15-003302BID Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership vs. Florida Housing Finance Corporation
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, August 18, 2015.

View Dockets  
Summary: Intended award of tax credits to Intervenor should not be implemented because Intervenor's application contained a material misrepresentation, without which its application would not have been selected; recommended that award go to Petitioner.






14vs. Case No. 15 - 330 2BID











41This case came before Administrative Law Judge

48John G. Van Laningham for final hearing on July 8 , 201 5 ,

60in Tallahassee , Florida.


64For Petitioner: M. Christopher Bryant , Esquire

70Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and

74Atkinson, P.A.

76Post Office Box 1110

802060 Delta Way

83Tallahassee, Florida 32 30 2 - 1110

90For Respondent: Christopher D. McGuire , Esquire

96Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel

101Florida Housing Finance Corporation

105227 North Bronough Street, Suite 50 00

112Tallahassee , Florida 3 23 0 1

118For Intervenor: Michael J. Glazer , Esquire

124Erik M. Figlio , Esquire

128Ausley and McMullen , P.A.

132123 South Calhoun Street

136Post Office Box 391

140Tallahassee , Florida 3 23 01


149The issues in this bid protest are whether Respondent's

158preliminary decision to award low - income housing tax credits to

169Intervenor should be implemented, notwithstanding the fact that,

177unbeknownst to Respondent during the evaluation and scori ng of

187the competing applications, Intervenor's application contained a

194material misrepresentation about a transit service, which

201Intervenor urges is a minor irregularity that can be waived;

211and, if the preliminary decision is set aside, whether

220Respondent should award the credits to Petitioner, who is next

230in line, but whose application, Intervenor alleges, contains

238material deviations from the specifications that render it



249On November 21, 2014 , Respondent Florida Housing Finance

257Corporation issued Request for Applications 2014 - 115 for the

267purpose of awarding tax credits for the development of

276affordable housing in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm

284Beach, and Pinellas Counties . According to the te rms of the

296solicitation, only one development in the "Family or Elderly

305Demographic Commitment" category w ill be funded in Duval County.

315On May 8, 2015, Respondent announced its intent to select

325ten applicants for funding, including Intervenor Powers Avenu e

334Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments ,

342whose proposed development would serve the Elderly demographic

350in Duval County . Thereafter, Petitioner Houston Street Manor

359Limited Partnership timely notified Respondent of its intent to

368challenge the award to Intervenor, and on May 26, 2015,

378Petitioner filed a formal written protest alleging that

386Intervenor's application should be rejected as nonresponsive.

393The case was referred to the Division of Administrative

402Hearings ("DOAH") , where the protest petition was filed on

413June 9, 20 15 . The next day, a Notice of Appearance was filed

427on behalf of Intervenor , who thereupon became a party to the

438proceeding .

440The final hearing took place on July 8, 2015 , as scheduled,

451with all parties present . The parties stipulated to a number of

463facts as set forth in their Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation , and

475to the extent relevant these undisputed facts have been

484incorporated herein . Joint Exhibits 1 through 4 were admitted

494into evidence with the consent of a ll parties.

503Petitioner elicited testimony from Ken Reecy, an employee

511of Respondent; and Ken Bowron, Jr., an employee of Petitioner.

521In addition, Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6 were admitted into

531evidence. Intervenor offered, as Intervenor's Exhibits 1 - 3

540respectively, the depositions of Amy Garmon, an employee of

549Respondent; and James Klement and Folks Huxford, employees of

558the City of Jacksonville. These depositions, together with

566their exhibits, were received in evidence. Respondent presented

574no evide nce.

577The final hearing transcript was filed on July 21, 2015 ,

587making the p roposed recommended o rders d ue on July 31 , 20 15 ,

601pursuant to the schedule established at the conclusion of the

611final hearing. Each party timely filed a Proposed Recommended

620Order. All of the parties' post - hearing submissions were

630carefully considered during the preparation of this Recommended


639U nless otherwise indicated, citations to the official

647statute law of the state of Florida refer to Florida Statutes



6621. Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("FHFC ")

671is the housing credit agency for the state of Florida whose

682responsibilities include the awarding of low - income housing tax

692credits , which developers use to financ e the construction of

702affordable housing. Tax credits are made available annually

710pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with FHFC's issuance

720of a Request for Applications.

7252. On November 21, 2014 , FHFC issued Request for

734Applications 2014 - 115 ( the " RFA"), whose full title ÏÏ " Housing

747Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in

755Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas

763Counties " ÏÏ generally describes the developments for which FHFC

772expects to award tax credits totaling up to approx imately $15. 5

784million to selected applicants proposing to construct such

792projects in accordance with the specifications of the RFA,

801FHFC's generally applicable standards, and all other governing

809laws. Applications were due on February 3, 2015.

8173. Applicants were required to make a commitment to serve

827one of several populations: Family, Elderly, or Homeless.

835Under the selection process that the RFA prescribes, only one

845project targeted for either the Family or Elderly population in

855Duval County will be s elected for funding. The dispute in this

867case arises from FHFC's preliminary decision regarding the award

876of credits for the Duval County development intended to serve

886the Family or Elderly demographic. Petitioner Houston Street

894Manor Limited Partnership ("Houston Street") and Intervenor

903Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior

912Apartments ("Pine Grove") each timely submitted an application

922proposing to build affordable housing for elderly residents in

931Duval County, making them direct competitors for the sole award

941available for such a project.

9464. The RFA provided that applications would be evaluated

955and scored by a committee, with the scoring to be based on

" 967Mandatory Items " and " Point Items " identified in a table

976included in the RFA. Upon completing its evaluation, the

985committee was required to list the eligible applications in

994order from highest total score to lowest total score, and to

1005make a recommendation to FHFC's Board of Directors .

10145. In theory, the award sh ould go to the applicant with

1026the highest score. Because of the likelihood , however, that

1035multiple applications w i l l get perfect scores ÏÏ as it happened,

1048all 49 of the eligible applications in the Family or Elderly

1059Demographic Commitment category received the maximum score of 23

1068points ÏÏ the RFA established a sequence of six tiebreakers, the

1079sixth being a lottery, with the award falling to the application

1090having the lowest, r andomly assigned lottery number.

