15-003302BID
Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership vs.
Florida Housing Finance Corporation
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, August 18, 2015.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, August 18, 2015.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8HOUSTON STREET MANOR LIMITED
12PARTNERSHIP ,
13Petitioner,
14vs. Case No. 15 - 330 2BID
21FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE
24CORPORATION ,
25Respondent,
26and
27POWERS AVENUE SENIOR APARTMENTS,
31LTD., d/b/a PINE GROVE SENIOR
36APARTMENTS ,
37Intervenor.
38/
39RECOMMENDED ORDER
41This case came before Administrative Law Judge
48John G. Van Laningham for final hearing on July 8 , 201 5 ,
60in Tallahassee , Florida.
63APPEARANCES
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
145STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
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
246nonresponsive.
247PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
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
276a ffordable h ousing in Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm
286Beach, and Pinellas Counties . According to the te rms of the
298solicitation, only one development in the "Family or Elderly
307Demographic Commitment" category w ill be funded in Duval County.
317On May 8, 2015, Respondent announced its intent to select
327ten applicants for funding, including Intervenor Powers Avenu e
336Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior Apartments ,
344whose proposed development would serve the Elderly demographic
352in Duval County . Thereafter, Petitioner Houston Street Manor
361Limited Partnership timely notified Respondent of its intent to
370chal lenge the award to Intervenor, and on May 26, 2015,
381Petitioner filed a formal written protest alleging that
389Intervenor's application should be rejected as nonresponsive.
396The case was referred to the Division of Administrative
405Hearings ("DOAH") , where the protest petition was filed on
416June 9, 20 15 . The next day, a Notice of Appearance was filed
430on behalf of Intervenor , who thereupon became a party to the
441proceeding .
443The final hearing took place on July 8, 2015 , as scheduled,
454with all parties present . The parties stipulated to a number of
466facts as set forth in their Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation , and
478to the extent relevant these undisputed facts have been
487incorporated herein . Joint Exhibits 1 through 4 were admitted
497into evidence with the consent of a ll parties.
506Petitioner elicited testimony from Ken Reecy, an employee
514of Respondent; and Ken Bowron, Jr., an employee of Petitioner.
524In addition, Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 6 were admitted into
534evidence. Intervenor offered, as Intervenor's Exhibits 1 - 3
543respectively, the depositions of Amy Garmon, an employee of
552Respondent; and James Klement and Folks Huxford, employees of
561the City of Jacksonville. These depositions, together with
569their exhibits, were received in evidence. Respondent presented
577no evide nce.
580The final hearing transcript was filed on July 21, 2015 ,
590making the p roposed recommended o rders d ue on July 31 , 20 15 ,
604pursuant to the schedule established at the conclusion of the
614final hearing. Each party timely filed a Proposed Recommended
623Order. All of the parties' post - hearing submissions were
633carefully considered during the preparation of this Recommended
641Order.
642U nless otherwise indicated, citations to the official
650statute law of the state of Florida refer to Florida Statutes
6612015.
662FINDINGS OF FACT
6651. Respondent Florida Housing Finance Corporation ("FHFC ")
674is the housing credit agency for the state of Florida whose
685responsibilities include the awarding of low - income housing tax
695credits , which developers use to financ e the construction of
705affordable housing. Tax credits are made available annually
713pursuant to a competitive cycle that starts with FHFC's issuance
723of a Request for Applications.
7282. On November 21, 2014 , FHFC issued Request for
737Applications 2014 - 115 ( the " RFA"), whose full title ÏÏ " Housing
750Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in
758Broward, Duval, Hillsborough, Orange, Palm Beach, and Pinellas
766Counties " ÏÏ generally describes the developments for which FHFC
775expects to award tax credits totaling up to approx imately $15. 5
787million to selected applicants proposing to construct such
795projects in accordance with the specifications of the RFA,
804FHFC's generally applicable standards, and all other governing
812laws. Applications were due on February 3, 2015.
8203. Applica nts were required to make a commitment to serve
831one of several populations: Family, Elderly, or Homeless.
839Under the selection process that the RFA prescribes, only one
849project targeted for either the Family or Elderly population in
859Duval County will be s elected for funding. The dispute in this
871case arises from FHFC's preliminary decision regarding the award
880of credits for the Duval County development intended to serve
890the Family or Elderly demographic. Petitioner Houston Street
898Manor Limited Partnership ("Houston Street") and Intervenor
907Powers Avenue Senior Apartments, Ltd., d/b/a Pine Grove Senior
916Apartments ("Pine Grove") each timely submitted an application
926proposing to build affordable housing for elderly residents in
935Duval County, making them direct competitors for the sole award
945available for such a project.
9504. The RFA provided that applications would be evaluated
959and scored by a committee, with the scoring to be based on
" 971Mandatory Items " and " Point Items " identified in a table
980included in the RFA. Upon completing its evaluation, the
989committee was required to list the eligible applications in
998order from highest total score to lowest total score, and to
1009make a recommendation to FHFC's B oard of Directors .
