mr . Reecy and Mr . Sol ' s belief that

Florida Housing had previously accepted letters in a similar

position to that of Northside Commons ' letter has not been

demonstrated . Because Mr . Reecy ' s new position , that Northside

Commons ' letter should be accepted , is based upon this incorrect

understanding , and the alleged prior agency action was not

demonstrated , Mr . Reecy ' s initial testimony is found to be more

credible . Therefore , the record demonstrates that the WASA

l etter was not " Development - specific " and , therefore , contrary to

the solicitation specifications .

Did the letter demonstrate availability of sewer services?

49 . The RFA requires each applicant to provide a form or

letter demonstrating that " as of the Appli cation Deadline sewer

capacity , package treatment or septic tank service is available

to the entire proposed Development site . " Petitioner presented

the testimony of Jo n Dinges , P . E . , an environmental engineer with

expertise in designing wastewater system s who was accepted as an

expert in civil engineering , specifically in the area of sewer

infrastructure and design . Mr . Dinges ' testimony was simply that

the problem with the WASA letter in this case is that it does n o t

actually say that capacity is availa ble .

50 . In a prior RFA , Florida Housing rejected an application

that included a Miami - Dade WASA letter because it specifically

stated that no gravity sewer capacity analysis had been

conducted . According to Mr . Dinges , w ithout conducting a gravity

sewer capacity analysis , it is not possible to determine whether

capacity , if any , exists . However , the RFA makes no mention of

requiring a gravity sewer capacity analysis to demonstrate

availability .

51 . Mr . Reecy testified that Florida Housing has been

accepting WASA letters without mention of gravity analysis from

Miami - Dade County for many years . He stated t hat the detailed

description of how a proposed project could connect to an

existing sewer service met the requirement of the RFA that the

Ap plicant demonstrate the availability of sewer service . He also

testified that if Florida Housing were to change its position and

determine that the form of the letter was not adequate to

demonstrate capacity , it would do so in a public process .

52 . T he testimony was clear that Florida Housing does not

do any independent analysis of whether water and sewer service is

actually available to a proposed development , but instead relies

on the expertise of the local government to do this analysis .

Applicant s are not required to include or demonstrate the

specific requirements or technical specifications of how a

connection to water or sewer services will be made . This

interpretation is consistent with the specifications of the RFA .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

5 3 . Pursuant to sections 120 . 569 and 120 . 57(2) and (3) ,

DOAH has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of

this proceeding . Florida Housing ' s decision in this case affects

the substantial interests of each of the Petitioners , and each

has stan ding to challenge Florida Housing ' s scoring and review

decisions . The substantial interests of Warley Park are affected

because it is next in line for a funding award under RFA 2017 -

103 , and Warley Park would be the proposed recipient of funding

if Norths ide is deemed ineligible . See , e . g . , Preston Carroll

Co . v . Fla . Keys Aqueduct Auth . , 400 So . 2d 524 (Fla . 3d DCA

1981)(second lowest bid establishes substantial interest in bid

protest) .

54 . Northside has standing to intervene in this proceeding .

Fla. Admin. Code R . 28 - 106 . 205(3) . In addition to being

specifically named in the Petition , the " substantial interests "

of Northside , as the proposed recipient of funding pursuant to

RFA 2017 - 103 , are affected because Warley Park has alleged that

Florida Housing made a mistake in considering Northside ' s

Application . Warley Park alleges that Northside failed to

demonstrate its Ab ility to Proceed , specifically w ater and s ewer

a vailability .

55 . This is a competitive procurement protest proceeding

and , as such , is governed by section 120 . 57(3)(f) , which

provides:

Unless otherwise provided by statute , the

burden of proof shall rest with the party

protesting the proposed agency action . In a

competitive - procurement protest , other than a

rejection of all bi ds , proposals , or replies ,

the administrative law judge shall conduct a

de novo proceeding to determine whether the

agency ' s proposed action is contrary to the

agency ' s governing statutes , the agency ' s

rules or policies , or the solicitation

specifications . The standard of proof for

such proceedings shall be whether the

proposed agency action was clearly erroneous ,

contrary to competition , arbitrary , or

capricious .

See also State Contracting & Eng ' g Corp . v . Dep ' t of Transp . , 709

So . 2d 607 , 609 (Fla . 1st DCA 1998) ; Dep ' t of Transp . v . J . W . C .

Co . , Inc . , 396 So . 2d 778 , 787 (Fla . 1st DCA 1981) .