1098Knowledgeable developer s underst oo d that , i n practice, most of

1110the successful applications would be lottery winners owing their

1119selection largely to luck .

11246. It is therefore no t surpris ing that all e ight eligible

1137applications proposing to serve the Family or Elderly population

1146i n Duval County received the full 23 points. None of the firs t

1160five tiebreakers separated these applications , which forced a

1168lottery. Pine Grove had the lowest lottery number (14) ,

1177followed by Houston Street Manor (25). Thus, Pine Grove was

1187chosen for preliminary funding , as FHFC announced on May 8,

11972015 .

11997. The RFA specifie s two Point Items in th e Family or

1212Elderly Demographic Commitment category. One Point Item is

"1220Local Government Contributions," for which a maximum of 5 .0

1230points could be awarded. The other is "Proximity to Transit and

1241Community Services," which was worth a maximum of 18 "proximity

1251points." To be considered eligible for funding, an applicant

1260needed to receive at least 10.25 proximity points, including a

1270minimum of 2 .0 points for Transit Services. 1 / Significantly, a n

1283applicant who earned 12.25 or more proximity points would be

1293given the maximum Total Proximity Score of 18. Thus, to be

1304eligible an applicant needed to qualify for a Transit Service

1314Score of at least 2 .0 plus win 8.25 additional proximity points;

1326to be competitive , however , it had to win at least 1 0 .25

1339additional proximity points , to "bump up" to 18 .

13488. During the evaluation and scoring, Pine Grove received

1357a Transit Service Score of 5 .0 , which, together with the 9.5

1369proximity points that Pine Grove earned for its proximity to

1379other community services, gave Pine Grove a raw score of 14.5

1390and, consequently, a Total Proximity Score of 18 ÏÏ the maximum.

1401Pine Grove's Transit Service Score, ho wever, was based upon a

1412representation of material fact that ÏÏ it is undisputed ÏÏ was not

1424correct. To understand the problem requires a more detailed

1433explanati on of the Transit Services criteria.

14409. The RFA required an applicant to select one ÏÏ and only

1452one ÏÏ Transit Service upon which its Transit Service Score would

1463be based. The category of Transit Services comprises five

1472specifically defined services divided into three subgroups as

1480follows: (1) Private Transportation Ï 2 points; (2) Public Bus

1490Stop Î maximum 2 points ; and (3) Public Bus Transfer Stop;

1501Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop; or Public Rail Station Ï maximum

15126 points . The services relevant to this case are Public Bus

1524Stop and Public Bus Transfer Stop.

153010. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevan t part as


1543[A] Public Bus Stop means a fixed location

1551at which passengers may access one or two

1559routes of public transportation via buses.

1565The Public Bus Stop must service at least

1573one bus route with scheduled stops at least

1581hourly during the time s of 7am to 9am and

1591also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday

1600through Friday, excluding holidays, on a

1606year - round basis.

1610RFA at 21.

161311. The pertinent provisions of the definition of Public

1622Bus Transfer Stop provide as follows:

1628[A] Public Bus Transfer St op means a fixed

1637location at which passengers may access at

1644least three routes of public transportation

1650via buses. Each qualifying route must have

1657a scheduled stop at the Public Bus Transfer

1665Stop at least hourly during the times of 7am

1674to 9am and also dur ing the times of 4pm to

16856pm Monday through Friday, excluding

1690holidays, on a year - round basis. This would

1699include both bus stations (i.e., hubs) and

1706bus stops with multiple routes.

1711RFA at 21.

171412. The number of proximity points that would be awarded

1724fo r a Public Bus Stop or a Public Bus Transfer Stop, if an

1738applicant chose one or the other as the sole service upon which

1750its Transit Service Score would be based, was not committed to

1761the discretion of the evaluators . Rather, the RFA prescribes

1771the precis e number of points to be assigned, based on an

1783objective criterion, namely the distance in miles between the

1792proposed development and the particular service. Thus, a Public

1801Bus Stop would be scored as follows:

1808RFA at 24.

181113. A Public Bus Transfer Stop, in contrast, would be

1821awarded points pursuant to the following schedule:

1828RFA at 25.

183114. The RFA required applicants to attach to their

1840applications a Surveyor Certification Form completed and signed

1848by a licensed surveyor. On this form, the surveyor must state

1859the latitude and longitude coordinates for, among other things,

1868the selected Trans it Service, e.g., Public Bus Stop or Public

1879Bus Transfer Stop, together with the distance in miles between

1889such service and the proposed development. By signing the form,

1899the surveyor declares, under penalties of perjury, "that the

1908foregoing statement is t rue and correct." RFA at 86.

191815. Pine Grove submitted a Surveyor Certification Form

1926which identified a Public Bus Transfer Stop as its Transit


1937Joint Ex. 3 at 52 of 101 . Because the distance between this

1950service and the proposed development w as stated to be 0.55

1961miles, Pine Grove received 5 .0 proximity points pursuant to the

1972schedule reproduced above.

197516. The site whose coordinates are shown in Pine Grove's

1985Surveyor Certification Form is , in fact, a bus stop, which the

1996Jacksonville Transportation Authority ("JTA") refers to as Stop

2006#4203. But, as the parties have stipulated, only two routes

2016serve Stop #4 2 03 during the morning and afternoon rush hours.

2028Consequently, contrary to the representation in Pine Grove's

2036application, Stop #4203 is not a Public Bus Transfer Stop as

2047that term is defined in the RFA , but a less - prized Public Bus

2061Stop .

206317. Houston Street raised this issue as a protest ground

2073in its formal petition challenging the proposed award to Pine

2083Grove. During discovery, Pine Grove confessed error and

2091admitted that Stop #4203 is only a Public Bus Stop, not a Public

2104Bus Transfer Stop . Thereafter, FHFC announced that it would

2114side with Houston Street in arguing that Pine Grove's

2123application must be rejected as ineligible since S top #4203, as

2134a Public Bus Stop greater than 0.30 miles from the proposed

2145development, earns just 0.0 points under the applicable scoring

2154schedule ÏÏ 2 .0 points less than the Required Minimum Transit

2165Service Score of 2. 0.