10195. In theory, the award sh ould go to the applicant with
1031the highest score. Because of the likelihood , however, that
1040multiple applications w i l l get perfect scores ÏÏ as it happened,
1053all 49 of the eligible applications in the Family or Elderly
1064Demographic Co mmitment category received the maximum score of 23
1074points ÏÏ the RFA established a sequence of six tiebreakers, the
1085sixth being a lottery, with the award falling to the application
1096having the lowest, r andomly assigned lottery number.
1104K nowledgeable developer s underst oo d that , i n practice, most of
1117the successful applications would be lottery winners owing their
1126selection largely to luck .
11316. It is therefore no t surpris ing that all e ight eligible
1144applications proposing to serve the Family or Elderly population
1153i n Duval County received the full 23 points. None of the firs t
1167five tiebreakers separated these applications , which forced a
1175lottery. Pine Grove had the lowest lottery number (14) ,
1184followed by Houston Street Manor (25). Thus, Pine Grove was
1194chosen for preliminary funding , as FHFC announced on May 8,
12042015 .
12067. The RFA specifie s two Point Items in th e Family or
1219Elderly Demog raphic Commitment category. One Point Item is
"1228Local Government Contributions," for which a maximum of 5 .0
1238points could be awarded. The other is "Proximity to Transit and
1249Community Services," which was worth a maximum of 18 "proximity
1259points." To be considered eligible for funding, an applicant
1268needed to receive at least 10.25 proximity points, including a
1278m inimum of 2 .0 points for Transit Services. 1 / Significantly, a n
1292applicant who earned 12.25 or more proximity points would be
1302given the maximum Total Proximity Score of 18. Thus, to be
1313eligible an applicant needed to qualify for a Transit Service
1323Score of at least 2 .0 plus win 8.25 additional proximity points;
1335to be competitive , however , it had to win at least 1 0 .25
1348additional proximity points , to "bump up" to 18 .
13578. During the evaluation and scoring, Pine Grove received
1366a Transit Service Score of 5 .0 , which, together with the 9.5
1378proximity points that Pine Grove earned for its proximity to
1388other community services, gave Pine Grove a raw score of 14.5
1399and, consequently, a Total Proximity Score of 18 ÏÏ the maximum.
1410Pine Grove's Transit Service Score, ho wever, was based upon a
1421representation of material fact that ÏÏ it is undisputed ÏÏ was not
1433correct. To understand the problem requires a more detailed
1442explanati on of the Transit Services criteria.
14499. The RFA required an applicant to select one ÏÏ and only
1461one ÏÏ Transit Service upon which its Transit Service Score would
1472be based. The category of Transit Services comprises five
1481specifically defined services divided into three subgroups as
1489follows: (1) Private Transportation Ï 2 points; (2) Public Bus
1499Stop Î max imum 2 points ; and (3) Public Bus Transfer Stop;
1511Public Bus Rapid Transit Stop; or Public Rail Station Ï maximum
15226 points . The services relevant to this case are Public Bus
1534Stop and Public Bus Transfer Stop.
154010. The RFA defines Public Bus Stop in relevan t part as
1552follows:
1553[A] Public Bus Stop means a fixed location
1561at which passengers may access one or two
1569routes of public transportation via buses.
1575The Public Bus Stop must service at least
1583one bus route with scheduled stops at least
1591hourly during the time s of 7am to 9am and
1601also during the times of 4pm to 6pm Monday
1610through Friday, excluding holidays, on a
1616year - round basis.
1620RFA at 21.
162311. The pertinent provisions of the definition of Public
1632Bus Transfer Stop provide as follows:
1638[A] Public Bus Transfer St op means a fixed
1647location at which passengers may access at
1654least three routes of public transportation
1660via buses. Each qualifying route must have
1667a scheduled stop at the Public Bus Transfer
1675Stop at least hourly during the times of 7am
1684to 9am and also dur ing the times of 4pm to
16956pm Monday through Friday, excluding
1700holidays, on a year - round basis. This would
1709include both bus stations (i.e., hubs) and
1716bus stops with multiple routes.
1721RFA at 21.
172412. The number of proximity points that would be awarded
1734fo r a Public Bus Stop or a Public Bus Transfer Stop, if an
1748applicant chose one or the other as the sole service upon which
1760its Transit Service Score would be based, was not committed to
1771the discretion of the evaluators . Rather, the RFA prescribes
1781the precis e number of points to be assigned, based on an
1793objective criterion, namely the distance in miles between the
1802proposed development and the particular service. Thus, a Public
1811Bus Stop would be scored as follows:
1818RFA at 24.
182113. A Public Bus Transfer Stop, in contrast, would be
1831awarded points pursuant to the following schedule:
1838RFA at 25.