56 . Pursuant to section 120 . 57(3)(f) , the burden of proof

rests with Warley Park as the party opposing the proposed agency

action to prove " a ground for invalid ating the award . " See State

Contracting and Eng ' g Corp . v . Dep ' t of Transp . , 709 So . 2d

at 609 . The First District Court of Appeal has interpreted the

de novo process set forth in section 120 . 57(3)(f) as follows:

In this context , the phrase " de novo hear ing "

is used to describe a form of intra - agency

review . The judge may receive evidence , as

with any formal hearing under section

120 . 57(1) , but the object of the proceeding

is to evaluate the action taken by the

agency . See Intercontinental Properties ,

I nc . v . Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services , 606 So . 2d 380 (Fla .

3d DCA 1992) (interpreting the phrase " de

novo hearing " as it was used in bid protest

proceedings before the 1996 revision of the

Administrative Procedure Act) .

State Contractin g and Eng ' g Corp . v . Dep ' t of Transp . , 709 So . 2d

at 609 .

57 . The ultimate issue in this proceeding is " whether the

agency ' s proposed action is contrary to the agency ' s governing

statutes , the agency ' s rules or policies , or the bid or proposal

speci fications . " Warley Park must establish that Florida

Housing ' s violation was either clearly erroneous , contrary to

competition , arbitrary , or capricious . §§ 120 . 57(3)(f) , Fla .

Stat .

58 . Agency action will be found to be " clearly erroneous ,"

if it is without rational support and , consequently , the

Administrative Law Judge has a " definite and firm conviction that

a mistake has been committed . " U . S . v . U . S . Gypsum Co . , 333 U . S .

364 , 395 (1948) ; see also Pershing Indus . , Inc . v . Dep ' t of

Banking & Fin . , 591 So . 2d 991 , 993 (Fla . 1st DCA 1991) . Agency

action may also be found to be " clearly erroneous " if the

agency ' s interpretation of the applicable law conflicts with its

plain meaning and intent . Colbert v . Dep ' t of Health , 890 So . 2d

1165 , 1166 (Fla . 1st DCA 2004) . In such a case , " judicial

deference need not be given " to the agency ' s interpretation . Id .

59 . An act is " contrary to competition " if it runs contrary

to the objectives of competitive bidding , which have been long

held:

to protect th e public against collusive

contracts ; to secure fair competition upon

equal terms to all bidders ; to remove not

only collusion but temptation for collusion

and opportunity for gain at public expense ;

to close all avenues to favoritism and fraud

in various forms ; to secure the best values

for the [public] at the lowest possible

expense . . .

Wester v . Belote , 138 So . 2d 721 , 723 - 24 (Fla . 1931) ; see also

Harry Pepper & Assoc . , Inc . v . City of Cape Coral , 352 So . 2d

1190 , 1192 (Fla . 2d DCA 1977) . In that reg ard , public officials

do not have the power " to make exceptions , releases and

modifications in the contract after it is let , which will afford

opportunities for favoritism , whether any such favoritism is

practiced or not . " Wester v . Belote , 138 So . 2d at 724 . The

public policy regarding exceptions and releases in contracts

applies with equal force to the contract procurement .

60 . An " arbitrary " action is " one not supported by facts or

logic , or despotic . " A " capricious " action is " one which is

take n without thought or reason or irrationally . " Agrico Chem .

Co . v . Dep ' t of Envtl . Reg . , 365 So . 2d 759 , 763 (Fla . 1st DCA

1978) ; see also Hadi v . Liberty Behavioral Health Corp . , 927 So .

2d 34 , 38 - 39 (Fla . 1st DCA 2006) . If agency action is

justifiable u nder any analysis that a reasonable person would use

to reach a decision of similar importance , the decision is

neither arbitrary nor capricious . Dravo Basic Materials Co . ,

Inc . v . Dep ' t of Transp . , 602 So . 2d 632 , 634 n . 3 (Fla . 2d DCA

1992) .

61 . Ru le 67 - 60 . 006 is titled , " Responsibility of

Applicants . " Subsection (1) of the rule provides as follows:

(1) The 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 nonresponsiveness with

respect to its Application . If a

determination of nonresponsiveness is made by

the Corporation , the Application shall not be

considered .

62 . Rule 67 - 60 . 008 provides:

The Corporation may waive Mi nor

Irregularities in an otherwise valid

Application . Mistakes clearly evident to the

Corporation on the face of the Application ,

such as computation and typographical errors

may be corrected by the Corporation ; however ,

the Corporation shall have no duty or

obligation to correct any such mistakes .

