18-002132BID Channel Side Apartments, Ltd vs. Florida Housing Finance Corporation
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, June 29, 2018.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioners failed to prove that Florida Housing's determinations of eligibility and its intended award of tax credits were clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8HTG HERON ESTATES FAMILY, LLC,

13Petitioner,

14vs. Case No. 18 - 21 30BID

21FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE

24CORPORATION AND OCEAN BREEZE

28EAST APARTMENTS, LLC,

31Respondents.

32_______________________________/

33CHANNEL SIDE APARTMENTS, LTD,

37Petitioner,

38vs. Case No. 18 - 2132BID

44FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE

47CORPORATION AND OCEAN BREEZE

51EAST APARTMENTS, LLC,

54Respondents,

55and

56HTG HERON ESTATES FAMILY, LLC,

61Intervenor.

62_______________________________/

63RECOMMENDED ORDER

65On May 21 , 2018 , Administrative Law Judge Hetal Desai of the

76Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) held a final

85evidentiary hearing in the above - styled consolidated cases in

95Tallahassee, Florida.

97APPEARANCES

98For HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC :

105Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire

109Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC

1131725 Capital Circle Northeast , Suite 304

119Tallahassee, Florida 32308

122For Florida Housing Finance Corporation :

128Betty Zachem, Esquire

131Florida Housing Fina nce Corporation

136227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

142Tallahassee, Florida 32301

145For Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC:

151Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire

155Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

160215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500

166Post Office Drawer 190

170Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0190

175For Channel Side Apartments, LTD:

180M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire

184Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A.

190Post Office Box 1110

194Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1110

199STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

204The issues presented for determination are whe ther Florida

213Housing Finance Corporation Ó s determination that the three

222applicant - parties were eligible for the allocation of low - income

234housing tax credits ; and its intended decision to award such tax

245credits to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC, are cont rary to

256governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications. 1/

264PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

266On October 6, 2017, Respondent, Florida Housing Finance

274Corporation (Respondent or Florida Housing), issued a Ð Request

283for Applications 2017 - 113 Housing Credi t Financing for Affordable

294Housing Developments Located in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough,

301Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas Counties Ñ (the RFA). The RFA

312solicited applications to compete for tax - credit funding for

322multifamily affordable housing developments .

327On March 16, 2018, Florida Housing notified the public of

337its intended decision to award tax - credit funding to one

348applicant from each of the six counties. Germane to this

358consolidated proceeding, Florida Housing announced the results of

366its review and scoring of the applications, and its intent to

377award tax - credit funding for Palm Beach County to Ocean Breeze

389East Apartments, LLC (Ocean Breeze), as the eligible applicant

398receiving the maximum number of points and having the lowest

408tiebreaking lottery nu mber.

412Ocean Breeze; HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC (HTG Heron); and

422Channel Side Apartments, LTD (Channel Side) timely filed notices

431of intent to protest, followed by timely formal written protests,

441to contest Florida Housing Ós intended action for Palm Beac h

452County, pursuant to secti on 120.57(3), Florida Statutes.

460Following an unsuccessful resolution meeting pursuant to

467section 120.57(3 )( d)1., Florida Housing referred the three

476protests to DOAH and filed a motion requesting consolidation.

485The cases were con solidated and duly noticed for a final hearing.

497A telephonic status conference hearing was held on May 3,

5072018. During that conference the parties discussed the

515appropriateness of Ocean Breeze Ó s administrative protest and its

525status as a party in the othe r two cases, in light of the fact it

541was the intended awardee. Ultimately, the undersigned determined

549Ocean Breeze had standing as a party (as opposed to an

560intervenor), severed the protest initiated by Ocean Breeze from

569the remaining consolidated cases, and relinquished jurisdiction

576of Ocean Breeze Ó s petition to Housing Finance.

585Prior to the hearing, the parties filed a Joint Pre - hearing

597Stipulation in which they set forth an extensive list of agreed

608upon facts and issues of law. The parties Ó stipulatio ns have

620been incorporate d below to the extent relevant.

628At the outset of the hearing, a motion by HTG Heron

639requesting official recognition was addressed. 2/ HTG Heron chose

648not to renew the request for official recognition and the

658documents at issue were n ot offered in evidence by HTG Heron .

671The parties offered Joint Exhibits J - 1 through J - 8, which

684were admitted in evidence. Significantly, the RFA was Joint

693Exhibit J - 1.

697Florida Housing presented the testimony of Marisa Button,

705its corporate representative and the director of Ð Multifamily

714Allocations. Ñ Florida Housing offered no exhibits other than the

724joint exhibits.

726HTG Heron presented no witnesses, but questioned Ms. Button

735and relied on the deposition transcript of Ms. Button. HTG

745Heron Ó s Exhibits 1 t hrough 3 and 8 were admitted in evidence.

759Channel Side presented no witnesses, but also questioned

767Ms. Button. Channel Side Ó s Exhibits 1 throu gh 4 were admitted in

781evidence.

782Ocean Breeze also questioned Ms. Button, and presented the

791testimony of the foll owing witnesses: Lewis Swezy, its corporate

801representative; and Michael Simon, the executive director of

809Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency (BBCRA). Ocean

816Breeze Ó s Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence.

827The hearing Transcript was filed o n May 30, 2018. The

838parties timely filed their Proposed Recommended Orders (PROs) on

847June 11, 2018. The PROs have been carefully considered in the

858preparation of this Recommended Order.

863FINDING S OF FACT

867Parties and Process

8701 . Florida Housing is a public corporation and, for the

881purposes of these proceedings, is an agency of the State of

892Florida.

8932 . Pursuant to section 420.5099, Florida Statutes, Florida

902Housing is designated as the housing credit agency for Florida

912within the meaning of section 42(h)(7 )(A) of the Internal Revenue

923Code and has the responsibility and authority to establish

932procedures for allocating and distributing low - income housing tax

942credits. 3/

9443 . Florida Housing is authorized by law to allocate tax

955credits (and other funding) by mea ns of requests for proposal or

967other forms of competitive solicitation. On October 6, 2017,

976Florida Housing published the RFA, starting the competitive

984application process being challenged in this proceeding.

991Completed applications were due December 28, 2017. 4/

9994 . As explained below, all of the non - agency parties (HTG

1012Heron, Channel Side, and Ocean Breeze) in this case applied for

1023funding for a proposed development in Palm Beach County.

10325 . According to the terms of the RFA, only one application

1044for each county was to be funded. Moreover, the RFA Ó s stated

1057goal was to fund one application wherein the applicant applied

1067and qualified as a non - profit applicant. This non - profit goal

1080did not apply within each of the six counties included in this

1092RFA; one non - profit applicant in any of the six counties could

1105satisfy the non - profit applicant goal for the entire RFA.