184114. The RFA required applicants to attach to their
1850applications a Surveyor Certification Form completed and signed
1858by a licensed surveyor. On this form, the surveyor must state
1869the latitude and longitude coordinates for, among other things,
1878the selected Trans it Service, e.g., Public Bus Stop or Public
1889Bus Transfer Stop, together with the distance in miles between
1899such service and the proposed development. By signing the form,
1909the surveyor declares, under penalties of perjury, "that the
1918foregoing statement is t rue and correct." RFA at 86.
192815. Pine Grove submitted a Surveyor Certification Form
1936which identified a Public Bus Transfer Stop as its Transit
1946Service:
1947Joint Ex. 3 at 52 of 101 . Because the distance between this
1960service and the proposed development w as stated to be 0.55
1971miles, Pine Grove received 5 .0 proximity points pursuant to the
1982schedule reproduced above.
198516. The site whose coordinates are shown in Pine Grove's
1995Surveyor Certification Form is , in fact, a bus stop, which the
2006Jacksonville Transpo rtation Authority ("JTA") refers to as Stop
2017#4203. But, as the parties have stipulated, only two routes
2027serve Stop #4 2 03 during the morning and afternoon rush hours.
2039Consequently, c ontrary to the representation in Pine Grove's
2048application, Stop #4203 is not a Public Bus Transfer Stop as
2059that term is defined in the RFA , but a less - prized Public Bus
2073Stop .
207517. Houston Street raised this issue as a protest ground
2085in its formal petition challenging the proposed award to Pine
2095Grove. During discovery, Pine Grove confessed error and
2103admitted that Stop #4203 is only a Public Bus Stop, not a Public
2116Bus Transfer Stop . Thereafter, FHFC announced that it would
2126side with Houston Street in arguing that Pine Grove's
2135application must be rejected as ineligible since S top #4203, as
2146a Public Bus Stop greater than 0.30 miles from the proposed
2157development, earns just 0.0 points under the applicable scoring
2166schedule ÏÏ 2 .0 points less than the Required Minimum Transit
2177Service Score of 2. 0.
218218. Pine Grove would be dead in the water at this point
2194but for an un likely , yet undisputed, factual twist. It turns
2205out that JTA Stop #1397, which is located 0.48 miles from Pine
2217Grove's proposed development, happens to qualify as a Public Bus
2227Transfer Stop. Had Pine Grove identified Stop #1397 as its
2237Transit Service, it legitimately would have been entitled to 5.5
2247points. In other words , Pine Grove could have offered an actual
2258Public Bus Transfer Stop that is closer to its proposed
2268development than Stop #4203 ( and thus more valuable in terms of
2280proximity points ) , but instead it identified a Public Bus Stop ÏÏ
2292which it misrepresented as a Public Bus Transfer Stop ÏÏ that was
2304worth less in proximity points than Stop #1397 even if it truly
2316were a Public Bus Transfer Stop, and is worth less as the Public
2329Bus Stop it truly is.
233419. Houston Street and FHFC have framed their objection to
2344Pine Grove's application in terms of responsiveness, contending
2352that Pine Grove's failure to identify a Transit Service eligible
2362for at least the Required Minimu m Transit Service Score is a
2374material deviation that the agency cannot waive. This has
2383opened the door to Pine Grove's argument th at falsely describing
2394Stop #4203 in its Surveyor Certification Form as a Public Bus
2405Transfer Stop worth 5. 0 proximity points should be deemed a
2416minor irregularity given the existence of Stop #1397, which
2425everyone agrees is a Public Bus Transfer Stop that would have
2436been worth 5.5 proximity points to Pine Grove, had Pine Grove
2447relied upon Stop #1397. Pine Grove's position is par t "no
2458competitive advantage" (as indeed citing Stop #4203 was not
2467advantageous in light of the superior alternative) and part "no
2477harm, no foul."
248020. Before examining the question s of whether Pine Grove's
2490designating Stop #4203 as its Transit Service wa s a deviation
2501from the specifications and, if so, whether such a lack of
2512responsiveness should be considered a material deviation or a
2521minor irregularity, the undersigned wants to mention a point
2530that the parties have not raised, but which nevertheless
2539war rants consideration. Preliminarily, though, the undersigned
2546stresses that no allegation was made, no evidence was received,
2556and no finding is being made that Pine Grove intended to deceive
2568FHFC by holding out Stop #4203 as a Public Bus Transfer Stop.
2580Rat her, although there is no direct evidence in the record, the
2592logical and reasonable inference based on the circumstances is
2601that Pine Grove simply made an unfortunate and costly mistake in
2612failing timely to discover that Stop #4203 does not qualif y as a
2625Pu blic Bus Transfer Stop , as Pine Grove honestly had believed .
263721. That said, by identifying Stop #4203 in its Surveyor
2647Certification Form as a Public Bus Transfer Stop, Pine Grove
2657unequivocally represented that the material facts concerning
2664this parti cular stop satisfied the RFA's definition of a Public
2675Bus Transfer Stop ÏÏ and they did not. Not to put too fine a
2689point on it, the representation that Stop #4203 is a Public Bus
2701Transfer Stop was a false statement of material fact ÏÏ objective
2712fact at that, not ultimate fact involving the exercise of
2722discretion or judgment, and not opinion. To be sure, this
2732material misrepresentation was not intentionally false. But it
2740was false .