63 . Rule 67 - 60 . 002(6) defines " Minor Irregularity " to mean

" a variation in a term or condition of an Application pursuant to

this rule chapter that does not provide a competitive advantage

or benefit not enjoyed by other Applicants , and does not

adversely impact the interests of the Corporation or the public . "

64 . Additionally , rule 67 - 60 . 006(1) provides that " the

failure of an Applicant to supply required information in

connection with any Competiti ve Solicitation pursuant to this

rule chapter shall be grounds for a determination of non -

responsiveness . " This language is consistent with section

287 . 012 , Florida Statutes , which indicates a responsive bid must

" conform in all materials respects to the solicitation . " The

burden is thus on the applicant to provide a complete and

responsive response to the RFA .

65 . To establish water and sewer availability , the RFA

requires letters from the water and sewer service providers that

are " D evelopment - spe cific ," dated within 12 months of the

application , and show availability " as of the Application

Deadline . "

66 . Although Northside ' s WASA letter was dated within

12 months of the application , it failed to show water and sewer

availability as of the Ap plication Deadline , and was not

development specific .

67 . Florida Housing argues that the 30 - day validity

language of the WASA letter is boilerplate that is routinely

accepted and interpreted as only limiting the " conditions "

described in the letter , rather than the letter itself . This

argument is unconvincing . These conditions are the same

provisi ons which Mr . Ree cy believes " imply " the availability of

water and sewer service into the future .

68 . Florida Housing defers to local governments wi th

respect to the interpretation of the local government ' s documents

that are submit ted as part of an RFA . Madison Hollow , LLC v .

Fla . Hous . Fin . Corp . , Case No . 15 - 3301 BID ( Fla. DOAH Oct . 28 ,

2015 ; F HFC Dec . 11 , 2015) . Mr . Pile was very clear that Miami -

Dade issued the letter for a 30 - day period only because it is

meant to be a " snapshot " of availability at the time the letter

is requested . Florida Housing provided no reasoning as to why it

chose to ignore this interpretation and to revive this expired

l etter . Doing so is a clearl y erroneous and arbitrary act .

69 . To allow Northside' s award to remain eligible without

satisfying this requirement would be clearly erroneous and

contrary to competition . Houston Street Manor Ltd . P ' ship v .

Fla . Hous . Fin . Corp . , Case No . 15 - 3302 BID ( Fla. DOAH Aug . 18 ,

2015 ; FHFC Sept . 18 , 2015)(ignoring express requirements of RFA

would be both clearly erroneous and contrary to competition) .

70 . This failure to demonstrate water and sewer

availability as of the A pplication Deadline is not a minor

irregularity that can be waived . In fact , Fl o r ida Housing

undertook no analysis during the application review process to

deem this as an irregularity or determine whether it was minor or

major .

71 . There is no su ggestion that the WASA l etter ' s 30 - day

limitation was a computation or typographical error . The

submission of the expired letter was not an error that Florida

H ousing could overlook or Northside could correct after the fact .

HTG Hammock Ridge , LLC v . Fla . Hous . Fin . Corp . , Case No . 16 -

1137 BID ( Fla. DOAH Apr . 19 , 2016 ; FHFC May 6 , 2016)(material

error is not waivable) .

72 . More importantly , the interest of Florida Housing in

maintaining the credibility and integrity of its bidding process

requires th at it enforce the " Mandatory Item " when no prospective

vendor has contested its use via a challenge to the RFA

specifications . See Consultech of Jacksonville , Inc . v . Dep ' t of

Health , 876 So . 2d 731 , 734 (Fla . 1st DCA 2004)(vendor waived

right to challeng e agency ' s weighting of cost proposals by

failing to timely file a specifications protest) ; Optiplan , Inc .

v . Sch . Bd . of Broward Cnty . , 710 So . 2d 569 , 572 (Fla . 4th DCA

1998)(by failing to timely file specifications protest , vendor

waived right to challe nge evaluation criteria in its award

challenge) .

73 . The need for these Mandatory Items is not ambiguous .

W aiving such a specific Mandatory Item in the RFA would put it on

a " slippery slope " in which any mandatory requirement might be

considered wai vable . St . Elizabeth Gardens v . Fla . Hous . Fin .

Corp . , Case No . 16 - 4133BID ( Fla. DOAH Oct . 18 , 2016) , adopted in

relevant part , Case No. 16 - 032BP (F HFC Oct . 28 , 2016) . As noted

by the Administrative Law Judge in JPM Outlook One Ltd .

P artnershi p v . Fl orid a Housing Fin ance Corp . , Case No . 17 - 2499BID

( Fla. DOAH June 29 , 2017) (Recommended Order) :

[a]pplicants would be in doubt as to how

strictly Florida Housing intends to interpret

mandatory provisions in future RFAs . One

bidder would naturally suspect favor itism when

the agency waived mandatory specifications for

another bidder , thus undermining public

confidence in the integrity of the process .