11166 . No challenges were made to the terms or requirements of

1128the RFA.

11307 . HTG Heron is an applicant to the RFA, requesting an

1142allocation of $1,54 1,751.00 in competitive tax credits. Its

1153application, assigned number 2018 - 289C, was deemed eligible for

1163consideration but was not selected for funding under the RFA.

11738 . Channel Side is also an applicant to the RFA. It is

1186requesting an allocation of $2, 100,000.00 in competitive tax

1196credits. Its application, assigned number 2018 - 278C, was deemed

1206eligible for consideration but was not selected for funding under

1216the RFA.

12189 . Ocean Breeze is an applicant requesting an allocation of

1229$2,070,000.00 in competit ive tax credits. Its application,

1239assigned number 2018 - 286C, was deemed eligible for consideration

1249and was selected for funding under the RFA, subject to a cre dit

1262underwriting review process .

126610 . Florida Housing has adopted Florida Administrative Code

1275Ch apter 67 - 60 to govern the competitive solicitation process for

1287several different programs, including the tax credit program. See

1296§ 420.507(48), Fla. Stat. The bid protest provisions of section

1306120.57(3) are adopted as part of the process for allocating t ax

1318credits, except that no bond is required. See Fla. Admin Code

1329R. 67 - 60.009.

133311 . A review committee was appointed to evaluate the

1343applications and make recommendations to Florida Housing Ó s Board

1353of Directors (the Board).

135712 . Thirty - three application s for the RFA were received,

1369processed, deemed eligible or ineligible, scored, and ranked,

1377pursuant to the terms of the RFA; Florida Administrative Code

1387Chapters 67 - 48 and 67 - 60 ; and applicable federal regulations.

139913 . The review committee found 25 applic ations eligible and

1410eight applications ineligible. Through the ranking and selection

1418process outlined in the RFA, seven applications were recommended

1427for funding , including Ocean Breeze. The review committee

1435developed charts listing its eligibility and f unding

1443recommendations to be presented to the Board.

145014 . On March 16, 2018, the Board met and considered the

1462recommendations of the review committee for the RFA. The same

1472day, the applicants to the RFA received notice of the Board Ó s

1485determinations as to whether the applications were eligible or

1494ineligible for consideration for funding, and which of the

1503eligible applicants were selected for award of tax credits,

1512subject to satisfactory completion of a credit underwriting

1520process. Such notice was provided by the posting of two

1530spreadsheets, one listing the Ð eligible Ñ applications to the RFA

1541and one identifying the applications which Florida Housing

1549proposed to fund. 5/

155315 . Relevant to this proceeding, Florida Housing announced

1562its intention to award fundi ng for Palm Beach County to Ocean

1574Breeze, which received the maximum points available. Channel

1582Side and HTG Heron were deemed eligible and scored the maximum

1593number of points, but were not recommended for funding.

160216 . Each applicant - party timely filed a Notice of Protest

1614and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings.

1620RFA

162117 . The RFA contemplated a structure in which each

1631applicant is scored on eligibility items and obtains points for

1641other items. To determine if an application is eligible for

1651fundi ng , it must meet all of the requirements listed in section

16635.A.1, of the RFA. The following eligibility terms and

1672requirements are challenged in this proceeding:

1678• The evidence of co ntrol of the development site (site

1689c ontrol) by Ocean Breeze and Channel Si de; and

1699• The address of the development site provided by HTG

1709Heron.

171018 . For scoring the applications, the RFA allows up to a

1722total of 20 points with the following point allocations:

1731• Submission of Principal Disclosure f orm stamped by

1740Corporation as Ð Pre - A pproved Ñ (5 points);

1750• Development Experience Withdrawal Disincentive (5

1756points) ; and

1758• Local Government Contribution Points (5 points) or

1766Local Government Area of Opportunity Points (10 points).

17741 9 . As explained in pages 66 - 67 of the RFA, the first step

1790in evaluating the a pplications is the sorting o rder. All

1801eligible applications are ranked by first sorting all eligible

1810applications from the highest score to the lowest score, with any

1821scores that are tied separated in the following order:

1830(1) First, by t he Application Ó s eligibility

1839for the Proximity Funding Preference (which

1845is outlined in Section Four A.5.e. of the

1853RFA) with Applications that qualify for the

1860preference listed above Applications that do

1866not qualify for the preference;

1871(2) Next, by the A pplication Ó s eligibility

1880for the Per Unit Construction Funding

1886Preference which is outlined in Section Four

1893A.11.e. of the RFA (with Applications that

1900qualify for the preference listed above

1906Applications that do not qualify for the

1913preference);

1914(2) [sic] Next, by the Application Ó s

1922eligibility for the Development Category

1927Funding Preference which is outlined in

1933Section Four A.4.b.(4) of the RFA (with

1940Applications that qualify for the preference

1946listed above Applications that do not qualify

1953for the preferen ce);

1957(3) [sic] Next, by the Application Ó s

1965Leveraging Classification, applying the

1969multipliers outlined in Item 3 of Exhibit C

1977of the RFA (with Applications having the

1984Classification of A listed above Applications

1990having the Classification of B);

1995(4) [s ic] Next, by the Application Ó s

2004eligibility for the Florida Job Creation

2010Funding Preference which is outlined in

2016Item 4 of Exhibit C of the RFA (with

2025Applications that qualify for the preference

2031listed above Applications that do not qualify

2038for the prefere nce); and

2043(5) [sic] And finally, by lottery number,

2050resulting in the lowest lottery number

2056receiving preference .

205920 . In other words, those competing for the RFA must first

2071submit an application that meets all the eligibility criteria and

2081does not have a ny significant omissions or errors before it is

2093scored.

20942 1 . After scoring, any tiebreakers are determined strictly

2104by the luck of the draw. After applications are filed, but before

2116they are scored, Florida Housing randomly assigned each a lottery

2126number, and the highest scoring applicant with the lower number

2136wins any ties, thus becoming the intended funding recipient.

21452 2 . The notice of the intended award does not end the

2158process, and the selection of an applicant for funding does not

2169guarantee distribut ion of tax credits to that applicant. Florida

2179Housing Ó s representative, Ms. Button, explained at the hearing:

2189Q Okay. What happens once a preliminary

2196agency action from Florida Housing becomes

2202final agency action?

2205A The awardees who are recommended or

2212preliminarily approved for funding, once that

2218becomes final, those applicants are then

2224invited to credit underwriting by Florida

2230Housing.

2231* * *

2234Q Can you provide some general information

2241about credit underwriting?