217018. Pine Grove would be dead in the water at this point

2182but for an un likely , yet undisputed, factual twist. It turns

2193out that JTA Stop #1397, which is located 0.48 miles from Pine

2205Grove's proposed development, happens to qualify as a Public Bus

2215Transfer Stop. Had Pine Grove identified Stop #1397 as its

2225Transit Service, it legitimately would have been entitled to 5.5

2235points. In other words , Pine Grove could have offered an actual

2246Public Bus Transfer Stop that is closer to its proposed

2256development than Stop #4203 ( and thus more valuable in terms of

2268proximity points ) , but instead it identified a Public Bus Stop ÏÏ

2280which it misrepresented as a Public Bus Transfer Stop ÏÏ that was

2292worth less in proximity points than Stop #1397 even if it truly

2304were a Public Bus Transfer Stop, and is worth less as the Public

2317Bus Stop it truly is.

232219. Houston Street and FHFC have framed their objection to

2332Pine Grove's application in terms of responsiveness, contending

2340that Pine Grove's failure to identify a Transit Service eligible

2350for at least the Required Minimu m Transit Service Score is a

2362material deviation that the agency cannot waive. This has

2371opened the door to Pine Grove's argument th at falsely describing

2382Stop #4203 in its Surveyor Certification Form as a Public Bus

2393Transfer Stop worth 5. 0 proximity points should be deemed a

2404minor irregularity given the existence of Stop #1397, which

2413everyone agrees is a Public Bus Transfer Stop that would have

2424been worth 5.5 proximity points to Pine Grove, had Pine Grove

2435relied upon Stop #1397. Pine Grove's position is par t "no

2446competitive advantage" (as indeed citing Stop #4203 was not

2455advantageous in light of the superior alternative) and part "no

2465harm, no foul."

246820. Before examining the question s of whether Pine Grove's

2478designating Stop #4203 as its Transit Service wa s a deviation

2489from the specifications and, if so, whether such a lack of

2500responsiveness should be considered a material deviation or a

2509minor irregularity, the undersigned wants to mention a point

2518that the parties have not raised, but which nevertheless

2527war rants consideration. Preliminarily, though, the undersigned

2534stresses that no allegation was made, no evidence was received,

2544and no finding is being made that Pine Grove intended to deceive

2556FHFC by holding out Stop #4203 as a Public Bus Transfer Stop.

2568Rat her, although there is no direct evidence in the record, the

2580logical and reasonable inference based on the circumstances is

2589that Pine Grove simply made an unfortunate and costly mistake in

2600failing timely to discover that Stop #4203 does not qualif y as a

2613Public Bus Transfer Stop , as Pine Grove honestly had believed .

262421. That said, by identifying Stop #4203 in its Surveyor

2634Certification Form as a Public Bus Transfer Stop, Pine Grove

2644unequivocally represented that the material facts concerning

2651this particular stop satisfied the RFA's definition of a Public

2661Bus Transfer Stop ÏÏ and they did not. Not to put too fine a

2675point on it, the representation that Stop #4203 is a Public Bus

2687Transfer Stop was a false statement of material fact ÏÏ objective

2698fact at that, not ultimate fact involving the exercise of

2708discretion or judgment, and not opinion. To be sure, this

2718material misrepresentation was not intentionally false. But it

2726was false .

272922. Like all applicants, Pine Grove was required to submit

2739with its application a fully executed Applicant Certification

2747and Acknowledgment Form. Among the statements therein whose

2755truth Pine Grove confirmed is the following:

2762In eliciting information from third parties

2768required by and/or included in this

2774application, the Applicant has provided such

2780parties information that accurately

2784describes the Development as proposed in

2790this Application. The Applicant has

2795reviewed the third party information

2800included in this Application and/or provided

2806during the credit underwriting process and

2812the information provided by any such party

2819is based upon, and accurate with respect to,

2827the Development as proposed in this

2833Application .

2835Joint Ex. 3 at 26 of 101 (emphasis added) . In signing this

2848form, Pine Grove's agent "declare[d] and certi f[ied] that [he]

2858ha[d] read the foregoing and that the information is true,

2868correct, and complete."

287123. As is now known, a third party ( Pine Grove's surveyor )

2884provided information about Stop #4203 that was not accurate with

2894respect to the proposed devel opment . Pine Grove's submission of

2905third party information that contained a false statement of

2914material fact (i.e., that Stop #4203 is a Public Bus Transfer

2925Stop located 0.55 miles from the proposed development) was a

2935deviation from the RFA's specificatio ns, including the

2943provisions of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment

2950Form set forth above. The undersigned is inclined to believe

2960that a false statement of material fact in a bid or similar

2972response to a public solicitation should almost always be deemed

2982a material deviation. Agencies reasonably and justifiably rely

2990upon the statements of fact contained in such documents, and

3000therefore the disincentives to making factual misstatements ,

3007even innocently, should be strong and consistently applied .

301624. Here, however, as mentioned, no party has urged that

3026Pine Grove's application be deemed nonresponsive for

3033misrepresenting the true nature of Stop #4203, and therefore the

3043undersigned will not recommend that the case be decided on th is

3055basis. Nevert heless, it should be stated that to treat Pine

3066Grove's application as having accurately identified Stop #4203

3074as a Public Bus Stop, which is the premise behind Houston Street

3086and FHFC's position, is to waive the material misrepresentation

3095in Pine Grove's S urveyor Certification Form ÏÏ a significant, and

3106arguably unduly generous, threshold concession to Pine Grove.

311425. Once the misrepresentation is overlooked, it is not

3123obvious that a deviation exists that would make Pine Grove's

3133application nonresponsive. B us Stop #4203 meets the RFA's

3142definition of a Public Bus Stop worth up to 2 .0 points. Thus,

3155it is a n Eligible Service that does not depart from the

3167specifications for a Public Bus Stop. Pine Grove's application

3176was not "nonresponsive" for identifying a P ublic Bus Stop as its

3188Transit Service.