It would not be in the interest of Florida

Housing or the public to intentionally

introduce ambiguity into this c lear RFA

provision .

Id . at p . 51 .

74 . A strict objective review of the four corners of an

application may lead to results that appear harsh in individual

cases , but has the virtue of treating all applicants equally and

enabling Florida Housing to pr ocess the volume of applications

before it in a timely fashion . No rationale was proffered as to

why the inconsistency in the instant case became so trivial as to

be disregarded , when similar or even more trivial inconsistencies

in other cases were cause for rejection . See Douglas Gardens V ,

Ltd . v . Fla . Hous . Fin . Corp . , Case No . 16 - 0418 BID ( Fla. DOAH

Sept . 5 , 2012 ; FHFC Nov . 2 , 2012)(use of wrong form , though

identical to current form , not a " minor irregularity " ) ; JPM

Outlook One Ltd . P ' ship v . Fla . Hou s . Fin . Corp . , Case No . 17 -

2499BID ( Fla. DOAH June 29 , 2017) (Recommended Order) (use of wrong

verification form not waivable) ; Culmer Place v . Fla . Hous . Fin .

Corp . , Case No . 12 - 003UC ( FHFC May 23 , 2012) , adopted in relevant

part , ( FHFC June 12 , 2012)(failu re to include sheet showing

computation by which fee waiver was calculated valid basis for

awarding no points) ; St . Elizabeth Gardens v . Fla . Hous . Fin .

Corp . , Case No . 16 - 4132 BID ( Fla. DOAH Oct . 18 , 2016) , adopted in

relevant part , ( FHFC Oct . 28 , 2016)(le tter dated outside allowed

period) .

75 . Florida Housing ' s precedents demonstrate that i t p lace s

a high priority on establishing a bright line for applicants:

the applicant is responsible for the accurate completion of each

page and applicable exhibi t ; Florida Housing does not assist the

applicant nor does it engage in speculation as to the applicant ' s

intent ; inconsistencies or ambiguities on the face of

applications cause rejection . See Collins Park Apts . , LLC v .

Fla . Hous . Fin . Corp . , Case No . 12 - 043UC ( FHFC Sept . 5 , 2012) ,

adopted in relevant part , (F HFC Nov . 2 , 2012) ; Bonita Cove , LLC

v . Fla . Hous . Fin . Corp . , Case No . 08 - 056UC , ¶ 9 ( FHFC Sept . 8 ,

2008 ; FHFC Sept . 26 , 2008) ; APD Housing Partners 20 , LP v . Fla .

Hous . Fin . Corp . , Case No . 09 - 069 ( F HFC Feb . 4 , 2010 ; FHFC

Feb . 26 , 2010) .

76 . The waiver of a deviation that might disqualify an

otherwise winning bid gives the beneficiary of the waiver an

advantage or benefit over the other bidders . Robinson Elec . Co .

v . Dade Cnty . , 417 So . 2d 1032 , 1034 (Fla . 3d DCA 1982) ; Phil ' s

Expert Tree Serv . , Inc . v . Broward Cnty . Sch . Bd . , Case 06 -

4499BID , ¶ 59 ( Fla. DOAH Mar . 19 , 2007 ; BC S B May 8 , 2007) .

A ccepting an expired letter from one entity would provide a

benefit over those who otherwise obtained a valid letter .

77 . Northside Common ' s application also fails because the

WASA letter is not " Development - specific " as required by Section

Four A . 5 . g . of RFA 2017 - 103 . While the folio number , property

address , and name ( " Northside Commons " ) in the WA SA letter for

the proposed 2016 project are identical for the 2017 proposed

project , the number of units , type of h ousing , and the principals

of the applicants are not .

78 . " Development - specific " is not a term defined in the

RFA . Northside Commons a nd Florida Housing argue that the RFA

does not require that the p rincipals of the addressee of the WASA

letter and the principal of the applicant match . However ,

Mr . Reecy indicated his belief that a WASA letter is sufficiently

" D evelopment - specific " if i t focuses on the same types of units

(multi - family or single family) , number of units (equal to or

less than the proposed project) , and there is some commonality of

principals between the addressee of the letter and the current

applicant submitting the let ter .

79 . According to Mr . Reecy ' s original testimony , the

complete lack of any shared principals between the addressee of

the WASA letter and the applicant , standing alone , made this

application non - responsive to RFA 17 - 103 , and this was not a

minor irregularity which c ould be waived .

