09-002267RP Atlantic Housing Partners, Lllp vs. Florida Housing Finance Corporation
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Tuesday, July 14, 2009.

View Dockets  
Summary: The proposed amendments to rules are within Respondent's delegated legislative authority. Petitioner's challenge is dismissed.




12LLLP, )


15Petitioner, )


18vs. ) Case No. 09-2267RP





31Respondent, )


34and )








62Intervenors. )



67Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this

77case on May 26 and 27, 2009, in Tallahassee, Florida, before

88Administrative Law Judge R. Bruce McKibben of the Division of

98Administrative Hearings.


101For Petitioner: M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire

107Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant, P.A.

113301 South Bronough Street, Fifth Floor

119Post Office Box 1110

123Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110

126For Respondent: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire

132Florida Housing Finance Corporation

136227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

142Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329

145For Intervenors Eastwind Development, LLC, and

151Housing Trust Group, LLC:

155Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire

159Carlton Fields, P.A.

162215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500

168Post Office Drawer 190

172Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190

175For Intervenors Gatehouse Group, LLC; American Realty

182Development Corporation; and Landmark Development


188J. Stephen Menton, Esquire

192Rutledge, Ecenia & Purnell, P.A.

197119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202

203Post Office Box 551

207Tallahassee, Florida 32302


214The issue in this case is whether certain proposed rules of

225Respondent, which require applicants in Respondent's Universal

232Application funding cycle to designate their own applications as

241either "Priority I" or "Priority II" applications that may be

251submitted by any "Pool of Related Applicants" and which give

261preference to Priority I applications over Priority II

269applications in selection for funding, constitute invalid

276exercises of delegated legislative authority. 1


284A Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity

291of Proposed Rule was filed at the Division of Administrative

301Hearings ("DOAH") by Petitioner, Atlantic Housing Partners,

310LLLP, on April 27, 2009. On May 6, 2009, Petitions for Leave to

323Intervene were filed by Eastwind Development, LLC, and Housing

332Trust Group, LLC. A Petition for Leave to Intervene was filed

343by The Gatehouse Group, LLC; American Realty Development, LLC;

352and Landmark Development Corporation on May 8, 2009. Both

361Petitions for Leave to Intervene were granted pending

369determination of the parties' standing. Standing was,

376thereafter, stipulated to by the parties prior to the

385commencement of the final hearing.

390At the final hearing held on the date and place set forth

402above, Petitioner called two witnesses: Steve Auger, executive

410director of Respondent (which will also be referred to herein as

"421Florida Housing"), and Scott Culp, executive vice president of

431Petitioner. Florida Housing called one witness, Steve Auger.

439Intervenors called two representative witnesses: Sean Wilson,

446executive vice president of Housing Trust Group, LLC; and

455Marc S. Plonskier, president of The Gatehouse Group, LLC.

464Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 33 and 38 were admitted into

474evidence. Respondent/Intervenors' Exhibits 2 through 6, 14, and

48216 through 19 were admitted. Official Recognition was taken of

492Sections 420.507, 420.508, 420.5087 and 420.5099, Florida

499Statutes (2008); and CS/CS/HB 161 and CS/CS/SB 360 (Enrolled)

508from the 2009 Legislative Session.

513The parties ordered a transcript of the final hearing.

522They were given ten days from the date the transcript was filed

534at DOAH to submit proposed final orders. The Transcript was

544filed at DOAH on June 2, 2009. The parties then stipulated to

556June 18, 2009, as the date for filing their proposed final

567orders. The parties timely submitted Proposed Final Orders, and

576they were duly considered in the preparation of this Final



590The Parties

5921. Petitioner is a Florida limited liability partnership

600engaged in the development of affordable housing 2 in this state.

611Petitioner regularly submits applications for public financing

618of affordable housing developments; and in 2008, submitted 46

627such applications to Respondent. Petitioner possesses the

634requisite skill, experience and credit-worthiness to

640successfully produce affordable housing. Petitioner and its

647predecessor entities have successfully completed the

653construction of over 90 affordable housing developments and in

662excess of 22,000 affordable housing units in Florida from funds

673distributed by Florida Housing.

6772. Respondent is a public corporation created by Section

686420.504, Florida Statutes (1980), to administer the governmental

694function of financing or refinancing affordable housing and

702related facilities in Florida. Its statutory authority and

710mandates appear in Part V of Chapter 420, Florida Statutes

720(2008), at Sections 420.501 through 420.55, Florida Statutes

728(2008). Respondent has a board of nine individuals who govern

738its operations.

7403. Intervenors, Eastwind Development, LLC; Housing Trust

747Group, LLC; The Gatehouse Group, LLC; American Realty

755Development, LLC; and Landmark Development Corporation are each

763Florida limited liability corporations engaged in the business

771of providing affordable housing. Eastwind and Housing Trust

779Group are relatively small developers as compared to Petitioner;

788e.g., Housing Trust Group has approximately ten employees and

797has developed about 12 projects in Florida and one in Georgia.

808Gatehouse, American Realty and Landmark are also smaller

816developers than Petitioner. By way of example, those entities

825submitted nine, six and seven applications, respectively, in the

8342008 application cycle.

837The Proposed Rule

8404. Florida Housing has proposed several new or revised

849definitions, instructions, exhibit forms, and application

855sections to its existing rules concerning application by

863developers for state funding to construct affordable housing.

871The proposed rules create a priority ranking system for use by

882Florida Housing when reviewing competing applications for


8905. The rule language itself does not, per se , create the

901new priority ranking system. Rather, the amended rules

909incorporate by reference the "2009 Universal Application

916Instructions: Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (MMRB)

922Program-HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Rental Program-

928Housing Credit Program." It is in the Instructions that

937language appears regarding the priority system.

9436. A sampling of the new priority language can be found in

955the Application Instructions, March 19, 2009, Draft, page 5,

964which states in part:

968During the ranking process, as outlined in

975the Ranking and Selection Criteria section

981of the Application Instructions, preference

986will be given to Priority I Applications.