274322. Like all applicants, Pine Grove was required to submit
2753with its application a fully executed Applicant Certification
2761and Acknowledgment Form. Among the statements therein whose
2769truth Pine Grove confirmed is the following:
2776In eliciting information from third parties
2782required by and/or included in this
2788application, the Applicant has provided such
2794parties information that accurately
2798describes the Development as proposed in
2804this Application. The Applicant has
2809reviewed the third party information
2814included in this Application and/or provided
2820during the credit underwriting process and
2826the information provided by any such party
2833is based upon, and accurate with respect to,
2841the Development as proposed in this
2847Application .
2849Joint Ex. 3 at 26 of 101 (emphasis added) . In signing this
2862form, Pine Grove's agent "declare[d] and certi f[ied] that [he]
2872ha[d] read the foregoing and that the information is true,
2882correct, and complete."
288523. As is now known, a third party ( Pine Grove's surveyor )
2898provided information about Stop #4203 that was not accurate with
2908respect to the proposed devel opment . Pine Grove's submission of
2919third party information that contained a false statement of
2928material fact (i.e., that Stop #4203 is a Public Bus Transfer
2939Stop located 0.55 miles from the proposed development) was a
2949deviation from the RFA's specificatio ns, including the
2957provisions of the Applicant Certification and Acknowledgment
2964Form set forth above. The undersigned is inclined to believe
2974that a false statement of material fact in a bid or similar
2986response to a public solicitation should almost always be deemed
2996a material deviation. Agencies reasonably and justifiably rely
3004upon the statements of fact contained in such documents, and
3014therefore the disincentives to making factual misstatements ,
3021even innocently, should be strong and consistently applied .
303024. Here, however, as mentioned, no party has urged that
3040Pine Grove's application be deemed nonresponsive for
3047misrepresenting the true nature of Stop #4203, and therefore the
3057undersigned will not recommend that the case be decided on th is
3069basis. Nevert heless, it should be stated that to treat Pine
3080Grove's application as having accurately identified Stop #4203
3088as a Public Bus Stop, which is the premise behind Houston Street
3100and FHFC's position, is to waive the material misrepresentation
3109in Pine Grove's S urveyor Certification Form ÏÏ a significant, and
3120arguably unduly generous, threshold concession to Pine Grove.
312825. Once the misrepresentation is overlooked, it is not
3137obvious that a deviation exists that would make Pine Grove's
3147application nonresponsive. B us Stop #4203 meets the RFA's
3156definition of a Public Bus Stop worth up to 2 .0 points. Thus,
3169it is a n Eligible Service that does not depart from the
3181specifications for a Public Bus Stop. Pine Grove's application
3190was not "nonresponsive" for identifying a P ublic Bus Stop as its
3202Transit Service.
320426. Located at a distance of 0.55 miles from the proposed
3215development, Bus Stop #4203 was entitled to a score of 0.0
3226according to the RFA's scoring schedule, which requires that 0.0
3236points be awarded to a Public Bus Stop that is farther than 0.30
3249miles from the proposed development. That Bus Stop #4203 must
3259be awarded no points does not , of itself, make Pine Grov e's
3271application nonresponsive ; it just means that the application
3279will receive fewer points than the maxim um available for this
3290item. T he RFA pointedly does not state that reliance upon a
3302Public Bus Stop located more than 0.30 miles from the proposed
3313development will result in a finding of noncompliance , and it
3323strongly implies otherwise by instructing that distant Public
3331Bus Stops shall be given a score, albeit a score of zero . Pine
3345Grove's application was not "nonresponsive" merely for
3352identifying a faraway Public Bus Stop as its Transit Service.
336227. Because Bus Stop #4203 could be awarded no more than
33730. 0 points, however, Pine Grove's application fails to earn the
3384Required Minimum Transit Service Score of 2 .0 , which makes it
3395ineligible to be considered for funding. Being found ineligible
3404for funding due to a low score is different from being deemed
3416nonre sponsive to the specifications . T o be sure, in this
3428instance the effect is the same, either way. But still, it is
3440at best debatable whether there is any deviation here that FHFC
3451could waive as a minor irregularity, even if it wanted to.
346228. Putting as ide that technicality, t he irreducible
3471problem for Pine Grove is that, to remain in line for the award,
3484it must receive at least 2.75 proximity points for its Transit
3495Service . Pine Grove needs a Transit Service Score of 2.75 to
3507get a raw score of 12.25 an d hence an adjusted Total Proximity
3520Score of 18 . Without a Total Proximity Score of 18, Pine Grove
3533will not have a perfect overall score of 23, and without a
3545perfect overall score, Pine Grove is out of the lottery.