319026. Located at a distance of 0.55 miles from the proposed

3201development, Bus Stop #4203 was entitled to a score of 0.0

3212according to the RFA's scoring schedule, which requires that 0.0

3222points be awarded to a Public Bus Stop that is farther than 0.30

3235miles from the proposed development. That Bus Stop #4203 must

3245be awarded no points does not , of itself, make Pine Grov e's

3257application nonresponsive ; it just means that the application

3265will receive fewer points than the maxim um available for this

3276item. T he RFA pointedly does not state that reliance upon a

3288Public Bus Stop located more than 0.30 miles from the proposed

3299development will result in a finding of noncompliance , and it

3309strongly implies otherwise by instructing that distant Public

3317Bus Stops shall be given a score, albeit a score of zero . Pine

3331Grove's application was not "nonresponsive" merely for

3338identifying a faraway Public Bus Stop as its Transit Service.

334827. Because Bus Stop #4203 could be awarded no more than

33590. 0 points, however, Pine Grove's application fails to earn the

3370Required Minimum Transit Service Score of 2 .0 , which makes it

3381ineligible to be considered for funding. Being found ineligible

3390for funding due to a low score is different from being deemed

3402nonre sponsive to the specifications . T o be sure, in this

3414instance the effect is the same, either way. But still, it is

3426at best debatable whether there is any deviation here that FHFC

3437could waive as a minor irregularity, even if it wanted to.

344828. Putting aside that technicality, t he irreducible

3456problem for Pine Grove is that, to remain in line for the award,

3469it must receive at least 2.75 proximity points for its Transit

3480Service . Pine Grove needs a Transit Service Score of 2.75 to

3492get a raw score of 12.25 an d hence an adjusted Total Proximity

3505Score of 18 . Without a Total Proximity Score of 18, Pine Grove

3518will not have a perfect overall score of 23, and without a

3530perfect overall score, Pine Grove is out of the lottery.

354029. Pine Grove's irreducible problem is insoluble because

3548a Public Bus Stop such as Stop #4203 cannot receive more than

35602.0 points , and Pine Grove needs 2.75 . Therefore, even if FHFC

3572could deem Pine Grove's reliance upon a Public Bus Stop that is

3584situated beyond the 0.30 - mile limit a "minor irregularity"; and

3595even if FHFC could then award Pine Grove the full 2.0 points for

3608Stop #4203 , these extraordinary (and probably impermissible)

3615steps still would be in sufficient to keep Pine Grove in first

3627place for preliminary funding . Obviously FHFC co uld not award

3638Pine Grove more than the maximum score of 2.0 points for a

"3650nonresponsive" distant Public Bus Stop.

365530. The only way for Pine Grove to hold on to its

3667preliminary funding would be for FHFC to treat S top #4203 as a

3680Public Bus Transfer Stop even though, pursuant to the

3689unambiguous specification s of the RFA , it is a Public Bus Stop .

3702This, it seems to the undersigned, would not be a matter of

3714waiving a "minor irregularity," but instead would amount to

3723pretending that one clearly defined Transit Service (Public Bus

3732Stop) i s another clearly defined Transit Service (Public Bus

3742Transfer Stop), for the sole purpose of raising an applicant's

3752score above that which the RFA plainly requires. Such agency

3762conduct would be both clearly erroneous an d contrary to

3772competition ÏÏ in short, impermissible.

377731. Pine Grove has a point when it asserts that the

3788existence of Stop #1397 means that its proposed development

3797actually would be located close to adequate transportation

3805services ÏÏ a fact that is undispu ted ÏÏ and therefore that the

3818needs behind the Transit Services component of the proximity

3827criteria would be fulfilled notwithstanding Pine Grove's

3834misplaced reliance upon Stop #4203. Rejecting Pine Grove's

3842application for lack of a nearby Transit Service w hile knowing

3853that a nearby Transit Service exists does seem somewhat unfair.

3863This sense of unfairness is ameliorated in part , however, by the

3874recognition that Pine Grove's preliminary selection was, after

3882all, the result of the "luck of the draw" ÏÏ not qualitative

3894superiority over other applicants. It is eliminated by the

3903recognition that to accept Pine Grove's application as the

3912winner would require FHFC to give Pine Grove a Transit Service

3923Score to which it clearly is not entitled ÏÏ in effect handing out

" 3936bonus points " ultimately explicable, if with a wink and a nod,

3947only as an impermissible tribute to Stop #1397. 2 /

395732. In sum, Pine Grove's application was technically

3965responsive to the RFA. Unbeknownst to Pine Grove and FHFC,

3975however, Pine Grove's appli cation contained a material

3983misrepresentation ÏÏ namely that Stop #4203 is a Public B us

3994Transfer Stop ÏÏ upon which FHFC reasonably relied in giving Pine

4005Grove a Transit Service Score of 5.0, which, under the RFA's

4016unambiguous scoring schedule , was the correct score to give for

4026a Public Bus Transfer stop located 0.55 miles from the proposed

4037development. As everyone now agrees, Stop #4203 is not a Public

4048Bus Transfer Stop, but a Public Bus Stop ÏÏ a n Eligible Service,

4061without question , but one which, under the RF A's scoring

4071schedule, earns just 0.0 points. Adjusting Pine Grove's Transit

4080Service Score to 0.0, as must be done after forgiving and

4091correcting the misrepresentation, makes Pine Grove's application

4098ineligible for further consideration for failure to achieve the

4107Required Minimum Transit Score of 2.0. Even if eligible,

4116however, Pine Grove necessarily would be out of the running, for

4127with a Transit Service Score of 0.0 (ignoring eligibility), Pine

4137Grove's overall score falls short of the perfect 23 that seven

4148other competitors achieved.

415133. If Pine Grove is eliminated from consideration, as the

4161undersigned will recommend, the next applicant in line is

4170Houston Street, holder of the second lowest lottery number.

4179Pine Grove asserts t hat Houston Street's application is

4188nonresponsive for two reasons: (1) failure to demonstrate site

4197control and (2) failure to prove its ability to proceed. These

4208issues will be taken up in turn.