993And at Page 93, the proposed Instructions also state:

1002[U]nless otherwise provided, when applying

1007the SAUL Cycles for the Special Set-Asides

1014and each Geographic Set-Aside, Priority I

1020Applications will be considered for funding

1026first and if funds remain after funding all

1034eligible Priority I Applications in each

1040set-aside that can be funded, the Priority

1047II Applications in that set-aside will be

1054considered for funding.

1057The priority system itself will be more fully discussed herein.

1067Historical Application Context

10707. Prior to the implementation of what is now called the

1081Universal Cycle (discussed more fully below), Florida Housing

1089implemented various approaches and processes to equitably

1096allocate funds to developers of affordable housing. The

1104allocation process has historically evolved over the years based

1113on changing needs in the State, input from developers, and other

1124relevant factors.

11268. Prior to 2002, the process used by Florida Housing was

1137called the "Combined Cycle." The significance of the Combined

1146Cycle was that it attempted to allocate funds by using a single

1158competitive application process for all applicants at one time.

1167In other words, all applications for potential funding under

1176various programs were "combined" into one application and

1184allocation process. Under that process, applications were

1191prepared by applicants requesting funds from the various

1199programs and competing for those funds, much like a competitive

1209bidding process. Unlike the application forms now being used,

1218the prior applications required detailed and voluminous

1225information concerning each proposed project. The Combined

1232Cycle applications had to be complete and accurate when

1241submitted with no chance to edit, correct, or provide additional

1251explanation. With this limitation in mind, applicants spent a

1260good deal of time making certain the initial application was

1270complete and correct.

12739. An unintended result of the rigid Combined Cycle

1282process was that good quality applications were sometimes

1290eliminated from funding consideration due to something as minor

1299as a spelling or typographical error. Applicants during this

1308time period became very adept at filling out the application

1318forms. 3 The applications were generally of high quality and

1328applicants generally demonstrated their ability to move forward

1336with development.

133810. The Combined Cycle process was ultimately supplanted

1346by the Universal Cycle in 2002, and that process is currently in

1358place. The Universal Cycle will be described more fully below.

1368Available Funding

137011. It is the duty and responsibility of Florida Housing

1380to interact with entities interested in developing affordable

1388housing in this state. Florida Housing allocates resources to

1397fund affordable housing, most of which comes from three programs

1407referred to as: "HOME," the federally funded multi-family

1415mortgage revenue bond program; "SAIL," the State Apartment

1423Incentive Loan; and the federal low income housing tax credit

1433program (referred to herein as the "tax credit").

144212. The government, in its effort to protect financially

1451marginalized citizens from excessive housing costs, provides the

1459aforementioned funds to developers to build affordable housing.

1467A discussion of the various funding sources is in order to

1478better understand the process.

148213. Tax Credits : Low income housing tax credits come in

1493two varieties: competitively awarded "9%" tax credits, and non-

1502competitively awarded "4%" tax credits. The "9%" and "4%"

1511designations relate to the approximate percentage of a

1519development's eligible cost basis that is awarded in annual tax


153014. For the nine percent tax credits, each state receives

1540an allocation of tax credits every year from the federal

1550government using a population-based formula. Tax credits are a

1559dollar for dollar offset on federal income tax liability. When

1569Florida Housing awards tax credits to an applicant, the

1578applicant gets the credit amount every year for ten years. The

1589developer may sell its future stream of tax credits to a

1600syndicator, who, in turn, sells them to investors (which are

1610often Fortune 500 companies that have profits that the investor

1620seeks to shelter from federal income taxes).

162715. As an example, if an award of $1 million in tax

1639credits every year for ten years is sold for 85 cents on the

1652dollar, it generates $8.5 million in equity to the developer to

1663help finance construction of its proposed project. Unlike the

1672proceeds from issuance of bonds where there is debt that has to

1684be paid back over time, the $8.5 million the developer gets from

1696that award is cash equity, so there is no debt associated with

1708it. Tax credits are a very rich subsidy and, consequentially,

1718are the most sought after funding source that Florida Housing


172916. The four percent tax credits are "non-competitive" tax

1738credits that get paired with tax exempt mortgage revenue bonds.

1748As long as more than half of the total development cost of an

1761affordable rental development is financed through the issuance

1769of tax exempt bonds, the developer is eligible for an award of

1781four percent tax credits. As with the nine percent credits,

1791four percent credits are awarded every year for ten years, and

1802the developers then syndicate these credits. The tax credit

1811program was created in 1986 by the federal government and every

1822year since then, Florida Housing has received an allocation of

1832tax credits.

183417. HOME Funds : Florida Housing also receives a portion

1844of the state's tax exempt bond allocation, some of which it

1855issues to finance the construction of affordable multi-family

1863rental housing. The tax exempt bond proceeds are loaned to

1873developers to finance the construction of a development. The

1882cash flow generated from rental income pays back those bonds

1892over time.

189418. SAIL Funds : Funds are also available through a

1904portion of documentary stamp tax revenues collected on real

1913estate transactions in Florida. For state fiscal year 2009-

19222010, the Legislature did not appropriate any money for SAIL due

1933to the state's current budget crisis. As a result, the

1943challenged rule provisions in the instant case will not apply to

1954the SAIL program in the 2009 application cycle.

196219. All of these resources are allocated to finance the

1972construction or substantial rehabilitation of affordable

1978housing. A portion of the units are then set aside for

1989residents earning a certain percentage of area median income

1998("AMI"); generally, the units are targeted to tenants earning

200960 percent of AMI or below.

2015The Universal Cycle

201820. The process used by Florida Housing to review and

2028approve the Universal Cycle applications operates generally as


2037Applicants submit applications by a specified date.

2044Respondent reviews all applications to determine if

2051certain threshold requirements are met. A score is

2059assigned to each application.

2063A list of all applications, along with their score, is

2073published by Respondent on its website. The

2080applicants are then given a specific period of time to

2090alert Respondent of any errors they believe Respondent

2098made in its initial review of the application.

2106Applicants also have an opportunity to cure any errors

2115within their applications (although there are certain

2122mandatory items which cannot be cured).