2244A Credit underwriting is ess entially a

2251de novo review of all the information that

2259the applicant has provided in their

2265application to proceed forward with the

2271proposed development. Florida Housing

2275retains their party underwriters who review

2281that information and provide recommendat ions

2287to Florida Housing.

22902 3 . S imilarly, the RFA provides that each selected awardee

2302must complete a credit underwriting process before receiving

2310funding or credits. The RFA states on page 68:

2319Notwithstanding an award by the Board

2325pursuant to his RFA, fu nding will be subject

2334to a positive recommendation from the Credit

2341Underwriter based on criteria outlined in the

2348credit underwriting provisions in Rule

2353Chapter 67 - 48, F.A.C.

235824 . Rule 67 - 48.0072, in turn, provides in part:

2369Credit underwriting is a de novo review of

2377all information supplied, received or

2382discovered during or after any competitive

2388solicitation scoring and funding preference

2393process, prior to the closing on funding,

2400including the issuance of IRS Forms 8609 for

2408Housing credits. The success of an Applicant

2415in being selected for funding is not an

2423indication that the Applicant will receive a

2430positive recommendation from the Credit

2435Underwriter or that the Development team Ó s

2443experience, past performance or financial

2448capacity is satisfactory.

245125 . T hus , an application might fail in this de novo credit

2464underwriting phase and never receive funding, even though it was

2474Ð awarded Ñ tax - credit funding as a result of a proceeding such as

2489this one. In that event, page 67 of the RFA provides:

25004. Returned Allo cation

2504Funding that becomes available after the

2510Board takes action on the [Review]

2516Committee Ó s recommendation(s), due to an

2523Applicant withdrawing its Application, an

2528Applicant declining its invitation to enter

2534credit underwriting, or an Applicant Ó s

2541inabil ity to satisfy a requirement outlined

2548in this RFA and/or Rule Chapter 67 - 48,

2557F.A.C., will be distributed as approved by

2564the Board.

256626 . T herefore, if an intended applicant (such as Ocean

2577Breeze), was nominally selected for funding at the end of the

2588eligib ility and scoring phase, but failed to garner a positive

2599recommendation from the credit underwriting process, the next

2607eligible applicants in the queue (such as HTG Heron and Channel

2618Side) would be awarded the tax credits. As a result, in this

2630consolidate d proceeding , the objective of Petitioners is to

2639displace any and all applicants in more favorable positions.

264827 . Here, Petitioner Channel Side challenges the

2656eligibility of both the Ocean Breeze and HTG Heron applications;

2666and Petitioner HTG Heron challe nges the eligibility of Ocean

2676Breeze. Ocean Breeze, in turn, challenges both HTG Heron Ó s and

2688Channel Side Ó s eligibility. The specific issues raised as to the

2700three challenged applications will be discussed below.

2707OCEAN BREEZE APPLICATION

271028 . HTG Heron and Channel Side challenge Ocean Breeze Ó s

2722eligibility based on the RFA requirements relating to site

2731control. The parties have stipulated , and the undersigned finds,

2740that site control must have been demonstrated as of the

2750application deadline of December 28, 2017.

275629 . The RFA provides three ways an applicant can

2766demonstrate site control: (1) eligible contract, (2) deed or

2775certificate of title, or (3) lease.

278130 . Ocean Breeze utilized the first method to satisfy the

2792site control requirement by submitting a document titled

2800Ð Purchase and Development Agreement Ñ (PDA) as Exhibit 8 to its

2812Application. The PDA included two attachments: the Ð Legal

2821Description Ñ and a Ð Reverter Agreement. Ñ

282931 . Petitioners challenge the enforceability of the PDA on

2839two apparent grounds: (1) it was not executed by the applicant 6/ ;

2851and (2) it was executed before the applicant was properly

2861incorporated to do business within the State of Florida.

287032 . The RFA, however, does not mention Ð enforceability Ñ of

2882a contract in its definitio n for Ð Eligible Contract. Ñ The

2894requirements for establishing site control though an eligible

2902contract are found on page 30 through 31 of the RFA.

2913Eligible Contract - For purposes of this RFA,

2921an eligible contract is one that has a term

2930that does not expir e before June 30, 2018 or

2940that contains extension options exercisable

2945by the purchaser and conditioned solely upon

2952payment of additional monies which, if

2958exercised, would extend the term to a date

2966that is not earlier than June 30, 2018;

2974specifically states that the buyer Ó s remedy

2982for default on the part of the seller

2990includes or is specific performance; and the

2997buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an

3004assignment of the eligible contract which

3010assigns all of the buyer Ó s rights, title and

3020interests in the eligib le contract to the

3028Applicant, is provided. Any assignment must

3034be signed by the assignor and the assignee.

3042If the owner of the subject property is not a

3052party to the eligible contract, all documents

3059evidencing intermediate contracts,

3062agreements, assignme nts, options, or

3067conveyances of any kind between or among the

3075owner, the Applicant, or other parties, must

3082be provided, and, if a contract, must contain

3090the following elements of an eligible

3096contract: (a) have a term that does not

3104expire before June 30, 2 018 or contain

3112extension options exercisable by the

3117purchaser and conditioned solely upon payment

3123of additional monies which, if exercised,

3129would extend the term to a date that is not

3139earlier than June 30, 2018, and

3145(b) specifically state that the buyer Ó s

3153remedy for default on the part of the seller

3162includes or is specific performance.

316733 . The initial paragraph of the PDA identifies the parties

3178to the PDA as Ð Boyton Beach Community Redevelopment Agency , Ñ as

3190the Ð Seller, Ñ and Ð Ocean Breeze East Apartments , LLC Ñ as the

3204Ð Purchaser. Ñ

32073 4 . Paragraph 14 of the PDA designates the following for

3219purposes of notices:

3222If to Purchaser: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC

3230Attn: Lewis Swezy

32337735 NW 146 Street, Suite 306

3239Miami Lakes, FL 33016

32433 5 . Under the signature block, however, the PDA states it

3255was executed on behalf of the Ð Purchaser Ñ by Ð OCEAN BREEZE

3268APARTMENTS LLC B y Ocean Breeze East GP LLC Ñ and signed by Lewis

3282Swezy, Ð Title: Authorized Member Ñ on Decembe r 8, 2017.

329336 . Ð Ocean Breeze East, GP, LLC Ñ does not exist and never

3307has in Florida. The parties admit that this entity was not in

3319existence on December 8, 2017 , and was never subsequently formed.

3329Ocean Breeze admits the identification of Ð Ocean Breeze East, GP,

3340LLC Ñ was in error.