80 . Mr . Reecy ' s review of additional documents resulted in

his changed testimony that in recent responses to RFA ' s , at least

ten applicants lacked any commonality among the principals of the

a d dressees of the WASA letters and the applicants . Based upon

this additional information , Florid a Housing and Northside argue

that " past practice " dictates that a lack of commonality does not

play a part in the decision of whether a letter is " Development -

specific ," or at most it is a waivable minor irregularity .

81 . In reality , Florida Housing has no " past practice "

entitled to deference on this issue . In reviewing the

applications in response to RFA 2017 - 103 , Flo r ida Housing did not

recognize a difference between the a ddressee , Northside Commons ,

L td. , and the applicant , Northside Commons Residential , LLC . Nor

has Florida Housing ever undertaken such a review of comparing

addressees to applicants of the WASA letters because until this

hearing , no prior applicant raised the issue .

82 . Assuming for argument ' s sake that the lack of

commonality is not an issue , no evidence or explanation was

presented to explain how a letter for a 108 - unit development for

the elderly was also " Development - specific " for a n 80 - unit

deve lopment for homeless persons and persons with disabling

conditions .

83 . Florida Housing and Northside suggest that the only

relevant question is whether the WASA letter verifies water and

sewer availability at a particular location . This interpret ation

cannot be accepted as it is contrary to Mr . Reecy ' s testimony

and , more importantly , would render meaningless the requirement

that the letters demonstrating availability be " Development -

specific . " Gulfstream Park Racing Ass ' n v . Tampa Bay Downs ,

Inc . , 948 So . 2d 599 , 606 (Fla . 2006)( " elementary principle of

statutory construction that significance and effect must be given

to every word , phrase , sentence , and part of the statute if

possible , and words in a statute should not be construed as mere

surpl usage " ) .

84 . For the reasons above , Florida Housing ' s acceptance of

Northside ' s WASA l etter , upon which the preliminary agency action

was based , is clearly erroneous and contrary to the

specifications of RFA 2017 - 103 , and the deviation from the

speci fications is not a Minor Irregularity . Therefore , it is

concluded that Warley Park has carried its burden of proving that

Florida Housing ' s proposed decision regarding the e ligibility of

Northside in this case was clearly erroneous , arbitrary , or

capricio us , contrary to the governing statutes , rules , or RFA

specifications , or was contrary to competition .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law , it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Housing Finance Corporation

enter a final or der amending its preliminary decision awarding

funding to Warley Park by:

( 1) finding Northside ineligible for funding ; and

( 2) awarding funding to Warley Park as the next highest

scoring eligible applicant .

DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October , 20 17 , in

Tallahassee , Leon County , Florida .

S

MARY LI CREASY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee , Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www . doah . state . fl . us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 19th day of October , 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ As the Director of Multifamily Programs at Florida Housing,

Mr . Reecy is the final arbiter of whether an e rror was made in

scoring an application . Further, he has the authority to say

that Florida Housing is going to change its position if he finds

that Florida Housing improperly accepted a letter of

availability .

2/ Indeed , Hurricane Irma recently demonstr ated the destructive

power of storms to unexpectedly wipe out infrastructure in a

matter of hours in South Florida .

3/ All but one of the documents from Sunbiz . org were filed in

2017 ; the exception being Calpesa Holdings, LLC . Its documents

were filed w ith the Secretary of State in February 2015, over a

month after the application was filed with Florida Housing .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Douglas P . Manson , Esquire

William S. Bilenky, Esquire

Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn , P . A .

1101 West Swann Avenue

Tampa , Flo rida 33606 - 2637

(eServed)

Craig D . Varn , Esquire

Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn , P.A.

106 East College Avenue , Suite 820

Tallahassee , Florida 32301

(eServed)

Michael George Maida , Esquire

Michael G . Maida , P . A .

1709 Hermitage Boulevard , Suite 201

Tallaha ssee , Florida 32308

(eServed)

Christopher Dale McGuire , Esquire

Florida Housing Finance Corporation

227 North Bronough Street , Suite 5000

Tallahassee , Florida 32301 - 1329

(eServed)

Joseph M . Goldstein , Esquire

Shutts & Bowen , LLP

200 East Broward Boulev ard , Suite 2100

Fort Lauderdale , Florida 33301

(eServed)

Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel

Florida Housing Finance Corporation

227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1329

(eServed)

Corporation Clerk

Florida Housing Finance Corpo ration

227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1329

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written objections within 5

days from the date of this Recommended Order . Any objections to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

issue the final order in this case and shall be filed and served

exclusively by email .