2128After the cure period, Respondent issues a "final"

2136score for each application. Applicants are then given

2144an opportunity to contest their final score by way of

2154an informal or formal administrative hearing.

2160After the appeal period, Respondent issues the final

2168rankings which determine which of the applicants will

2176be selected to receive funding from one of the


2186The selected applicants are then invited to the credit

2195underwriting process wherein third party financial

2201consultants (selected by Respondent, but paid for by

2209the individual applicants) determine whether the

2215project proposed in the application is financially


222321. The scoring of applications first addresses whether

2231certain threshold requirements, such as the applicant's

2238experience, appropriate zoning, sufficient infrastructure in the

2245area, and minimum set-asides (more later on this issue), are

2255being met and whether there is a basic plan for financing the

2267project. Florida Housing then looks at such features as

2276programs for tenants, amenities of the development as a whole

2286and of the individual units, local government contributions to

2295the project, and local government ordinances and planning

2303efforts that support affordable housing in general. The initial

2312scoring of applications very frequently results in perfect

2320scores (66) for many applicants.

232522. Because there are so many applications with perfect

2334scores, Florida Housing has built a tiebreaker system into its

2344review process. Tiebreakers include such things as leveraging,

2352i.e. , the amount of corporate (applicant) resources available

2360per set-aside unit. Proximity is another tiebreaker which takes

2369into account how close the proposed project is to such things as

2381public transportation, schools, grocery stores and medical

2388facilities. Proximity points are also awarded for being

2396geographically separated from other similar developments that

2403have been financed within the past three years. The number of

2414units allocated for the most extremely low income individuals

2423has also been used as a tiebreaker. For the upcoming (2009)

2434Universal Cycle, a tiebreaker has been established which

2442addresses the timeliness of submission of evidence of the

2451developer's ability to proceed.

245523. Lastly, Respondent assigns a randomly selected

"2462lottery number" to each application. The applications are all

2471identified and inserted into a computer software program which

2480randomly assigns a number from one through a high number

2490commensurate with the number of applications at issue. The

2499lottery number is a final tiebreaker of sorts and applications

2509are finally ranked--all other things being equal--in lottery

2517number order.

251924. Final rankings are used to determine which

2527applications are preliminarily selected for funding. Some

2534applications are selected to meet certain targeting goals that

2543address housing needs of particular demographic groups (such as

2552farm workers, commercial fishery workers, the homeless, or the

2561elderly). There are also goals addressing specific geographic

2569needs (such as the Florida Keys or inner city areas). These are

2581referred to as "special set aside" or targeting goals.

259025. After the set-aside goals are addressed, Respondent

2598then uses the final rankings to achieve a distribution of

2608affordable housing units among counties with small, medium or

2617large populations. Within the county size groups, Respondent

2625uses a formula called SAUL (an acronym for Set-Aside Unit

2635Limitation) to evenly distribute the units. 4 This formula helps

2645prevent any one large county, for example, from getting all the

2656large county units, even if all the applications for that county

2667receive perfect scores and prevail on all tiebreakers.

267526. The SAUL process is described with examples in the

2685Universal Application Instructions at pages 94 through 100. The

2694process is further described as follows:

2700When an Application is selected for

2706tentative funding, the total number of set-

2713aside units committed to in that Application

2720will be credited toward meeting the SAUL for

2728the county in which the proposed Development

2735is located. The total number of set-aside

2742units for each Application will be computed

2749by multiplying the total number of units

2756within the proposed Development by the

2762highest Total Set-Aside Percentage the

2767Applicant committed to as stated in the last

2775row of the set-aside breakdown chart for the

2783program(s) applied for in the Set-Aside

2789Commitment section of the Application.

2794Results that are not a whole number will be

2803rounded up to the next whole number.

2810Id. at 95.

281327. The tentatively approved applications would,

2819therefore, be used to address the SAUL for their targeted

2829county. As an example, if there were 20 applications from large

2840counties, the top seven were all from Broward County and Florida

2851Housing had established a SAUL for Broward County of 200 units,

2862then as Florida Housing was going through the ranking, it would

2873fund up to 200 units in Broward County and only then select the

2886next highest ranked application from a different county.

289428. Sometimes Florida Housing finds that it receives a lot

2904of applications from just a few counties in the medium county

2915grouping. If the only medium county applications Florida

2923Housing receives are from Hernando and Pasco counties, for

2932example, then those are the only medium counties it can fund.

2943If Florida Housing receives applications from a wide array of

2953counties, then the SAUL mechanism tries to get funding to as

2964many counties as it can before the funding runs out.

297429. The purpose of the complex application review process

2983in the Universal Cycle is to equitably and reasonably distribute

2993affordable housing throughout the state.

2998The Rule Amendment Process

300230. Respondent often finds it necessary to tweak its

3011Universal Cycle review rules to address needed changes, to

3020prevent perceived abuses of the process, or to make the

3030distribution of funds more equitable. Amendments to the rules

3039are generally made on an annual basis.

304631. Proposed amendments to the Universal Cycle application

3054review rules are the basis for the instant rule challenge.

3064Florida Administrative Code Rules 67-21.003 and 67-48.004 adopt,

3072by reference, Respondent's Universal Cycle Application

3078Instructions, application form, and exhibits forms. Those items

3086contain changes to the Universal Cycle review process. A

3095description of the process for making those proposed changes,

3104which are euphemistically referred to as Priority I-Priority II

3113or "PI-PII" by the parties, will follow.

312032. The amendment process for the instant rule changes

3129commenced in the early fall of 2008. 5 The first public meeting

3141on the changes was held August 8, 2008; it was followed by four

3154rule-development workshops: September 25, 2008, in Tallahassee;

3161October 30, 2008, in Orlando; December 11, 2008, in Bonita

3171Springs; and February 17, 2009, in Tallahassee. The public

3180meeting and workshops resulted in a number of comments, both

3190written and oral, from developers. The written comments,

3198including emails, letters, and other documents, were posted on

3207Respondent's website for review by all interested persons.