421534. "Evidence of Site Control" is an unscored Mandatory

4224It em. The RFA instructs that the " Applicant must demonstrate

4234site control by providing, as Attachment 14 to Exhibit A, the

4245documentation required . . . below. If the proposed Development

4255consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated

4264for al l of the Scattered Sites. " RFA at 31. As relevant to

4277this case, the document necessary to establish site control is

4287an "Eligible Contract," which is an instrument defined in

4296pertinent part as follows:

4300For purposes of the RFA, an eligible

4307contract is one that has a term that does

4316not expire before July 31, 2015 or that

4324contains extension options exercisable by

4329the purchaser and conditioned solely upon

4335payment of additional monies which, if

4341exercised, would extend the term to a date

4349that is not earlier than July 31, 2015;

4357specifically states that the buyer ' s remedy

4365for default on the part of the seller

4373includes or is specific performance; and the

4380buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an

4387assignment of the eligible contract which

4393assigns all of the buyer's rights , title and

4401interests in the eligible contract to the

4408Applicant, is provided.

4411RFA at 31.

441435. Houston Street's proposed development would be located

4422on property comprising two contiguous parcels, each of which

4431Houston Street has under contract to purcha se. Houston Street

4441provided both contracts as evidence of site control, attaching

4450them to its application as instructed .

445736. One of the two parcels is 0.09 acres owned by Kesher

4469Investments, LLC ("Kesher") , for which Houston Street has agreed

4480to pay $7 50,000. Based on the Real Estate Purchase Agreement

4492supplied as evidence of site control , the Kesher parcel remained

4502on the market as of the date Houston Street submitted its

4513application to FHFC . Paragraph 18 of the contract provides:

4523RIGHT OF FIRST REFU SAL . It is understood

4532that Purchaser is planning to apply for

4539housing tax credits from the FHFC. Seller

4546shall continue to market the property until

4553FHFC approved or denies Purchasers

4558application for tax credits, bonds or other

4565similar financing. If any other written

4571purchase offer for Property is submitted and

4578deemed acceptable to Seller, the offer shall

4585be presented to Purchaser and Purchaser

4591shall have ten (10) days in which to match

4600the terms of written offer or terminate this

4608Agreement and receive a full refund of the

4616Deposit and neither party shall have any

4623further ob ligations under this Agreement.

4629Only exception to this First Right of

4636Refusal is if such submitted written offer

4643is from an entity that would be a competitor

4652for FHFC tax credits, bonds or other type of

4661similar financing then that offer will be

4668deemed unacceptable.

4670Joint Ex. 2 at 65 of 111.

467737. The Real Estate Purchase Agreement requires the

4685parties to close on the Kesher parcel "no later than

4695August 31st, 2015, unless the closing date is extended."

4704Joint Ex. 2 at 5 9 of 111. The agreement provides extension

4716options, as follows:

4719Purchaser shall have the right to extend the

4727closing for the payment of Two Thousand Five

4735Hundred Dollars ($2,500) per 30 day

4742("Extension Period") for Four (4) Extension

4750Periods. The extension fee(s) shall be

4756released to Seller by the Escrow Agent

4763immediately upon notice from Purchaser to

4769Seller to extend the contract. Payment of

4776extension fee(s) to be deducted from the

4783Earnest Money Deposit. All extension fee(s)

4789released to Seller through Escrow Agent

4795shall be non - refundable, but applicable to

4803the purchase price, and shall be deemed to

4811be liquidated damages in the event this

4818transaction does not close and is earned as

4826such by Seller.

4829Joint Ex. 2 at 59 of 111.

483638. T he other parcel is owned by Downtown Station, LLC.

4847It is 0.50 acres , and Houston Street has agreed to purchase the

4859property for $975,000. Like the Kesher parcel, this half - acre

4871piece of land remained on the market as of the date Houston

4883Street submitted its application , according to a provision of

4892the Real Estate Purchase Agreement which provides as follows:

4901Continued Marketing/Right of First Refusal.

4906It is agreed that Seller herein, shall

4913continue to m arket the subject Property and

4921entertain any and all offers to purchase the

4929said Property by others. Should Seller

4935receive an offer to purchase the subject

4942property from any other person or entity,

4949with terms and conditions acceptable to

4955Seller, Seller sh all provide Purchaser

4961herein notice of same. Purchaser shall have

4968ten (10) days from notice of the foregoing

4976that it wishes to purchase the subject

4983property on the same terms and conditions as

4991offered by another buyer. If Purchaser

4997herein does not agree to purchase the

5004subject property in accordance with said

5010terms and conditions, then Seller shall have

5017the right to proceed to sell the subject

5025property to the subsequent buyer and this

5032Agreement shall be null and void, at which

5040time any and all deposits pl aced by

5048Purchaser herein shall be returned to


5055Joint Ex. 2 at 80 of 111.

506239. Closing on the Downtown Station parcel is to occur "no

5073later than August 31st, 2015, unless the closing date is

5083extended." Joint Ex. 2 at 74 of 111. The purchase and sale

5095agreement gives the buyer four successive options to extend the

5105closing date for 30 - day period s , respectively, upon payment of

5117$2,500 for each extension , pursuant to a provision which is

5128identical to the one in the Kesher agreement, quoted above.

513840. Pine Grove argues that Houston Street has failed to

5148demonstrate site control because the properties it has under

5157contract are still for sale, and because exercising a right of

5168first refusal could require Houston Street to meet conditions

5177besides the p ayment of additional monies. Pine Grove's position

5187first raises the question of whether both of the agreements

5197Houston Street provided with its application satisfy the

5205definition of an "Eligible Contract." If this question were

5214answered in the negative, then Houston Street's application

5222would be nonresponsive because the submission of an Eligible

5231Contract is necessary to demonstrate site control. If the

5240answer were affirmative, however, a second question would arise,

5249and that is whether an Eligible Contr act is sufficient to

5260demonstrate site control. If so, then Houston Street's

5268application would be responsive. If not, then it would be

5278necessary to scrutinize the terms and conditions of the Eligible

5288Contracts to ascertain whether they demonstrate site co ntrol or

5298(as Pine Grove maintains) a lack thereof.