334537 . The PDA was executed on behalf of the Ð Seller Ñ by BBCRA

3360and signed by Steven B. Grant, Ð Title: Chair Ñ on December 15,

33732017.

337438 . Paragraph 4 of the PDA indicates that its effective

3385date is the date when the last party sign ed the PDA; in this case

3400being the date t he BBCRA executed the document -- December 15,

34122017.

341339 . The Reverter Agreement is executed by the Ð Purchaser Ñ

3425Ð Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC Ñ and signed by Lewis Swezy,

3437Ð Title: Manager of Manager, Ñ on December 12, 2017.

344740 . The Reverter Agreement is executed by the Ð Seller, Ñ

3459BBCRA , and signed by Steven B. Grant, Ð Title: Chairman Ñ on

3471December 15, 2017.

347441 . Mr. Swezy testified Ocean Breeze complied with all the

3485terms of the PDA, including submitting an initial $25,000 deposit

3496within two days of full execution of the PDA and a second deposit

3509within 30 days.

351242 . The Articles of Organization for Ocean Breeze East

3522Apartments, LLC were filed on December 19, 2017 , and effective

3532December 14, 2017.

353543 . Rachael Grice, Florida Housing Multifamily Programs

3543Manager, scored the site control portion for this RFA based on

3554the information in the application. Mrs. Grice found that Ocean

3564Breeze met the RFA requirements for site control.

357244 . It is unnecessary, and beyond the s cope of the

3584undersigned Ó s jurisdiction, to make a factual or legal

3594determination as to the enforceability of the PDA. The RFA does

3605not mention enforceability or validity as requirements for an

3614Ð E ligible C ontract Ñ for site control purposes.

362445 . There is n o dispute that on its face, the PDA with the

3639Reverter Agreement satisfied the RFA Ó s requirements for an

3649Ð Eligible Contract Ñ listed on page 30 and 31. In fact, as of the

3664date of the application deadline the following was true:

3673• Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC , was listed as the

3683applicant for the RFA.

3687• Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC , was listed as the

3697Ð Purchaser Ñ on the PDA.

3703• Mr. Swezy had signature authority to bind Ocean Breeze

3713and was listed on the Ocean Breeze application as the Ð Authorized

3725Representat ive. Ñ

3728• Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC , and Mr. Swezy were

3738identified in the notice provision in the PDA.

3746• The Reverter Agreement, which was signed after the PDA,

3756correctly identified the applicant entity as Ocean Breeze East

3765Apartments, LLC.

3767• E ffective Dec ember 14, 2017 , Ocean Breeze was

3777incorporated. The PDA was fully executed on December 15, 2017.

37874 6 . H TG Heron and Channel Side have not established that

3800the PDA was fatally flawed or that Florida Housing erred in

3811accepting the PDA as an Ð eligible contrac t Ñ satisfying the RFA Ó s

3826site control requirement.

38294 7 . Even if the PDA contained errors by listing Ð Ocean

3842Breeze East GP, LLC Ñ in the signature block or was prematurely

3854signed before Ocean Breeze was effectively incorporated, the

3862evidence at the hearing established that it was a minor

3872irregularity waivable by Florida Housing, and that Florida

3880Housing would have waived any such errors.

38874 8 . If the PDA is ultimately determined to be unenforceable

3899and site control is not established at the credit underwriti ng

3910stage, Petitioners would be next in line to be selected to

3921receive the tax credits under the terms of the RFA.

393149 . The preponderance of the evidence established that

3940Ocean Breeze Ó s application is eligible for funding, it received

3951the proper scoring, a nd should be the intended award for Palm

3963Beach County.

3965HTG HERON APPLICATION

396850 . Channel Side and Ocean Breeze challenge the eligibility

3978of the HTG Heron application because they claim it fails to

3989satisfy the RFA eligibility requirement to provide a corr ect

3999a ddress of the proposed d evelopment sit e. Page 18 of the RFA

4013requires in relevant part:

4017Indicate (1) the address number, street name,

4024and name of city, and/or (2) the street name,

4033closest designated intersection, and either

4038name of city or unincorpora ted area of

4046county.

40475 1 . Ms. Button testified the purpose of the address

4058requirement in the RFA is to allow parties, including Florida

4068Housing, to know where the proposed development will be built and

4079to ensure the property has access to utility and other services.

4090In that vein, the RFA does not require the street identified in

4102an application to be a publicly maintained street.

411052 . In its application, HTG Heron provided the address of

4121the proposed development as Ð W 17th Ct., W 17th Ct. and Nor th

4135Congress Ave., Riviera Beach, Ñ along with latitudinal and

4144longitudinal coordinate s of the development location.

415153 . Ryan McKinless, Multifamily Programs Senior Analyst for

4160Florida Housing , scored the development address section for

4168this RFA. Mr. McKinless fou nd that HTG Heron met the

4179requirements in the RFA for provid ing an address of the proposed

4191d evelopment.

419354 . Here, Channel Side and Ocean Breeze argue Florida

4203Housing erred in accepting the Ð W. 17th Ct . Ñ address provided by

4217HTG Heron because the address d oes not exist. They point to the

4230site sketch submitted by HTG Heron in support of its application

4241which references a Ð W. 17th Street Ñ (not Ð W. 17th C t. Ñ ) and has

4259Ð W. 17th Street Ñ intersecting with Ð Congress Avenue Extension, Ñ

4271(not Ð N. Congress Ave. Ñ ). In support of this position that

4284Ð W. 17th C t . Ñ does not exist, Ocean Breeze and Channel Side also

4300rely on a 1975 plat and a 1999 City of Rivera Beach Ordinance.

431355 . The sketches attached to HTG HeronÓs application each

4323contain the disclaimer ÐNOT A SURVEY .Ñ

43305 6 . Although the sketches contain a reference to an

4341abandonment relating to ÐW. 17 th Ct.,Ñ the 1999 Ordinance

4352describing the abandonment relied on by Channel Side and Ocean

4362Breeze was not submitted to Florida Housing.

436957 . Regardless, t his plat and ord inance information was not

4381required by the RFA nor was it considered by Florida Housing in

4393determining whether to accept the address submitted by HTG Heron

4403for eligibility determination purposes.

440758 . There was no evidence at the hearing that the Ð W. 17 th

4422Court Ñ address misled Florida Housing (or anyone else) or caused

4433confusion as to the location of HTG Heron Ó s proposed development.

4445To the contrary, other information in the application supports

4454accepting the provided address.

4458• The Ð Local Government Verific ation o f Status of Site

4470Plan Approval f or Multifamily Developments Ñ form executed by the

4481City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the Ð W. 17 th Ct. Ñ address.