321533. One of the primary concerns raised by some developers

3225during the rule development period had to do with the increase

3236in the number of applications being filed in recent years. The

3247perception by many who submitted comments was that the increased

3257number of applications was due to some larger developers

"3266gaming" the system. That is, some developers believed that

3275larger developers were filing numerous applications simply for

3283the purpose of acquiring more favorable lottery numbers in the

3293tiebreaker phase of review. Indeed, in the 2008 Universal

3302Cycle, roughly 85 percent of the tax credits allocated by

3312Florida Housing were determined by the lottery number assigned

3321to the application, so the importance of the lottery number is


333334. There were also some comments offered during the

3342rulemaking process as to another effect of the large number of

3353applications by some developers, the "barricade" application

3360concept. These concerns addressed a belief by some developers

3369that applications were being filed which were not financially

3378feasible. The perception was that the applicant filing a

3387barricade application did not intend to actually build the

3396project; rather, the applications were filed to use up the SAUL

3407for a specific county so that funds would then go to other

3419counties and other projects. The evidence presented on this

3428concept was not persuasive, although the witnesses seemed very

3437sincere about their concerns.

344135. The concern about possibly insincere applications was

3449somewhat borne out by the fact that in 2007, only about 24 of

3462187 applications submitted passed the threshold review. During

3470the period given to developers to cure their deficient

3479applications (those that did not pass threshold review), about

3488one third of the applications were not cured. That is, they

3499were simply withdrawn from the review process.

350636. There has been a marked increase in the number of

3517applications filed during recent years. In 2006, there were 104

3527applications filed; in 2007, there were 187; and in 2008, there

3538were 282 applications filed. Over the period of those three

3548years, there had also been an increase in the funds available

3559for distribution by Florida Housing, a fact which may explain

3569why there were more applications being filed. Conversely,

3577Florida Housing had begun approving larger funding amounts per

3586project, thus somewhat negating the impact of the increase in

3596available funds. So while there was indeed more money to

3606distribute, the money was not going to more projects; each

3616individual project was just getting more money than before.

3625Rationale for the Rule Amendments

363037. Based upon the increased number of applications

3638submitted during the Universal Cycle in recent years (and in

3648response to the concerns stated by many developers), Florida

3657Housing determined it best to limit the number of applications

3667from any one developer (including any single purpose entities

3676created by a developer). The method employed by Respondent to

3686effectuate this goal was to initiate a priority system. The

3696priority system proposed by Respondent allowed each related-

3704party applicant to designate up to three of its applications as

3715Priority I; the remainder of that applicant's applications would

3724be deemed Priority II. An applicant could designate three

3733additional applications as Priority I, if those applications

3741were submitted as a joint venture with a qualified not-for-

3751profit organization. The purpose of this caveat to the rule was

3762to encourage the involvement of not-for-profit applicants.

376938. The purpose of the rule was also to generate as many

"3781quality" applications by as many different applicants as

3789possible. Florida Housing believes that if each developer is

3798forced to internally prioritize its applications, only the best

3807applications will be filed. Some developers, Petitioner

3814included, indicate that all of their applications will be

3823exceptional and prioritization would not change that fact.

3831There was no competent evidence presented to suggest that

3840applications filed in the 2008 Universal Cycle were of an

3850inferior nature. 6

385339. In the 2008 Universal Cycle, a small number of

3863developers (including Petitioner), who submitted the largest

3870number of applications received the largest percentage of

3878allocated funds. In fact, over 40 percent of the tax credit

3889allocation went to two large developers. Likewise, 40 percent

3898of the SAIL funds went to a single developer. This resulted in

3910a concentration of Florida Housing's development portfolio in a

3919smaller group of developers. Florida Housing views that

3927concentration as a "disastrous" situation in the current

3935financial market.

393740. Set-asides are an important component of the

3945application review and approval process. Every three years a

3954study is performed on each county within the state to determine

3965how many renter households within the county are earning

397460 percent or less of the AMI and paying more than 40 percent of

3988their annual income for rent. These are referred to as "cost-

3999burden" households. The cost-burden households are broken down

4007into the following groups: families, the elderly, farmworkers

4015and commercial fishermen. The study also assesses needs for

4024persons who are homeless.

402841. Funds are also allocated by way of geographic

4037targeting. 7 Counties are divided into three groups: small,

4046medium, and large (based on population). Each of the three

4056groups must receive at least ten percent of the funds, but the

4068need is determined and then adjusted up to ten percent if it is

4081actually less than that. Once the percentages are established,

4090funds are allocated in accordance with the stated percentages.

4099The example given by Florida Housing was that if large counties

4110were deemed to have 66 percent of the need, medium counties

412130 percent, and small counties four percent, then the small

4131county percentage would be moved up to ten percent (the smallest

4142allowed amount) and the large county would be reduced to

415260 percent.

415442. There are also some set-asides for the preservation of

4164existing affordable housing complexes. And there is a small

4173set-aside for rural development as well. Each set-aside group

4182essentially has its own separate funding from its share of the

4193funds distributed by Florida Housing. An area of state critical

4203concern, the Florida Keys, is given the highest priority during

4213review. Then the various groups (families, the elderly,

4221farmworkers, commercial fishermen and homeless) are considered.

4228Then, after each of these, the geographic set-asides are


423843. For 2009, there are no SAIL funds available, so the

4249families-elderly-farmworker/fisherman-homeless categories are

4252not a concern. Instead, the area of critical concern, the

4262preservation projects and geographic targeting are addressed as

4270relevant set-asides.

427244. Under the PI-PII system, PI applications are given

4281consideration in advance of PII applications. That is, all PI

4291applications are funded before a PII application is considered.

4300The only significant exception to that rule is that certain

4310preservation set-asides may be funded from PII, even if PI

4320applications are not filed. There may be other situations that

4330could result in a PII being funded prior to a PI, but no such

4344scenario was elucidated at final hearing.

435045. Anecdotal evidence suggests that not-for-profit

4356developers have shied away from the Universal Cycle due to a

4367perception that the increase in applications has turned the

4376system into an "odds game" in which it is not feasible for them

4389to participate. The ability of established for-profit

4396developers to increase their number of Priority I applications

4405by partnering with not-for-profits is a goal of the rule to

4416address this problem. Florida Housing believes the increased

4424involvement by not-for-profits will be beneficial to the

4432affordable housing program.