530541. The contracts that Houston Street submitted satisfy

5313the plain and literal meaning of the language used in the RFA to

5326define an Eligible Contract. Neither agreement expires before

5334July 31, 2015, and i n any event both agreements contain

5345extension options which Houston Street can exercise solely by

5354paying additional monies. The other requirements of the

5362relevant definition , e.g., the availability of specific

5369performance as a buyer's remedy, are met . Th erefore, Houston's

5380Street's application is responsive to the specifications

5387mandating that an Eligible Contract be provided as evidence of

5397site control.

539942. The foregoing determination gives rise to the question

5408of whether an Eligible Contract is sufficie nt to establish site

5419control. On this point, the RFA is ambiguous. The provisions

5429dealing with site control reasonably could be understood as

5438directing that the submission of an Eligible Contract is both

5448necessary and sufficient to establish the requisit e degree of

5458control over the proposed development site. Under this

5466interpretation, the inquiry into Houston Street's site control

5474ends, for Houston Street provided FHFC with Eligible Contracts

5483relating to the parcels it hopes to develop.

549143. Alternativ ely, the RFA's site control provisions

5499reasonably could be read as directing that the submission of an

5510Eligible Contract is necessary , but not sufficient , to prov e the

5521requisite degree of site control. Pine Grove has offered

5530evidence showing that, in past cycles, FHFC has examined the

5540terms and conditions of "Qualified Contracts" (the substantial

5548equivalent of Eligible Contracts under the RFA) to determine the

5558existence of site control, and found the site - control evidence

5569to be insufficient. This suggests that providing the necessary

5578contract does not necessarily demonstrate site control.

558544. Indeed, Pine Grove asserts that under FHFC's previous

5594interpretations of "site control," Houston Street's

5600documentation should be found wanting. In one earlier inst ance,

5610FHFC expressed concern over a Qualified Contract that was

5619subject to a right of first refusal belonging to a third party.

5631In other words, by exercising its right of first refusal, a

5642third party over whom the applicant had no control could

5652purchase t he proposed development site, and the applicant had no

5663contractual means of stopping such a sale, which would deprive

5673the applicant of the subject site. In another past instance,

5683FHFC found fault with a provision in a Qualified Contract which

5694gave the sel ler the right (until a certain date) to sell the

5707property to a third party but did not grant the applicant a

5719right of first refusal . Here then, once again, a third party

5731over whom the applicant had no control could purchase the

5741proposed development site, and the applicant had no contractual

5750means of stopping such a sale, which would deprive the applicant

5761of the subject site.

576545. Despite some superficial similarities, Houston

5771Street's situation is distinguishable from these historical

5778situations because Houston Street, as a hold er of first - refusal

5790rights , possesses a measure of control over the potential

5799sale (s) of the development site(s) to a third party or parties

5811that the previous applicants lacked. Unlike them, Houston

5819Street has at its disposal con tractual means of stopping another

5830person from buying the subject parcel(s). The decision whether

5839to meet the terms and conditions of a competing offer is Houston

5851Street's to make; therefore, Houston Street controls its own

5860destiny with regard to the purc hase of the proposed development


587246. Consequently, assuming that an Eligible Contract is

5880not sufficient under the RFA to prove site control, but instead

5891must be examined to ascertain whether site control exists, the

5901undersigned determines that H ouston Street's sellers' continued

5909marketing of the parcels comprising the development site subject

5918to Houston Street's rights of first refusal is not inconsistent

5928with Houston Street's retention of adequate control over its

5937acquisition of the site. In sh ort, it is determined, as a

5949matter of ultimate fact , that Houston Street has demonstrated

5958site control adequately for purposes of the RFA. At the very

5969least, it is determined that FHFC's determination to the same

5979effect was not clearly erroneous. 3 /

598647. The RFA requires that an applicant provide

5994documentation establishing its "Ability to Proceed," including

6001the following items:

6004(1) Status of Site Plan Approval. The

6011Applicant must provide, as Attachment 7

6017to Exhibit A, the properly completed

6023and executed Florida Housing Finance

6028Corporation Local Government

6031Verification of Status of Site Plan

6037Approval for Multifamily Developments

6041form (Form Rev. 11 - 14).

6047(2) Appropriate Zonin g. The Applicant must

6054provide, as Attachment 8 to Exhibit A,

6061the applicable properly completed and

6066executed verification form: (a) Florida

6071Housing Finance Corporation Local

6075Government Verification that

6078Development is Consistent with Zoning

6083and Land Use Regulations form (Form

6089Rev. 11 - 14) or (b) Florida Housing

6097Finance Corporation Local Government

6101Verification that Permits are not

6106Required for this Development form

6111(Form Rev. 11 - 14).

6116RFA at 60 .

612048. Attachment 7 relat es to the status of the project' s

6132site plan approval. T he form directs the person who signs it to

6145mark one of three alternative statements to signify which is

6155applicable to the proposed development. On the form attached to

6165Houston Street's application, the following statement was


61732. ƙ The above - re ferenced Development is (a)

6183new construction , or (b) rehabilitation

6188with new construction, or (c)

6193rehabilitation, without new

6196construction, that requires additional

6200site plan approval or similar process,

6206and (i) this jur isdiction provides

6212either preliminary site plan approval

6217or conceptual site plan approval which

6223has been issued , or (ii) site plan

6230approval is required for the new

6236construction work and/or the

6240rehabilitation work; howeve r, this

6245jurisdiction provides neither

6248preliminary site plan approval nor

6253conceptual site plan approval, nor is

6259any other similar process provided

6264prior to issuing final site plan

6270approval. A lthough there is no

6276preliminary or conceptual site plan

6281approval process and the final site

6287plan approval has not yet been issued,

6294the site plan, in the zoning

6300designation stated above, has been


6306T he necessary approval and/or review

6312was performed on or before the

6318submission deadline for the above

6323referenced FHFC Request for

6327Proposal/Application by the appropriate

6331City/County legally authorized body;

6335e.g. council, commission, board,

6339department, division, etc., responsible

6343for such approval process.

6347Joint Ex. 2 at 39 of 111 .