4495• The Ð Local Government Verification that Development is

4504Consistent with Zoning and Land Use Regulations Ñ form executed by

4515the City Manager of Riviera Beach affirms the Ð W. 17 th Ct. Ñ

4529address.

4530• The Ð Verification of Availability of Infrastructure -

4539Electricity Ñ form executed by an Associate Engineer from Florida

4549Power and Light affirms the Ð W. 17 th Ct. Ñ address.

4561• The Ð Verification of Availability of Infrastructure Ñ

4570form for water and sewer services executed by a Utilities

4580Engineer from City of Riviera Beach affirms the Ð W. 17 th Ct. Ñ

4594address.

4595• The Ð Verification of Availability of Infrastructure -

4604Roads Ñ form executed by a City Engineer from the City of Riviera

4617Beach affirms the Ð W. 17 th Ct. Ñ address.

4627• The Ð Local Government Verification of Contribution -

4636Grant Ñ form executed by the Interim City Manager of Riviera Beach

4648affirms the Ð W. 17 th Ct. Ñ address.

4657• The acting direct or of the City of Riviera Beach,

4668Department of Community Development confirms by letter that the

4677property at the Ð 2003 W. 17 th C ourt (adjacent to North Congress

4691Avenue) Ñ address is located with a Ð Qualified Census Tract for

47032017 and 2018 Ñ and attaches a di agram of that tract.

4715• Documentation from the Palm Beach County Property

4723Appraiser Ó s website lists the address location as Ð 2003 W. 17 th

4737Ct. Ñ

473959 . Given that the purpose of providing an address was

4750fulfilled and there was no ambiguity as to the actual locat ion of

4763the HTG Heron Ó s development site, Channel Side and Ocean Breeze

4775failed to prove that Florida Housing erred in accepting HTG

4785Heron Ó s address for the purposes of eligibility.

479460 . At the hearing, HTG Heron also submitted a certified

4805copy of a 2017 map from the Palm Beach County Property

4816Appraiser Ó s Office for range 43, township 42, which includes the

4828area of the proposed development in HTG Heron Ó s application, and

4840indicates there is a Ð W. 17 th Ct. Ñ that intersects with

4853Ð N. Congress Avenue. Ñ

48586 1 . Ther e was a preponderance of evidence establishing HTG

4870Heron Ó s designation in its application of Ð W 17th Ct., W 17th Ct.

4885and North Congress Ave., Riviera Beach Ñ was not an error, and

4897that HTG Heron Ó s application is eligible for funding.

4907CHANNEL SIDE APPLICATI ON 7/

491262 . To satisfy the Site Control requirements Channel Side

4922submitted a Purchase and Sale Agreement that lists among the

4932sellers an entity named Ð MWCP, Inc. , f/k/a Blueprint Properties,

4942Inc., a Delaware corporation whose post office addr e ss is 248

4954Col umbia Turnpike F l orham Park, NJ ( Ò Blueprint Ó ) Ñ in the initial

4971paragraph .

49736 3 . MWCP , Inc. (MWCP) did not exist in Florida when the

4986Purchase and Sale Agreement was executed. The parties stipulated

4995that the reference in the Channel Side site control document s to

5007MWCP was erroneous and that the owner of the property for the

5019Channel Side Ó s proposed development as of the application

5029deadline was a Delaware corporation known as Blueprint

5037Properties, Inc., which has never operated as , or been

5046corporately related t o , MWCP.

505164 . Rachel Grice, Florida Housing Multifamily Programs

5059Manager, scored the Site control portion of this RFA based on the

5071information in the Application. Mrs. Grice found that Channel

5080Side met the RFA requirements for Site control.

508865 . The RFA d oes not require the listing of related names

5101of any corporations other than the applicant or developer. Thus,

5111the error in the Purchase and Sale Agreement does not seem to

5123affect Channel Side Ó s satisfaction of any requirement of the RFA.

513566 . The error is insignificant and immaterial. There was

5145no evidence presented at the hear ing that Channel Side received a

5157competitive advantage by identifying Ð MWCP, Inc. f/k/a Blueprint

5166Properties, Inc. Ñ instead of simply ÐBlueprint PropertiesÑ as the

5176seller . The slig ht error conferred no competitive advantage on

5187Channel Side; its application received no more points than it was

5198entitled to by reason of the mistake.

520567 . Ms. Button reasonably testified that had Florida

5214Housing known about the mistaken listing of MWCP as the seller,

5225it would have waived the error as a minor irregularity.

523568 . The applicant - parties failed to prove that Channel

5246Side Ó s application reflecting the Ð wrong corporate entity Ñ as the

5259seller was an error affecting eligibility of Channel Side Ó s

5270appli cation, or that Florida Housing erred in accepting the

5280Purchase and Sale Agreem ent as proof of site control.

529069 . The mistake was, at worst, a minor, inconsequential

5300error that was waivable.

530470 . Based on the preponderance of the evidence, Channel

5314Side Ó s application is eligible for funding.

5322CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

532571 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

5333jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

5343proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), (3), Fla. Stat.

535172 . All of the applicant - parties have standing.

5361Specifically, Petitioners have standing to protest the proposed

5369decisions to fund Ocean Breeze; Channel Side and Ocean Breeze

5379have standing to challenge the determinations that HTG Heron Ó s

5390application is eligible for funding; and Ocean Bre eze and Channel

5401Side have standing to challenge the determinations that HTG

5410Heron Ó s application is eligible for funding. Madison Highlands,

5420LLC v. Fla. Housing. Fin. Corp. , 220 So. 3d 467, 474 (Fla. 5th

5433DCA 2017)(finding standing where Ð Madison Highlands . . . alleges

5444that the applications of the four higher - ranked applicants had

5455deficiencies and that if the FHFC had properly scored or

5465considered the higher - ranked applicants, it would have been

5475awarded the housing tax credits for the Hillsborough County

5484de velopment. Ñ ).

548873 . Section 420.507 provides the statutory authority for

5497Florida Housing to award low - income housing tax credits by

5508requests for proposals or other competitive solicitation.

551574 . These consolidated competitive solicitation protests

5522are go verned by section 120.57(3)(f), which provides as follows:

5532Unless otherwise provided by statute, the

5538burden of proof shall rest with the party

5546protesting the proposed agency action . In a

5554competitive - procurement protest, other than a

5561rejection of all bids, proposals, or replies,

5568the administrative law judge shall conduct a

5575de novo proceeding to determine whether the

5582agency Ó s proposed action is contrary to the

5591agency Ó s governing statutes, the agency Ó s

5600rules or policies, or the solicitation

5606specifications. T he standard of proof for

5613such proceedings shall be whether the

5619proposed agency action was clearly erroneous,

5625contrary to competition, arbitrary, or

5630capricious . (emphasis added).