443546. The priority system will also likely have an impact on

4446several key factors relating to the equitable distribution of

4455affordable housing around the state. By having to concentrate

4464its efforts on three (or six) key applications, a developer is

4475more likely to make those designated applications complete and

4484thorough at the outset of the process. This will allow for

4495faster commencement of projects by some applicants as more due

4505diligence is performed prior to the completion of the review


451647. Applicants will also be more likely to file their PI

4527applications in the strongest markets, i.e., where the projects

4536are most needed. This will help Florida Housing more quickly

4546and efficiently approve additional units in its most critical

4555areas of concern.


456148. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

4568jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

4579proceeding. § 120.56, Fla. Stat. 8

458549. Respondent engaged in rulemaking under Section 120.54,

4593Florida Statutes. There is no dispute as to whether Respondent

4603followed the rulemaking procedures and process correctly.

461050. Petitioner and each of the Intervenors, as persons who

4620are "Developers" as defined by Florida Housing, have standing to

4630participate in this proceeding.

463451. Petitioner and Intervenors challenge the proposed

4641application instructions (incorporated by reference in the new

4649rule amendments) as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative

4658authority. They claim that Florida Housing does not have

4667specific authority to require an applicant to designate

4675applications as Priority I or II, to limit applicants to only

4686three non-joint venture PI applications, to limit applicants to

4695only six total PI applications, and to re-designate applications

4704as Priority II.

470752. Rulemaking is a legislative function , and as such, it

4717is within the exclusive authority of the Legislature under the

4727separation of powers provision of the Florida Constitution. See

4736Southwest Florida Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Save the Manatee Club,

4746Inc. , 773 So. 2d 594, 598-599 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). An

4757administrative rule is valid only if adopted under a proper

4767delegation of legislative authority. See Save the Manatee ;

4775Chiles v. Children A, B, C, D, E, and F , 589 So. 2d 260 (Fla.

47901991); Askew v. Cross Key Waterways , 372 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 1978).

480253. The administrative rulemaking standard is set forth in

4811Section 120.536, Florida Statutes, and in the closing paragraph

4820of the statutory definition of "invalid exercise of delegated

4829legislative authority" in Subsection 120.52(8), Florida

4835Statutes, which states:

4838A grant of rulemaking authority is

4844necessary but not sufficient to allow an

4851agency to adopt a rule; a specific law to be

4861implemented is also required. An agency may

4868adopt only rules that implement or interpret

4875the specific powers and duties granted by

4882the enabling statute. No agency shall have

4889authority to adopt a rule only because it is

4898reasonably related to the purpose of the

4905enabling legislation and is not arbitrary

4911and capricious or is within the agency's

4918class of powers and duties, nor shall an

4926agency have the authority to implement

4932statutory provisions setting forth general

4937legislative intent or policy. Statutory

4942language granting rulemaking authority or

4947generally describing the powers and

4952functions of an agency shall be construed to

4960extend no further than implementing or

4966interpreting the specific powers and duties

4972c o n f e r r e d b y t h e s a m e s t a t u t e .

499854. Subsections (8)(b) and (c) of Section 120.52, Florida

5007Statutes, although they are interrelated, address two different

5015problems or issues. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement

5024Trust Fund v. Day Cruise Association, Inc. , 794 So. 2d 696, 701

5036(Fla. 1st DCA 2001); See also St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.

5048v. Consolidated Tomoka Land Co. , 717 So. 2d 72, 81 (Fla. 1st DCA

50611998). In addition, Subsections (8)(b) and (c) of Section

5070120.52, Florida Statutes, have to be read in pari materia with

5081the closing paragraph of the statute, also known as the "flush

5092left paragraph," which was intended to restrict agency

5100rulemaking. Golden West Financial Corporation v. Department of

5108Revenue , 975 So. 2d 567, 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

511855. An invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority

5126exists where "[t]he agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking

5136authority" in promulgating a proposed rule. See § 120.52(8)(b),

5145Fla. Stat. In addition, pursuant to Subsection 120.52(8)(c)

5153through (e), Florida Statutes, rules cannot enlarge, modify, or

5162contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, be vague,

5171or be arbitrary or capricious.

517656. Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 120.56, Florida

5185Statutes, provide, in pertinent part, as follows:

5192120.56 Challenges to rules.-



5210(a) Any person substantially affected by

5216a rule or a proposed rule may seek an

5225administrative determination of the

5229invalidity of the rule on the ground that

5237the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated

5245legislative authority.

5247* * *

5250(e) Hearings held under this section

5256shall be de novo in nature. The standard of

5265proof shall be the preponderance of the

5272evidence. . . Other substantially affected

5278persons may join the proceedings as

5284intervenors on appropriate terms which shall

5290not unduly delay the proceedings. . . .



5304(a) . . .The petitioner has the burden of

5313going forward. The agency then has the

5320burden to prove by a preponderance of the

5328evidence that the proposed rule is not an

5336invalid exercise of delegated legislative

5341authority as to the objections raised.

5347* * *

5350(c) When any substantially affected

5355person seeks determination of the invalidity

5361of a proposed rule pursuant to this section,

5369the proposed rule is not presumed to be

5377valid or invalid.

538057. Petitioner has met its initial burden of going forward

5390in this case through the presentation of its case-in-chief.

539958. The burden then shifts to Respondent to prove by a

5410preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule is not an

5421invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Id. See

5429also Florida Board of Medicine v. Florida Academy of Cosmetic

5439Surgery, Inc. , 808 So. 2d 243, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

545059. A proposed rule may be challenged pursuant to Section

5460120.56, Florida Statutes, only on the ground that it is an

"5471invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." An

5478Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") is without authority to declare

5489a proposed rule invalid on any other ground. To do so would be

5502an impermissible extension of the judge's authority beyond the

5511boundaries established by the Legislature. See , e.g. , Schiffman

5519v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pharmacy , 581

5528So. 2d 1375, 1379 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("An administrative agency

5540has only the authority that the legislature has conferred it by

5551statute."); Lewis Oil Co., Inc. v. Alachua County , 496 So. 2d

5563184, 189 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Thus, for example, an ALJ may not

5576invalidate a proposed rule simply because, in the judge's

5585opinion, it does not represent the wisest or best policy choice.