355529. Pine Grove's irreducible problem is insoluble because
3563a Public Bus Stop such as Stop #4203 cannot receive more than
35752.0 points , and Pine Grove needs 2.75 . Therefore, even if FHFC
3587could deem Pine Grove's reliance upon a Public Bus Stop that is
3599situated beyond the 0.30 - mile limit a "minor irregularity"; and
3610even if FHFC could then award Pine Grove the full 2.0 points for
3623Stop #4203 , these extraordinary (and probably impermissible)
3630steps still would be in sufficient to keep Pine Grove in first
3642place for preliminary funding . Obviously FHFC co uld not award
3653Pine Grove more than the maximum score of 2.0 points for a
"3665nonresponsive" distant Public Bus Stop.
367030. The only way for Pine Grove to hold on to its
3682preliminary funding would be for FHFC to treat S top #4203 as a
3695Public Bus Transfer Stop even though, pursuant to the
3704unambiguous specification s of the RFA , it is a Public Bus Stop .
3717This, it seems to the undersigned, would not be a matter of
3729waiving a "minor irregularity," but instead would amount to
3738pretending that one clearly defined Transit Service (Public Bus
3747Stop) i s another clearly defined Transit Service (Public Bus
3757Transfer Stop), for the sole purpose of raising an applicant's
3767score above that which the RFA plainly requires. Such agency
3777conduct would be both clearly erroneous an d contrary to
3787competition ÏÏ in short, impermissible.
379231. Pine Grove has a point when it asserts that the
3803existence of Stop #1397 means that its proposed development
3812actually would be located close to adequate transportation
3820services ÏÏ a fact that is undispu ted ÏÏ and therefore that the
3833needs behind the Transit Services component of the proximity
3842criteria would be fulfilled notwithstanding Pine Grove's
3849misplaced reliance upon Stop #4203. Rejecting Pine Grove's
3857application for lack of a nearby Transit Service w hile knowing
3868that a nearby Transit Service exists does seem somewhat unfair.
3878This sense of unfairness is ameliorated in part , however, by the
3889recognition that Pine Grove's preliminary selection was, after
3897all, the result of the "luck of the draw" ÏÏ not qua litative
3910superiority over other applicants. It is eliminated by the
3919recognition that to accept Pine Grove's application as the
3928winner would require FHFC to give Pine Grove a Transit Service
3939Score to which it clearly is not entitled ÏÏ in effect handing out
" 3952bonus points " ultimately explicable, if with a wink and a nod,
3963only as an impermissible tribute to Stop #1397. 2 /
397332. In sum, Pine Grove's application was technically
3981responsive to the RFA. Unbeknownst to Pine Grove and FHFC,
3991however, Pine Grove's appli cation contained a material
3999misrepresentation ÏÏ namely that Stop #4203 is a Public B us
4010Transfer Stop ÏÏ upon which FHFC reasonably relied in giving Pine
4021Grove a Transit Service Score of 5.0, which, under the RFA's
4032unambiguous scoring schedule , was the correct score to give for
4042a Public Bus Transfer stop located 0.55 miles from the proposed
4053development. As everyone now agrees, Stop #4203 is not a Public
4064Bus Transfer Stop, but a Public Bus Stop ÏÏ a n Eligible Service,
4077without question , but one which, under the RF A's scoring
4087schedule, earns just 0.0 points. Adjusting Pine Grove's Transit
4096Service Score to 0.0, as must be done after forgiving and
4107correcting the misrepresentation, makes Pine Grove's application
4114ineligible for further consideration for failure to achieve the
4123Required Minimum Transit Score of 2.0. Even if eligible,
4132however, Pine Grove necessarily would be out of the running, for
4143with a Transit Service Score of 0.0 (ignoring eligibility), Pine
4153Grove's overall score falls short of the perfect 23 that seven
4164other competitors achieved.
416733. If Pine Grove is eliminated from consideration, as the
4177undersigned will recommend, the next applicant in line is
4186Houston Street, holder of the second lowest lottery number.
4195Pine Grove asserts t hat Houston Street's application is
4204nonresponsive for two reasons: (1) failure to demonstrate site
4213control and (2) failure to prove its ability to proceed. These
4224issues will be taken up in turn.
423134. "Evidence of Site Control" is an unscored Mandatory
4240It em. The RFA instructs that the " Applicant must demonstrate
4250site control by providing, as Attachment 14 to Exhibit A, the
4261documentation required . . . below. If the proposed Development
4271consists of Scattered Sites, site control must be demonstrated
4280for al l of the Scattered Sites. " RFA at 31. As relevant to
4293this case, the document necessary to establish site control is
4303an "Eligible Contract," which is an instrument defined in
4312pertinent part as follows:
4316For purposes of the RFA, an eligible
4323contract is one that has a term that does
4332not expire before July 31, 2015 or that
4340contains extension options exercisable by
4345the purchaser and conditioned solely upon
4351payment of additional monies which, if
4357exercised, would extend the term to a date
4365that is not earlier than July 31, 2015;
4373specifically states that the buyer ' s remedy
4381for default on the part of the seller
4389includes or is specific performance; and the
4396buyer MUST be the Applicant unless an
4403assignment of the eligible contract which
4409assigns all of the buyer's rights , title and
4417interests in the eligible contract to the
4424Applicant, is provided.