563475 . As the parties protesting Florida Housing Ó s proposed

5645action, Petitioner s bear the burden of proof by a preponderance

5656of the evidence. §§ 120.57(3)(f) and 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

566576 . Although competitive - solicitation protest proceedings

5673are described in section 120.57(3)(f) as de novo, courts have

5683held these hearings are a Ð form of intra - agency review. The

5696judge may receive evidence, as with any formal hearing under

5706section 120.57(1), but the object of the proceeding is to

5716evaluate the action taken by the agency. Ñ State Contracting and

5727Eng Ó g Corp. v. Dep Ó t of Transp. , 709 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1st

5744DCA 1998).

574677 . A new evidentiary record is developed in the

5756administrative proceeding for the purpose of evaluating the

5764proposed action taken by the agency. See J. D. v. Dep Ó t of Child .

5780& Fams . , 114 So. 3d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013 ) (describing

5793administrative hearings to review agency action on applications

5801for exemption from disqualification as akin to bid protest

5810proceedings under section 120.57(3)).

581478 . Contrary to the arguments at the hearing, although

5824section 120.57(3)(f) stat es new evidence cannot be offered to

5834amend or supplement a party Ó s application, the administrative law

5845judge is not confined to only the information submitted to the

5856agency. Instead, new evidence may be offered in a competitive

5866protest proceeding to prove that there was an error in another

5877party Ó s application. Intercontinental Props. Inc. v. Dep Ó t of

5889Health and Rehab Servs. , 606 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).

5901Conversely, a party may present new evidence to prove that an

5912error in a party Ó s application is a minor irregularity that

5924should be waived. Id.

592879 . A Ð minor irregularity Ñ is defined by rule as follows:

5941Ð Minor Irregularity Ñ means a variation in a

5950term or condition of an Application pursuant

5957to this rule chapter that does not provide a

5966competitive advantage or benefit not enjoyed

5972by other Applicants, and does not adversely

5979impact the interests of [Florida Housing] or

5986the public

5988Fla. Admin. Code R. 67 - 60.002(6). Pursuant to rule 67 - 60.008 and

6002the RFA, Florida Housing may waive errors that are not m aterial

6014or that are Ð minor irregularities. Ñ See Pinnacle Rio, LLC v.

6026Fla. Housing Fin. Corp. , Case No. 14 - 1398BID, 2014 Fla. Div. Adm.

6039Hear. LEXIS 285, *30 - 32 (Fla. DOAH June 4, 2014, FHFC June 13,

60532014) (where information omitted from one part of RFA doc ument

6064but found in other parts of document, Florida Housing had

6074discretion to consider omission a minor irregularity). A

6082deviation Ð is only material if it gives the bidder a substantial

6094advantage over the other bidders and thereby restricts or stifles

6104com petition. Ñ Tropabest Foods, Inc. v. Dep Ó t of Gen. Servs. , 493

6118So. 2d 50, 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

612680 . After determining the relevant facts based upon

6135evidence presented at hearing, the administrative law judge Ó s

6145role is to evaluate the agency Ó s intended a ction in light of

6159those facts. The agency Ó s determinations must remain undisturbed

6169unless clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or

6177capricious. A proposed award will be upheld unless it is

6187contrary to governing statutes, the agency Ó s rule s, or the

6199solicitation specifications.

620181 . The Ð clearly erroneous Ñ standard has been applied to

6213both factual determinations and interpretations of statute, rule,

6221or specification. A factual determination is Ð clearly erroneous Ñ

6231when the reviewer is Ð left with a definite and firm conviction

6243that [the fact - finder] has made a mistake. Ñ Tropical Jewelers,

6255Inc. v. Bank of Am., N.A. , 19 So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

6270As applied to legal interpretations, the Ð clearly erroneous Ñ

6280standard was defined by the court in Colbert v. Department of

6291Health , 890 So. 2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), to mean that

6304Ð the interpretation will be upheld if the agency Ó s construction

6316falls within the permissible range of interpretations. If,

6324however, the agency Ó s interpretati on conflicts with the plain and

6336ordinary intent of the law, judicial deference need not be given

6347to it. Ñ (citations omitted).

635282 . Whether an agency action is Ð contrary to competition Ñ

6364must be determined on a case - by - case basis. See R.N. Expertise,

6378Inc. v. Miami - Dade Co. Sch. Bd. , Case No. 01 - 2663BID, 2002 Fla.

6393Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 163, *55 - 58 (Fla. DOAH Feb. 4, 2002; Miami -

6408Dade Co. Sch. Bd., Mar. 13, 2002). Examples of such actions

6419include those which:

6422(a) create the appearance of and opportunity f or

6431favoritism;

6432(b) erode public confidence that contracts are awarded

6440equitably and economically;

6443(c) cause the procurement process to be genuinely unfair or

6453unreasonably exclusive; or

6456(d) are unethical, dishonest, illegal, or fraudulent. Ñ

6464Id. at 58 .

646883 . An action is Ð arbitrary if it is not supported by

6481logic or the necessary facts, Ñ an d Ð capricious if it is adopted

6495without thought or reason or is irrational. Ñ Hadi v. Lib.

6506Behavioral Health Corp. , 927 So. 2d 34, 38 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

6518If agency action is justifiable under any analysis that a

6528reasonable person would use to reach a decision of similar

6538importance, the action is neither arbitrary nor capricious. See

6547Dravo Basic Materials Co. v. Dep Ó t of Transp . , 602 So. 2d 632,

6562634 n.3 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).

6568OCEAN BREEZE Ó S APPLICATION

657384 . As previously determined , the PDA with the Reverter

6583Agreement submitted by Ocean Breeze satisfied the definition for

6592an Ð eligible contract Ñ and the requirements for Site Control in

6604the RFA. Florida Housing Ó s accepta nce of the PDA was not clearly

6618erroneous , contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.

662585 . With regard to the site control challenge, HTG Heron

6636and Channel Side argued that the original contract was fatally

6646flawed because Ocea n Breeze was not a legal entity , therefore

6657Mr. Swezy could not have had authority to enter into the PDA, and

6670the PDA could not be considered an Ð eligible contract. Ñ

6681Challenges to viability of contracts such as the PDA may only be

6693resolved by a circuit court; enforceability cann ot be determined

6703by Florida Housing or an administrative law judge. See Madison

6713Highlands, LLC, and Am . Residential Dev . , LLC v. Fla. Housing

6725Fin. Corp. , Case No. 18 - 1558BID, RO at 12 ( Fla. DOAH Jun . 6,

67412018; f inal o rder not entered as of the date of this Order )

6756(citing § 26.012, Fla. Stat.). 8/

676286. Regardless , the issue is not whether the PDA was

6772legally enforceable, but rather, whether it met the definition of

6782Ð Eligible Contract Ñ in the RFA.