5596See Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund v.

5606Levy , 656 So. 2d 1359, 1364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)("The issue

5618before the hearing officer in this [rule challenge] case was not

5629whether the Trustees made the best choice in limiting the

5639lengths of docks within the preserve, or whether their choice is

5650one that the appellee finds desirable for his particular

5659location."); Dravo Basic Materials Co., Inc. v. State,

5668Department of Transportation , 602 So. 2d 632, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA

56791992) ("It is not our task, however, to write the best rule for

5693DOT. That was not the task of the hearing officer.")

570460. Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority is

5712defined in Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as follows:

"5720Invalid exercise of delegated legislative

5725authority" means action that goes beyond the

5732powers, functions, and duties delegated by

5738the Legislature. A proposed or existing

5744rule is an invalid exercise of delegated

5751legislative authority if any one of the

5758following applies:

5760(a) The agency has materially failed to

5767follow the applicable rulemaking procedures

5772or requirements set forth in this chapter;

5779(b) The agency has exceeded its grant of

5787rulemaking authority, citation to which is

5793required by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

5797(c) The rule enlarges, modifies, or

5803contravenes the specific provisions of law

5809implemented, citation to which is required

5815by s. 120.54(3)(a)1.;

5818(d) The rule is vague, fails to establish

5826adequate standards for agency decisions, or

5832vests unbridled discretion in the agency;

5838(e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious.

5845A rule is arbitrary if it is not supported

5854by logic or the necessary facts; a rule is

5863capricious if it is adopted without thought

5870or reason or is irrational; or

5876(f) The rule imposes regulatory costs on

5883the regulated person, county, or city which

5890could be reduced by the adoption of less

5898costly alternatives that substantially

5902accomplish the statutory objectives. . . .

590961. A rule must be authorized by a grant of rulemaking

5920authority and must implement specific powers and duties provided

5929by the enabling legislation. Southwest Fla. Water Mgt. Dist. v.

5939Save the Manatee Club, Inc. , 773 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

595262. Florida Housing's rulemaking authority is generally

5959set forth in Section 420.507, Florida Statutes, which says in

5969pertinent part:

5971The corporation shall have all the powers

5978necessary or convenient to carry out and

5985effectuate the purposes and provisions of

5991this part, including the following powers

5997which are in addition to all other powers

6005granted by other provisions of this part:

6012* * *

6015(12) To make rules necessary to carry out

6023the purposes of this part and to exercise

6031any power granted in this part pursuant to

6039the provisions of Chapter 120.

6044* * *

6047(22) To develop and administer the State

6054Apartment Incentive Loan Program. In

6059developing and administering that program,

6064the corporation may:

6067* * *

6070(h) Establish, by rule, the procedure for

6077evaluating, scoring, and competitively

6081ranking all applications based on the

6087criteria set forth in s. 420.5087(6)(c);

6093determining actual loan amounts; making and

6099servicing loans; and exercising the powers

6105authorized in this subsection.

6109* * *

6112(24) To do any and all things necessary

6120or convenient to carry out the purposes of

6128and exercise the powers given and granted in

6136this part.

613863. Also, in Section 420.508, Florida Statutes, the

6146following additional rulemaking authority is found:

6152(3) The corporation shall have the special

6159power to:

6161* * *

6164(c) Adopt and from time to time modify or

6173repeal rules for governing the making of and

6181participation in loans to sponsors for

6187projects to implement the powers authorized,

6193and to achieve the purposes set forth, in

6201this part.

620364. It is clear that Florida Housing has the requisite

6213legislative authority to enact rules relating to the process

6222whereby Florida Housing distributes funds for building

6229affordable housing projects. The Universal Cycle process is, in

6238fact, amended almost annually. However, these are somewhat

6246general grants of rulemaking authority. Courts have held that

6255some general grants of authority may not be sufficient.

626465. In Department of Business and Professional Regulation

6272v. Calder Race Course , 724 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the

6285court invalidated rules of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering

6294allowing searches and seizures within racing facilities, even

6302though the Division had general rulemaking authority to "adopt

6311reasonable rules for the control, supervision, and direction of

6320all applicants, permittees, and licensees and for the holding,

6329conducting, and operating of all racetracks," and had authority

6338to conduct investigations in enforcing the statutes. Id. at


634866. In Bd. of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fund

6358v. Day Cruise Ass'n , 794 So. 2d 696, 700 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001),

6371the Trustee's authority to regulate the use of state-owned

6380submerged lands did not include the authority to prohibit

6389anchoring or mooring by vessels engaged in gambling activities

6398outside of Florida's territorial waters.

6403Although framed as a regulation of anchoring

6410or mooring, the proposed rule does not

6417regulate the mode of or manner of

6424mooring . . . Instead it deliberately and

6432dramatically interferes with certain kinds

6437of commerce solely on account of activities

6444that occur many leagues from the dock.

6451Id. at 702. In the absence of a specific power or duty enabling

6464or requiring the Trustees to regulate cruises to nowhere, to

6474regulate gambling, or to regulate on the basis of activities

6484occurring aboard vessels after they leave sovereignty submerged

6492lands and adjacent waters, the Trustees' proposed rule exceeded

6501the Trustees' rulemaking authority and was an invalid exercise

6510of delegated legislative authority. Id. at 704.