4427RFA at 31.
443035. Houston Street's proposed development would be located
4438on property comprising two contiguous parcels, each of which
4447Houston Street has under contract to purcha se. Houston Street
4457provided both contracts as evidence of site control, attaching
4466them to its application as instructed .
447336. One of the two parcels is 0.09 acres owned by Kesher
4485Investments, LLC ("Kesher") , for which Houston Street has agreed
4496to pay $7 50,000. Based on the Real Estate Purchase Agreement
4508supplied as evidence of site control , the Kesher parcel remained
4518on the market as of the date Houston Street submitted its
4529application to FHFC . Paragraph 18 of the contract provides:
4539RIGHT OF FIRST REFU SAL . It is understood
4548that Purchaser is planning to apply for
4555housing tax credits from the FHFC. Seller
4562shall continue to market the property until
4569FHFC approved or denies Purchasers
4574application for tax credits, bonds or other
4581similar financing. If any other written
4587purchase offer for Property is submitted and
4594deemed acceptable to Seller, the offer shall
4601be presented to Purchaser and Purchaser
4607shall have ten (10) days in which to match
4616the terms of written offer or terminate this
4624Agreement and receive a full refund of the
4632Deposit and neither party shall have any
4639further ob ligations under this Agreement.
4645Only exception to this First Right of
4652Refusal is if such submitted written offer
4659is from an entity that would be a competitor
4668for FHFC tax credits, bonds or other type of
4677similar financing then that offer will be
4684deemed unacceptable.
4686Joint Ex. 2 at 65 of 111.
469337. The Real Estate Purchase Agreement requires the
4701parties to close on the Kesher parcel "no later than
4711August 31st, 2015, unless the closing date is extended."
4720Joint Ex. 2 at 5 9 of 111. The agreement provides extension
4732options, as follows:
4735Purchaser shall have the right to extend the
4743closing for the payment of Two Thousand Five
4751Hundred Dollars ($2,500) per 30 day
4758("Extension Period") for Four (4) Extension
4766Periods. The extension fee(s) shall be
4772released to Seller by the Escrow Agent
4779immediately upon notice from Purchaser to
4785Seller to extend the contract. Payment of
4792extension fee(s) to be deducted from the
4799Earnest Money Deposit. All extension fee(s)
4805released to Seller through Escrow Agent
4811shall be non - refundable, but applicable to
4819the purchase price, and shall be deemed to
4827be liquidated damages in the event this
4834transaction does not close and is earned as
4842such by Seller.
4845Joint Ex. 2 at 59 of 111.
485238. T he other parcel is owned by Downtown Station, LLC.
4863It is 0.50 acres , and Houston Street has agreed to purchase the
4875property for $975,000. Like the Kesher parcel, this half - acre
4887piece of land remained on the market as of the date Houston
4899Street submitted its application , according to a provision of
4908the Real Estate Purchase Agreement which provides as follows:
4917Continued Marketing/Right of First Refusal.
4922It is agreed that Seller herein, shall
4929continue to m arket the subject Property and
4937entertain any and all offers to purchase the
4945said Property by others. Should Seller
4951receive an offer to purchase the subject
4958property from any other person or entity,
4965with terms and conditions acceptable to
4971Seller, Seller sh all provide Purchaser
4977herein notice of same. Purchaser shall have
4984ten (10) days from notice of the foregoing
4992that it wishes to purchase the subject
4999property on the same terms and conditions as
5007offered by another buyer. If Purchaser
5013herein does not agree to purchase the
5020subject property in accordance with said
5026terms and conditions, then Seller shall have
5033the right to proceed to sell the subject
5041property to the subsequent buyer and this
5048Agreement shall be null and void, at which
5056time any and all deposits pl aced by
5064Purchaser herein shall be returned to
5070Purchaser.
5071Joint Ex. 2 at 80 of 111.
507839. Closing on the Downtown Station parcel is to occur "no
5089later than August 31st, 2015, unless the closing date is
5099extended." Joint Ex. 2 at 74 of 111. The purchase and sale
5111agreement gives the buyer four successive options to extend the
5121closing date for 30 - day period s , respectively, upon payment of
5133$2,500 for each extension , pursuant to a provision which is
5144identical to the one in the Kesher agreement, quoted above.
515440. Pine Grove argues that Houston Street has failed to
5164demonstrate site control because the properties it has under
5173contract are still for sale, and because exercising a right of
5184first refusal could require Houston Street to meet conditions
5193besides the p ayment of additional monies. Pine Grove's position
5203first raises the question of whether both of the agreements
5213Houston Street provided with its application satisfy the
5221definition of an "Eligible Contract." If this question were
5230answered in the negative, then Houston Street's application
5238would be nonresponsive because the submission of an Eligible
5247Contract is necessary to demonstrate site control. If the
5256answer were affirmative, however, a second question would arise,
5265and that is whether an Eligible Contr act is sufficient to
5276demonstrate site control. If so, then Houston Street's
5284application would be responsive. If not, then it would be
5294necessary to scrutinize the terms and conditions of the Eligible
5304Contracts to ascertain whether they demonstrate site co ntrol or
5314(as Pine Grove maintains) a lack thereof.