678987. The PDA submitted by Ocean Breeze sa tisfies the purpose

6800of showing s ite c ontrol, and the plain and literal meaning of the

6814language used in the RFA to define an Eligible Contract.

682488 . Petitioners failed to meet their burden to show Ocean

6835Breeze should have been ineligible based on the validity of the

6846PDA, and t o prove Florida Housing Ó s decision to award tax - credit

6861funding to Ocean Breeze was contrary to statutes, rules, or the

6872RFA specifications. See Pinnacle Rio, LLC , 2014 Fla. Div. Admin

6882Hear. 285, *50 - 51 (deeming application eligible even though its

6893site con trol documentation contained an error in the purchaser Ó s

6905signature block); Houston Street Manor LP v. Fla. Housing Fin.

6915Corp. , Case No. 15 - 3302BID , 2015 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 329,

6928*23 - 32 ( Fla. DOAH Aug. 18, 2015; FHFC Sept. 21, 2015) (finding no

6943clear error of finding site control requirement satisfied;

6951addressing the meaning of Ð Eligible Contract Ñ where applicant

6961demonstrated site control adequately , even though property

6968continued to be marketed where purchasing agreement contained

6976right of first refu sal).

698189 . Additionally, although not relevant to the issue of

6991eligibility, the undersigned rejects the argument that if Florida

7000Housing determines during the credit underwriting process the PDA

7009is unenforceable, the tax credits would somehow sit fallow. The

7019RFA specifically provides a remedy for reassigning the funding

7028a ward to the applicant next in line.

7036HTG HERON APPLICATION

703990 . With regard to the challenge to HTG Heron Ó s

7051eligibility, the evidence did not demonstrate that Florida

7059Housing Ó s acceptance of the address was clearly erroneous,

7069contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. Instead, as

7077found above, the evidence adduced at hearing established that HTG

7087Heron met the RFA specifications.

709291 . Even if it had been shown that HTG Heron had devi ated

7106from the RFA instructions by not providing the correct current

7116address, the actual development site was identifiable and could

7125have been gleaned from other documentation provided in the

7134application, such as the coordinate sites and maps. Moreover,

7143ev en if the use of Ð W. 17th Court Ñ was erroneous, which it was

7159not, such an error was not shown to give HTG Heron a competitive

7172advantage. Thus, if an error had been established, it would be a

7184minor irregularity that could have been waived. See HTG Osprey

7194Pointe, LLC v. Fla. Housing Fin. Corp. , Case No. 18 - 0479BID, 2018

7207Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 235, *21 ( Fla. DOAH Apr . 19, 2018)

7221(finding submission of opposite coordinates for longitude entries

7229was waivable error where elsewhere in application it was clear

7239the proposed housing development was in Miami - Dade county, and

7250not in India).

7253CHANNEL SIDE APPLICATION

725692 . Lastly, as to the challenge to Channel Side Ó s error of

7270listing among the sellers an entity named Ð MWCP, Inc. f/k/a

7281Blueprint Properties, Inc., a De laware corporation Ñ instead of

7291Ð Blueprint Properties, Inc., Ñ the evidence did not demonstrate

7301that Florida Housing Ó s acceptance of Channel Side Ó s application

7313was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or

7321capricious. See Heritage at Pompano Housing Partners, Ltd. v.

7330Fla. Housing Fin. Corp . , Case No. 14 - 1361BID , 2014 Fla. Div. Adm.

7344Hear. LEXIS 296, *36 ( Fla. DOAH June 10, 2014; FHFC June 13,

73572014) (deeming application eligible even though its site control

7366documentation contained an error in i dentifying the seller of the

7377property).

737893 . Instead, the error was simply a mistake that had no

7390effect on Channel Side Ó s actual control of the site or

7402eligibility. The error would have to be considered a minor

7412irregularity that should be waived by Florid a Housing.

742194 . Based on the foregoing standards, the challengers

7430failed to meet their burden to prove that Florida Housing Ó s

7442determinations related to eligibility were co ntrary to the

7451governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA provision ; or

7460that Flor ida Housing's award of funding to Ocean Breeze should be

7472set aside.

7474RECOMMENDATION

7475Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

7485Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Housing Finance

7494Corporation, enter a final order consistent with i ts initial

7504decisions: (1) finding the applications of Ocean Breeze, HTG

7513Heron, and Channel Side eligible for funding; (2) awarding the

7523RFA Palm Beach County funding for the Ocean Breeze proposed

7533development; and (3) dismissing the formal written protests of

7542HTG Heron and Channel Side.

7547DONE AND ENTERED this 29 th day of June , 2018 , in

7558Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

7562S

7563HETAL DESAI

7565Administrative Law Judge

7568Division of Administrative Hearings

7572The DeSoto Building

75751230 Apalac hee Parkway

7579Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

7584(850) 488 - 9675

7588Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

7594www.doah.state.fl.us

7595Filed with the Clerk of the

7601Division of Administrative Hearings

7605this 29 th day of June , 2018 .

7613ENDNOTE S

76151/ All references to the Florida Administr ative Code and the

7626Florida Statutes are to the 2017 versions.

76332 / On May 15, 2018, HTG Heron filed it s Motion for Official

7647Recognition pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28 -

7656106.213(6), and sections 90.202 and 90.203, Florida Statutes

7664(2017). On May 18, 2018, this motion was denied without

7674prejudice to renew the motion at the hearing.

76823 / Florida Housing Ó s mission is to promote the public welfare

7695through governmental f inancing for affordable housing in Florida.

77044 / Although not crucial to the b id protest analysis, an

7716explanation of the low - income housing tax credit program (tax

7727credit program) is helpful in understanding the competitive

7735nature of the RFA process. The U.Seasury makes tax credits

7745available to the state of Florida. As explain ed by Judge

7756Elizabeth McArthur in Heritage at Pompano Hous ing Partners, Ltd.

7766v. Florida Hous ing Fin ance Corp oration , Case No. 14 - 1361BID (Fla.

7780DOAH June 10, 2014 ; FHFC June 13, 2014) , t he tax credit program

7793was enacted by Congress to incentivize private in vestors to

7803develop affordable rental housing. These are tax credits , not

7812tax deductions. For exam ple, a $1,000 deduction in a 15 - percent

7826tax bracket reduces taxable income by $1,000 and reduces tax

7837liability by $150. However, a $1,000 tax credit reduces tax

7848liability by $1,000. Moreover, investors receive a dollar - for -

7860dollar credit against their federal tax liability each year over

7870a period of ten years. The amount of the annual credit is based

7883on the amount invested in affordable housing. As such, th ey are

7895highly sought after among developers.