651767. In State Department of Children and Family Services v.

6527I.B. and D.B. , 891 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), the court

6540invalidated as lacking specific authority a Department of

6548Children and Family Services ("DCFS") rule that deprived

6558adoption applicants of a hearing to contest DCFS' placement

6567determination for an adoptive child. Although statutes provided

6575the Department with broad authority to "conduct, supervise, and

6584administer a program for dependent children and their families,"

6593with goals including "the permanent placement of children who

6602cannot be reunited with their families," the Department lacked

6611authority to dispense with hearings in the interest of achieving

6621a statutory goal of expediting the adoption process. Id. at


663268. In Smith v. Department of Corrections , 920 So. 2d 638

6643(Fla. 1st DCA 2005), the court considered a rule of the

6654Department of Corrections which allowed the Department to charge

6663inmates for copying services and found it to be invalid for lack

6675of a specific grant of authority. The cited rule authority

6685merely sets forth the general rulemaking authority of the

6694Department with regard to, among other things, "[t]he rights of

6704inmates" and "[t]he operation and management of the correctional

6713institution or facility and its personnel and functions," and

6722was found inadequate. Id. at 642. Notably, the wisdom in

6732adopting the rule-–to deter inmates from seeking unlimited free

6741copies-–based on past experience and lack of arbitrariness, was

6750held not sufficient authority for the rule. Id. at 641.

676069. The general rulemaking authority relied upon by

6768Florida Housing to promulgate the proposed changes to its rules

6778are specific as to Florida Housing's right to create rules

6788regarding the application process. The question is whether the

6797general rules suffice in the instant rulemaking process. It is

6807the finding of the undersigned ALJ that Florida Housing's

6816ability to effectively review and approve requests for funding

6825requires a broad range of approaches during the application

6834process. The creation of devices such as the subject priority

6844system would seem consistent with Florida Housing's general


685370. Assuming, arguendo , that the requisite rulemaking

6860authority exists, there is also the question of whether the

6870amendment proposed by Florida Housing "enlarges, modifies, or

6878contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented" as set

6887forth in Subsection 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes, or are

6895arbitrary and capricious under Subsection 120.52(8)(e), Florida


690371. Petitioner logically argues that the authoritative

6910language in Subsection 420.507(22)(h), Florida Statutes, refers

6917to "all" applications. By limiting the number of applications

6926that can be given priority consideration, Florida Housing's rule

6935amendments may not effectively address all applications

6942submitted. Rather, only Priority I applications are looked at

6951for funding and, once all PI applications are addressed, then

6961PII applications are considered. Failure to include all

6969applications equally would be a modification or contravention of

6978the underlying statute. Florida Housing demonstrated that all

6986applications are being considered, but the priority system, just

6995like the scoring system and the use of lottery numbers,

7005categorizes the applications leaving some of them at the top of

7016the list.

701872. Considering again, arguendo , that the proposed changes

7026do not modify or contravene the statute, the question still

7036remains as to whether the changes are arbitrary and capricious,

7046in violation of Subsection 120.52(8)(e), Florida Statutes. If a

7055proposed rule is "justifiable under any analysis that a

7064reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar

7074importance, it would seem that the [rule] is neither arbitrary

7084nor capricious" within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8),

7092Florida Statutes. Dravo Basic Materials Company, Inc. v. State,

7101Department of Transportation , 602 So. 2d 632, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA


711373. Action taken by an agency that the Legislature has

7123specifically authorized the agency to take is neither arbitrary

7132nor capricious. See Florida Manufactured Housing Association,

7139Inc. v. Department of Revenue , 642 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 1st DCA

71521994) (proposed rules that "add nothing whatsoever to the

7161requirements of the law, but instead fit squarely within [the

7171statute implemented]" are not arbitrary or capricious).

717874. In the instant case, Florida Housing has created a

7188rule which is intended to address a perceived flaw in existing

7199rules. The new rule provisions, while arguably not the very

7209best means of addressing the problem, fit squarely within the

7219provisions of Subsection 420.507(22), Florida Statutes.

7225Specifically, the rule amendments "establish, by rule, the

7233procedure for evaluating, scoring, and competitively ranking

7240all applications based on the criteria set forth in

7249s. 420.5087(6)(c)."

725175. The newly created provisions do limit the number of

7261Priority I applications any one applicant may file. They do

7271not, however, limit the total number of applications an entity

7281may file, nor do they give any one applicant preference over

7292another. Rather, the rule creates a system wherein all

7301applications are encouraged to be complete and approvable. The

7310potential for "gaming" the Universal Cycle process is greatly

7319diminished by the new rule provisions.

732576. The proposed priority system certainly has an impact

7334on some developers. Nonetheless, it is a clearly enunciated and

7344logically-based system, all things taken into consideration.

7351The rules, as amended, are within Florida Housing's delegated

7360legislative authority, are not arbitrary and capricious, and do

7369not contravene, expand or modify the underlying statute.


7378Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

7388Law, it is

7391ORDERED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance

7397Corporation's Proposed Rules 67-21.003 and 67-48.004, which

7404propose to incorporate by reference the 2009 Universal Cycle

7413Application Instructions, are not invalid exercises of delegated

7421legislative authority.

7423DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2009, in

7433Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.


7440Administrative Law Judge

7443Division of Administrative Hearings

7447The DeSoto Building

74501230 Apalachee Parkway

7453Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

7456(850) 488-9675

7458Fax Filing (850) 921-6847


7463Filed with the Clerk of the

7469Division of Administrative Hearings

7473this 14th day of July, 2009.


74801/ Verbatim from the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation.

74882/ Affordable housing is defined in Subsection 420.602(3),

7496Florida Statutes, as:

7499(a) With respect to a housing unit to be

7508occupied by very-low-income persons, that

7513monthly rents, or monthly mortgage payments

7519including property taxes and insurance, do

7525not exceed 30 percent of that amount which

7533represents 50 percent of the median adjusted

7540gross annual income for the households

7546within the metropolitan statistical area

7551(MSA) or, if not within an MSA, within the

7560county in which the housing unit is located,

7568divided by 12.

7571(b) With respect to a housing unit to be

7580occupied by low-income persons, that monthly

7586rents, or monthly mortgage payments

7591including taxes and insurance, do not exceed

759830 percent of that amount which represents

760580 percent of the median adjusted gross

7612annual income for the households within the

7619metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or, if

7625not within an MSA, within the county in

7633which the housing unit is located, divided

7640by 12.