532141. The contracts that Houston Street submitted satisfy
5329the plain and literal meaning of the language used in the RFA to
5342define an Eligible Contract. Neither agreement expires before
5350July 31, 2015, and i n any event both agreements contain
5361extension options which Houston Street can exercise solely by
5370paying additional monies. The other requirements of the
5378relevant definition , e.g., the availability of specific
5385performance as a buyer's remedy, are met . Th erefore, Houston's
5396Street's application is responsive to the specifications
5403mandating that an Eligible Contract be provided as evidence of
5413site control.
541542. The foregoing determination gives rise to the question
5424of whether an Eligible Contract is sufficie nt to establish site
5435control. On this point, the RFA is ambiguous. The provisions
5445dealing with site control reasonably could be understood as
5454directing that the submission of an Eligible Contract is both
5464necessary and sufficient to establish the requisit e degree of
5474control over the proposed development site. Under this
5482interpretation, the inquiry into Houston Street's site control
5490ends, for Houston Street provided FHFC with Eligible Contracts
5499relating to the parcels it hopes to develop.
550743. Alternativ ely, the RFA's site control provisions
5515reasonably could be read as directing that the submission of an
5526Eligible Contract is necessary , but not sufficient , to prov e the
5537requisite degree of site control. Pine Grove has offered
5546evidence showing that, in past cycles, FHFC has examined the
5556terms and conditions of "Qualified Contracts" (the substantial
5564equivalent of Eligible Contracts under the RFA) to determine the
5574existence of site control, and found the site - control evidence
5585to be insufficient. This suggests that providing the necessary
5594contract does not necessarily demonstrate site control.
560144. Indeed, Pine Grove asserts that under FHFC's previous
5610interpretations of "site control," Houston Street's
5616documentation should be found wanting. In one earlier inst ance,
5626FHFC expressed concern over a Qualified Contract that was
5635subject to a right of first refusal belonging to a third party.
5647In other words, by exercising its right of first refusal, a
5658third party over whom the applicant had no control could
5668purchase t he proposed development site, and the applicant had no
5679contractual means of stopping such a sale, which would deprive
5689the applicant of the subject site. In another past instance,
5699FHFC found fault with a provision in a Qualified Contract which
5710gave the sel ler the right (until a certain date) to sell the
5723property to a third party but did not grant the applicant a
5735right of first refusal . Here then, once again, a third party
5747over whom the applicant had no control could purchase the
5757proposed development site, and the applicant had no contractual
5766means of stopping such a sale, which would deprive the applicant
5777of the subject site.
578145. Despite some superficial similarities, Houston
5787Street's situation is distinguishable from these historical
5794situations because Houston Street, as a hold er of first - refusal
5806rights , possesses a measure of control over the potential
5815sale (s) of the development site(s) to a third party or parties
5827that the previous applicants lacked. Unlike them, Houston
5835Street has at its disposal con tractual means of stopping another
5846person from buying the subject parcel(s). The decision whether
5855to meet the terms and conditions of a competing offer is Houston
5867Street's to make; therefore, Houston Street controls its own
5876destiny with regard to the purc hase of the proposed development
5887site.
588846. Consequently, assuming that an Eligible Contract is
5896not sufficient under the RFA to prove site control, but instead
5907must be examined to ascertain whether site control exists, the
5917undersigned determines that H ouston Street's sellers' continued
5925marketing of the parcels comprising the development site subject
5934to Houston Street's rights of first refusal is not inconsistent
5944with Houston Street's retention of adequate control over its
5953acquisition of the site. In sh ort, it is determined, as a
5965matter of ultimate fact , that Houston Street has demonstrated
5974site control adequately for purposes of the RFA. At the very
5985least, it is determined that FHFC's determination to the same
5995ef fect was not clearly erroneous. 3 /
600347. The RFA requires that an applicant provide
6011documentation establishing its "Ability to Proceed," including
6018the following items:
6021(1) Status of Site Plan Approval. The
6028Applicant must provide, as Attachment 7
6034to Exhibit A, the properly completed
6040and executed Florida Housing Finance
6045Corporation Local Government
6048Verification of Status of Site Plan
6054Approval for Multifamily Developments
6058form (Form Rev. 11 - 14).
6064(2) Appropriate Zonin g. The Applicant must
6071provide, as Attachment 8 to Exhibit A,
6078the applicable properly completed and
6083executed verification form: (a) Florida
6088Housing Finance Corporation Local
6092Government Verification that
6095Development is Consistent with Zoning
6100and Land Use Regulations form (Form
6106Rev. 11 - 14) or (b) Florida Housing
6114Finance Corporation Local Government
6118Verification that Permits are not
6123Required for this Development form
6128(Form Rev. 11 - 14).