7900Obviously, developers can use the awarded tax credits, but

7909most do not. Rather, more often developers sell the tax credits

7920to investors to raise equity capital for their projects. T he

7931sale of purchased tax cr edits can be used for ten years by the

7945investors that provide the equity . Theoretically, it is a Ð win -

7958win Ñ for investors, developers and the tenants. When sold, t he

7970investors provide equity which , in turn, reduces the debt

7979associated with the project , wh ich , in turn , lower s the

7990developer Ó s debt . As a result, the housing property can (and

8003must) offe r lower, more affordable rent. In order to receive the

8015tax credits, a developer must agree to keep rents at an

8026affordable level for periods of 30 to 50 years.

80355 / These charts were posted online at www.floridahousing.org and

8045submitted at the hearing as Joint Exhibits 3 a nd 4.

80566 / Although in the Joint Stipulation HTG Heron Estates withd rew

8068its challenge as to whether Ocean Breeze East GP, LLC , wa s a

8081validly f ormed entity and named as a proper entity in the

8093application, it is unclear whether Channel Side asserted this

8102argument as well. Because it was addressed in some of the PROs,

8114the undersigned has addressed the issue in this Recommended

8123O rder.

81257 / Although not addressed in the hearing, the issue of Channel

8137Side Ó s eligibility is noted as a disputed issue in the Joint

8150Stipulation and addressed in all the PROs submitted except for

8160HTG Heron.

81628 / T he subsequent actions of Ocean Breeze and the BBCRA -- the

8176paymen t of the deposits, and acceptance of benefits under the

8187contract -- would seem to serve as ratification of the PDA. See ,

8199e.g. , New Testament Baptist Church, Inc. v. Dep Ó t of Transp. , 993

8212So. 2d 112 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

8219COPIES FURNISHED:

8221Hugh R. Brown, Ge neral Counsel

8227Florida Housing Finance Corporation

8231Suite 5000

8233227 North Bronough Street

8237Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1329

8242(eServed)

8243Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire

8247Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC

8251Suite 304

82531725 Capital Circle Northeast

8257Tallahassee, Florid a 32308

8261(eServed)

8262Betty Zachem, Esquire

8265Florida Housing Finance Corporation

8269Suite 5000

8271227 North Bronough Street

8275Tallahassee, Florida 32301

8278(eServed)

8279Michael P. Donaldson, Esquire

8283Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

8288215 South Monroe Street, Suite 500

8294Post Office Drawer 190

8298Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0190

8303(eServed)

8304M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire

8308Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A.

8314Post Office Box 1110

8318Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1110

8323(eServed)

8324Corporation Clerk

8326Florida Housing Finance Corporation

8330Suite 5000

8332227 North Bronough Street

8336Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1329

8341(eServed)

8342NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

8348All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

83581 0 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

8370to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

8381will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2018
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2018
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held May 21, 2018). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2018
Proceedings: HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2018
Proceedings: Florida Housing Finance Corporation's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2018
Proceedings: (Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Proposed) Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2018
Proceedings: Respondent Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/11/2018
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order of Petitioner, Channel Side Apartments, Ltd filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 05/30/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2018
Proceedings: Second Corrected Notice of Amending Case Style.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Desai from M. Christopher Bryant regarding enclosed thumb drive containing exhibits of Petitioner Channel Side Apartments Ltd. for Final Hearing filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze exhibits filed (thumb drive; not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Desai from Maureen McCarthy Daughton regarding enclosed thumb drive containing exhibits for Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Desai from Betty Zachem regarding enclosed USB thumb drive containing Joint Exhibits for hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: Order Denying HTG Heron Estates Family LLC's Motion for Official Recognition.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: Corrected Notice of Amending Case Style.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Amending Case Style.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2018
Proceedings: HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's Notice of Service of Answers to First Set of Interrogatories to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/17/2018
Proceedings: Order Severing Cases and Relinquishing Jurisdiction Over Case 18-2131BID (filed in DOAH Case No. 18-2131BID).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Response to Florida Housing Finance Corporation's Motion to Dismiss (filed in Case No. 18-002131BID).
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Notice of Serving Verified Responses to Petitioner HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Response to Channel Side Apartments, Ltd's First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2018
Proceedings: Channel Side Apartments Ltd's Notice of Service of (unsigned) Answers to HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2018
Proceedings: Channel Side Apartments Ltd's Notice of Service of (unsigned) Answers to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2018
Proceedings: Petitioner Channel Side Apartments Ltd.'s Response to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2018
Proceedings: HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's Motion for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2018
Proceedings: HTG Heron Estates Family Responses to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2018
Proceedings: HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's Notice of Service of Answers to First Set of Interrogatories to Channel Side Apartments, LTD. filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2018
Proceedings: HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Ocean breeze East Apartments, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition of Corporate Representative of Florida Housing Finance Corporation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2018
Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss Petitioner Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's First Request for Admissions to HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's First Request for Admissions to Channel Side Apartments, Ltd filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Channel Side Apartments, Ltd filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2018
Proceedings: Channel Side Apartments, Ltd.'s First Request for Production of Documents to Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Withdrawal of Response to Florida Housing Finance Corporation's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Response to Florida Housing Finance Corporation's Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2018
Proceedings: Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC's Response to Petitioner HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's First Requests for Admission filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2018
Proceedings: HTG Heron Estates Family, LLC's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Channel Side Apartments, LTD. filed.
Date: 05/03/2018
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Status Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 05/03/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed in Case No. 18-002132BID).
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Status Conference (status conference set for May 3, 2018; 2:00 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2018
Proceedings: Petitioners First Request for Admissions to Intervenor Ocean Breeze East Apartments, LLC filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2018
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 21, 2018; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/01/2018
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 18-2130BID, 18-2131BID, and 18-2132BID).
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance/Motion to Intervene filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2018
Proceedings: Motion to Consolidate Cases filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Betty Zachem).
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2018
Proceedings: Notice to All Bidders on RFA 2017-113 filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2018
Proceedings: Formal Written Protest and Petition for Administrative Proceedings filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/26/2018
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/10/2018
Proceedings: Florida Housing Finance Corporation's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.

Case Information

Judge:
HETAL DESAI
Date Filed:
04/26/2018
Date Assignment:
05/01/2018
Last Docket Entry:
01/10/2019
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Suffix:
BID
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):