635549. The Local Government Verification of Status of Site

6364Plan Approval must be "signed by the applicable City's or

6374County's Director of Planning and Zoning, chief appo inted

6383official (staff) responsible for determination of issues related

6391to site plan approval, City Manager, or County

6399Manager/Administrator/Coordinator." Houston Street's form was

6404signed by Folks Huxford, Chief of the Current Planning Division

6414for the Cit y of Jacksonville. By signing the form, Mr. Huxford

6426certified that he had the authority "to verify status of site

6437plan approval as specified above and . . . that the information

6449stated above is true and correct." Mr. Huxford wa s an

6460acceptable signatory.

646250. Pine Grove asserts that Houston Street did not obtain

6472the conceptual site plan approval for which local law allegedly

6482provides, and therefore that Houston Street's Local Government

6490Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval form is incorrect

6500and, accordingly , nonresponsive . Pine Grove bases its argument

6509on certain provisions of the Jacksonville, Florida, Code of

6518Ordinances, about whose meaning Pine Grove disagrees with

6526Mr. Huxford, and on the fact that no conceptual site plan

6537approval ha d been issued for Houston Street's proposed


654751. A good place to start in evaluating Pine Grove's

6557position is with a look at the site - plan status form's purpose.

6570It is clear from the language of the form that what FHFC wants ,

6583in a nutshell, is an authoritative statement from the local

6593government advising that the local government either has

6601approved, or is currently un aware of grounds for disapproving,

6611the proposed development's site plan. The relevance of this

6620statement lies not so much i n its being correct , per se, but in

6634the fact that it wa s made by a person in authority whose word

6648carries the weight of a governmental pronouncement . Put another

6658way , the statement is correct if made by a n official with the

6671authority to utter the statement on behalf of the local

6681government; it is a verbal act, a kind of approval in itself .

669452. FHFC might , of course, deem a fully executed site - plan

6706status form nonresponsive for a number of reasons. If it were

6717determined that the person who signed the form lacked the

6727requisite authority to speak for the government; if the

6736statement were tainted by fraud, illegality, or corruption; or

6745if the signatory withdrew his certification, for example, FHFC

6754likely would reject the certification. No such grounds were

6763established in this case, or anything similar.

677053. Instead, Pine Grove contends that Mr. Huxford simply

6779erred, that he should not have signed the Local Government

6789Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval . Pine Grove makes

6800a reasonable, or at least pl ausible, case to this effect. The

6812fatal flaw in Pine Grove's argument , however, is that the

6822decision whether to grant or deny this particular form of

6832(preliminary) local governmental approval to Houston Street's

6839site plan must be made by the local governm ent having

6850jurisdiction over the proposed development, i.e, t he City of

6860Jacksonville ÏÏ n ot by Pine Grove, Houston Street, FHFC, or the

6872undersigned. Mr. Huxford was empowered to make the statement

6881for the city . He made it. No compelling reason has been shown

6894here to disturb FHFC's accept ance of Mr. Huxford's certification

6904as a valid expression of the City of Jacksonville's favorable

6914opinion, as of the application submission deadline , regarding

6922Houston Street's site plan.

692654. Attachment 8 relates to local zoning and land use

6936regulations and requires a local official to confirm the

6945following representation s :

6949The proposed number of units and intended

6956use are consistent with current land use

6963regulations and the referenced zoning

6968designation or, if the Development consists

6974of rehabilitation, the intended use is

6980allowed as a legally non - conforming use. To

6989the bes t of my knowledge, there are no

6998additional land use regulation hearings or

7004approvals required to obtain the zoning

7010classificati on or density described herein.

7016Assuming compliance with the applicable land

7022use regulations, there are no known

7028conditions whic h would preclude construction

7034or rehabilitation (as the case may be) of

7042the referenced Development on the proposed


7049Joint Ex. 2 at 41 of 111. Mr. Huxford signed Houston Street's

7061form, verifying that the proposed development is consistent with

7070the City of Jacksonville's "local land use regulations and the

7080[applicable] zoning designation." Mr. Huxford had the authority

7088to make this statement on the city's behalf .

709755. Pine Grove claims that Houston Street's Local

7105Government Verification T hat Develo pm ent Is Consistent W ith

7116Zoning and Land Use Regulations form is incorrect and

7125nonresponsive because Houston Street has not yet obtained all

7134the necessary land use approvals, including the allegedly

7142available conceptual site plan approval mentioned previousl y .

7151Pine Grove's argument in this regard is identical to its

7161objection to Houston Street's site - plan status form, which was

7172rejected above. For the reasons previously given, therefore, it

7181is found that FHFC did not err in accept ing Mr. Huxford's

7193verificat ion of consistency with local zoning and land use

7203regulations as a valid expression of the City of Jacksonville's

7213position on these matters in relation to Houston Street's

7222proposed project .

722556. Thus, it is determined, as matter s of ultimate fact,

7236that Houston Street's application satisfied the RFA 's

7244specifications pertaining to Evidence of Site Control and

7252Ability to Proceed, and that FHFC made no mistake s in deeming

7264the application compliant with these requirements.


72735 7 . DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in

7284this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and

7292120.57(3), Florida Statutes . See also Fla. Admin. Code R.

730267 - 60.009 . FHFC's decisions in this competitive process

7312determin e the substant ial interests of Pine Grove and Houston

7323Street, each of whom therefore has standing to participate in

7333this proceeding .

73365 8 . Pursuant to section 120.57(3)(f), the burden of proof

7347rests with the party opposing the propos ed agency action, s ee

7359State Contractin g & Eng'g Corp. v. Dep't of Transp. , 709 So. 2d

7372607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) , who must establish its allegations

7383by a preponderance of the evidence. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C.

7394Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

74055 9 . Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, spells out the

7415rules of decision applicable in bid protests. In pertinent

7424part, the statute provides:

7428In a competitive - procurement protest, other

7435than a rejection of all bids, the

7442administrative law judge shall conduct a de

7449novo proceedi ng to determine whether the

7456agency's proposed action is contrary to the

7463agency's governing statutes, the agency's

7468rules or policies, or the bid or proposal

7476specifications. The standard of proof for

7482such proceedings shall be whether the

7488proposed agency act ion was clearly

7494erroneous, contrary to competition,

7498arbitrary, or capricious.