7642(c) With respect to a housing unit to be

7651occupied by moderate-income persons, that

7656monthly rents, or monthly mortgage payments

7662including taxes and insurance, do not exceed

766930 percent of that amount which represents

7676120 percent of the median adjusted gross

7683annual income for the households within the

7690metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or, if

7696not within an MSA, within the county in

7704which the housing unit is located, divided

7711by 12.

77133/ The developers euphemistically referred to themselves as

"7721good application filler-outers" at that time.

77274/ SAUL is effectively one of the "tweaks" done by Florida

7738Housing in a prior rule amendment process to address county

7748groupings of applications. There is no specific statutory

7756authority for creating a SAUL, but it is an accepted part of

7768Florida Housing's review process.

77725/ The Florida Administrative Weekly notice concerning the rule

7781amendments stated the following purpose and effect for the

7790amendments: "[T]o encourage public-private partnerships to

7796invest in residential housing; to stimulate the construction and

7805rehabilitation of residential housing which in turn will

7813stimulate the job market in the construction and related

7822industries; and to increase and improve the supply of affordable

7832housing in the State of Florida."

78386/ It is true that many applications did not meet threshold

7849requirements, but that is not a definitive indicator of whether

7859the ultimate application would be deficient.

78657/ To the extent allocation of funds relates to SAIL funds,

7876those funds are not relevant in the current Universal Cycle and

7887need not be considered as part of this Order.

78968/ Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references

7904to the Florida Statutes will be to the 2008 version.


7917F. Scott Boyd, Executive Director

7922and General Counsel

7925Joint Administrative Procedures Committee

7929120 Holland Building

7932Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

7935Liz Cloud, Program Administrator

7939Bureau of Administrative Code

7943Department of State

7946R.A. Gray Building, Suite 101

7951Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

7954Wellington Meffert, General Counsel

7958Florida Housing Finance Corporation

7962227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

7968Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7971Sherry Green, Corporation Clerk

7975Florida Housing Finance Corporation

7979227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

7985Tallahassee, Florida 32301

7988M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire

7992Oertel, Fernandez, Cole &

7996Bryant, P.A.

7998301 South Bronough Street, Fifth Floor

8004Post Office Box 1110

8008Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110

8011Shaw P. Stiller, General Counsel

8016Department of Community Affairs

80202555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

8024Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

8027Hugh R. Brown, Esquire

8031Florida Housing Finance Corporation

8035227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

8041Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329

8044J. Stephen Menton, Esquire

8048Rutledge, Ecenia, & Purnell, P.A.

8053119 South Monroe Street, Suite 202

8059Post Office Box 551

8063Tallahassee, Florida 32302

8066Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire

8070Carlton Fields, P.A.

8073215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500

8079Post Office Drawer 190

8083Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190


8092A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

8103entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida

8112Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

8121of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

8129filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of

8140the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied

8149by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of

8160Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in

8171the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of

8181appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to

8194be reviewed.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
Date: 02/05/2010
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding the four-volume Transcript, along with Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1-33, and 38, and Respondent's Exhibits numbered 2-6, 14, and 16-19, to the agency.
Date: 07/14/2009
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
Date: 07/14/2009
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held May 26 and 27, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 06/18/2009
Proceedings: (Eastwind Development, LLC, and Housing Trust Group, LLC's Proposed) Final Order filed.
Date: 06/18/2009
Proceedings: (Eastwind Development, LLC, and Housing Trust Group, LLC) Notice of Filing Joint Proposed Final Order filed.
Date: 06/18/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Final Order filed.
Date: 06/18/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Proposed Final Order filed.
Date: 06/11/2009
Proceedings: Order Establishing Date for Filing Proposed Final Orders.
Date: 06/11/2009
Proceedings: (Intervenors') Notice of Withdrawal of Deposition Testimony and Agreed Upon Motion to Establish Date for Filing Proposed Final Orders filed.
Date: 06/09/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing (of excerpts from Depoistion of M. Polinskier) filed.
Date: 06/02/2009
Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes 1-4) filed.
Date: 05/26/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 05/22/2009
Proceedings: Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 05/22/2009
Proceedings: Order Quashing Witness Subpoena.
Date: 05/22/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum of Intervenor Housing Eastwind Development, LLC, filed.
Date: 05/22/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum of Intervenor Housing Trust Group, LLC, filed.
Date: 05/21/2009
Proceedings: Michael J. Sciarrino's Motion to Quash Subpoena filed.
Date: 05/20/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum of Intervenor the Gatehouse Group filed.
Date: 05/18/2009
Proceedings: Amended Order Granting Petition to Intervene (Housing Trust Group, LLC).
Date: 05/12/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Petitions to Intervene (Eastwind Development, LLC; The Gatehouse Group, LLC; American Realty Development Corp.; and Landmark Development Corp.).
Date: 05/11/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene of Gatehouse Group, American Realty and Landmark Development filed.
Date: 05/08/2009
Proceedings: Petition for Leave to Intervene (The Gatehouse Group, American Realty Development, LLC and Landmark Development Corp.) filed.
Date: 05/08/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Stephen P. Auger filed.
Date: 05/08/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Notice of Taking Deposition of Florida Housing Finance Corporation filed.
Date: 05/08/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Response to Petition for Leave to Intervene of Eastwind Development and Housing Trust Group filed.
Date: 05/06/2009
Proceedings: Petition for Leave to Intervene filed.
Date: 05/05/2009
Proceedings: Respondent`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of S. Culp) filed.
Date: 05/05/2009
Proceedings: Respondent`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of M. Sciarrino) filed.
Date: 05/01/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 26, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
Date: 05/01/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
Date: 05/01/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by H. Brown).
Date: 04/29/2009
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
Date: 04/28/2009
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Liz Cloud from Claudia Llado copying Scott Boyd and the Agency General Counsel.
Date: 04/27/2009
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Determination of Invalidity Proposed Rule filed.

Case Information

Date Filed:
Date Assignment:
Last Docket Entry:
Tallahassee, Florida
Florida Housing Finance Corporation


Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (13):

Related Florida Rule(s) (2):