750160 . The undersigned has discussed elsewhere, at length ,

7510the meaning of this statutory language, the analytical framework

7519established thereby, and the levels of deference to be afforded

7529to the agency's preliminary findings and conclusions. See,

7537e.g. , Care Access PSN, LLC v. Ag. for Health Care Admin. ,

7548Case No. 13 - 4113BID, 2014 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 3 , 41 - 55

7563(Fla. DOAH Jan. 2, 2014) . It is not necessary to review these

7576principles here.

757861. FHFC's intended decision cannot stand, as the agency

7587itself realizes, because Pine Grove 's application, after fixing

7596the factual misstatement about Stop #4203, fails to earn enough

7606points to remain competitive or even eligible . Pine Grove urges

7617the undersigned to recommend that FHFC waive a minor

7626irregularity in its application ÏÏ meaning not the material

7635misrepresentati on (which FHFC is willing to overlook), but the

7645reliance on Stop #4203 instead of Stop # 1397. What Pine Grove

7657really seeks (and needs) is the waiver of the RFA scoring

7668specifications so that at least 2.75 points could be awarded for

7679a faraway Public Bus S top . Such an action would be, of course,

7693clearly contrary to the specifications; it cannot be


770262 . T he undersign ed found no variance, material or

7713otherwise, between Houston Street's application and the RFA

7721specifications relating to Evidenc e of Site Control and Ability

7731to Proceed. Therefore, it is concluded that Pine Grove's

7740objection s establish no grounds for disqualifying Houston

7748Street's application as nonresponsive .


7754Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

7764Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance

7773Corporation enter a Final Order rescinding the preliminary award

7782to Pine Grove and designating Houston Stree t as the recipient of

7794the tax credits being made available for the development in the

"7805F amily or Elderly Demographic Commitment" category to be built

7815i n Duval County .

7820DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August , 201 5 , in

7831Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.




7841Administrative Law Judge

7844Division of Administrative Hearings

7848The DeSoto Building

78511230 Apalachee Parkway

7854Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

7859(850) 488 - 9675

7863Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847


7870Filed with the Clerk of the

7876Division of Administrative Hearings

7880this 18th day of August , 2015.


78871 / For some applicants, the required minimum Transit Servic e

7898Score was 1.5. This reduced threshold is not applicable,

7907however, in the instant case.

79122 / Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, forbids consideration

7920of "submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which

7930amend or supplement the bid or proposal." Thus, FHFC is not

7941permitted to award an applicant points, even (or perhaps

7950especially) if only by implication, for a quality established

7959exclusively by in formation or evidence submitted post - opening.

79693 / In light of these determinations, it is not necessary for the

7982undersigned to resolve the ambiguity in the RFA's site control

7992provisions. To avoid future uncertainty, however, FHFC might

8000want to make clear its interpretation of these provisions in its

8011Final Order, or to consider tightening the pertinent provisions

8020in its next request for applications.


8029M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire

8033Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and

8037Atkinson, P.A.

8039Post Office Box 1110

80432060 Delta Way

8046Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1110


8052Christopher D. McGuire, Esquire

8056Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel

8061Florida Housing Finance Corporation

8065227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

8071Tallahassee, Florida 32301


8075Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

8079Erik M. Figlio, Esquire

8083Ausley and McMullen, P.A.

8087123 South Calhoun Street

8091Post Office Box 391

8095Tallahassee, Florida 32301


8099Kate Flemming, Corporation Clerk

8103Florida Housing Finance Corporation

8107227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000

8113Tallahassee, Florida 32301



8123All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

813310 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

8144to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

8155will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
Date: 08/18/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 08/18/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held July 8, 2015). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 08/18/2015
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order of Petitioner Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
Date: 07/31/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 07/22/2015
Proceedings: Order Regarding Proposed Recommended Orders.
Date: 07/07/2015
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 07/07/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Petitioner`s Motion in Limine.
Date: 07/07/2015
Proceedings: Order on Motion for Clarification.
Date: 07/07/2015
Proceedings: Order Taking Official Recognition.
Date: 07/06/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Seniors Respnose to Motion in Limine filed.
Date: 07/06/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion in Limine filed.
Date: 07/06/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Response to Motion for Clarification filed.
Date: 07/01/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Clarification of Order Denying Motion for Protective Order filed.
Date: 07/01/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Cancelling Deposition (Fernando Rodriguez) filed.
Date: 06/30/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition to Preserve Testimony (of Fernando Rodriguez) filed.
Date: 06/29/2015
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Date: 06/29/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Protective Order.
Date: 06/29/2015
Proceedings: PGS's Response to Motion for Protective Order and Request for Attorneys' Fees filed.
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Change of Position filed.
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing on Petitioner's Motion for Protective Order filed.
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Protective Order filed.
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Amy Garmon and Ken Reecy) filed.
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: (Intervenor's) Motion for Official Recognition filed.
Date: 06/26/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Erik Figlio) filed.
Date: 06/24/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of James Clement and Folks Huxford) filed.
Date: 06/23/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Strike.
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Responses to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions filed.
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Intervenor's Second Request for for Production of Documents filed.
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Answers to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner Houston Street Manor's Response in Opposition to Intervenor Pine Grove Senior's Motion to Strike filed.
Date: 06/22/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
Date: 06/17/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss filed.
Date: 06/17/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd's Notice of Service of Answers to First Set of Interrogatories from Houston Street Manor filed.
Date: 06/17/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Response to First Requests for Admission to Intervenor filed.
Date: 06/16/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Answers to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Date: 06/16/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Request for Production filed.
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powerrs Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments' Second Request for Production to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Power Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments First Request for Admissions to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments' Notice of Service of Second Interrogatories to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
Date: 06/15/2015
Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Motion to Strike filed.
Date: 06/12/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's First Requests for Admission to Intervenor filed.
Date: 06/12/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor filed.
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd. d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments' Notice of Service of First Interrogatories to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Intervenor Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd. d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments' First Request for Production to Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 8 and 9, 2015; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed.
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
Date: 06/11/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Christopher McGuire) filed.
Date: 06/10/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Michael Glazer) filed.
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Motion for Entry of Final Order of Dismissal filed.
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Notice to All Bidders on RFA 2014-15 filed.
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Protest filed.
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Proceedings filed.
Date: 06/09/2015
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

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


Related Florida Statute(s) (2):