6133RFA at 60 .
613748. Attachment 7 relat es to the status of the project' s
6149site plan approval. T he form directs the person who signs it to
6162mark one of three alternative statements to signify which is
6172applicable to the proposed development. On the form attached to
6182Houston Street's application, the following statement was
6189selected:
61902. ƙ The above - re ferenced Development is (a)
6200new construction , or (b) rehabilitation
6205with new construction, or (c)
6210rehabilitation, without new
6213construction, that requires additional
6217site plan approval or similar process,
6223and (i) this jur isdiction provides
6229either preliminary site plan approval
6234or conceptual site plan approval which
6240has been issued , or (ii) site plan
6247approval is required for the new
6253construction work and/or the
6257rehabilitation work; howeve r, this
6262jurisdiction provides neither
6265preliminary site plan approval nor
6270conceptual site plan approval, nor is
6276any other similar process provided
6281prior to issuing final site plan
6287approval. A lthough there is no
6293pre liminary or conceptual site plan
6299approval process and the final site
6305plan approval has not yet been issued,
6312the site plan, in the zoning
6318designation stated above, has been
6323reviewed.
6324T he necessary approval and/or review
6330was performed on or before the
6336submission deadline for the above
6341referenced FHFC Request for
6345Proposal/Application by the appropriate
6349City/County legally authorized body;
6353e.g. council, commission, board,
6357department, division, etc., responsible
6361for such approval process.
6365Joint Ex. 2 at 39 of 111 .
637349. The Local Government Verification of Status of Site
6382Plan Approval must be "signed by the applicable City's or
6392County's Director of Planning and Zoning, chief appo inted
6401official (staff) responsible for determination of issues related
6409to site plan approval, City Manager, or County
6417Manager/Administrator/Coordinator." Houston Street's form was
6422signed by Folks Huxford, Chief of the Current Planning Division
6432for the Cit y of Jacksonville. By signing the form, Mr. Huxford
6444certified that he had the authority "to verify status of site
6455plan approval as specified above and . . . that the information
6467stated above is true and correct." Mr. Huxford wa s an
6478acceptable signatory.
648050. Pine Grove asserts that Houston Street did not obtain
6490the conceptual site plan approval for which local law allegedly
6500provides, and therefore that Houston Street's Local Government
6508Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval form is incorrect
6518and, ac cordingly , nonresponsive . Pine Grove bases its argument
6528on certain provisions of the Jacksonville, Florida, Code of
6537Ordinances, about whose meaning Pine Grove disagrees with
6545Mr. Huxford, and on the fact that no conceptual site plan
6556approval ha d been issued for Houston Street's proposed
6565development.
656651. A good place to start in evaluating Pine Grove's
6576position is with a look at the site - plan status form's purpose.
6589It is clear from the language of the form that what FHFC wants ,
6602in a nutshell, is an authoritative statement from the local
6612government advising that the local government either has
6620approved, or is currently un aware of grounds for disapproving,
6630the proposed development's site plan. The relevance of this
6639statement lies not so much i n its being correct , per se, but in
6653the fact that it wa s made by a person in authority whose word
6667carries the weight of a governmental pronouncement . Put another
6677way , the statement is correct if made by a n official with the
6690authority to utter the statement on behalf of the local
6700government; it is a verbal act, a kind of approval in itself .
671352. FHFC might , of course, deem a fully executed site - plan
6725status form nonresponsive for a number of reasons. If it were
6736determined that the person who signed the form lacked the
6746requisite authority to speak for the government; if the
6755statement were tainted by fraud, illegality, or corruption; or
6764if the signatory withdrew his certification, for example, FHFC
6773likely would reject the certification. No such grounds were
6782e stablished in this case, or anything similar.
679053. Instead, Pine Grove contends that Mr. Huxford simply
6799erred, that he should not have signed the Local Government
6809Verification of Status of Site Plan Approval . Pine Grove makes
6820a reasonable, or at least pl ausible, case to this effect. The
6832fatal flaw in Pine Grove's argument , however, is that the
6842decision whether to grant or deny this particular form of
6852(preliminary) local governmental approval to Houston Street's
6859site plan must be made by the local governm ent having
6870jurisdiction over the proposed development, i.e, t he City of
6880Jacksonville ÏÏ n ot by Pine Grove, Houston Street, FHFC, or the
6892undersigned. Mr. Huxford was empowered to make the statement
6901for the city . He made it. No compelling reason has been shown
6914here to disturb FHFC's accept ance of Mr. Huxford's certification
6924as a valid expression of the City of Jacksonville's favorable
6934opinion, as of the application submission deadline , regarding
6942Houston Street's site plan.
694654. Attachment 8 relates to local zoning and land use
6956regulations and requires a local official to confirm the
6965following representation s :
6969The proposed number of units and intended
6976use are consistent with current land use
6983regulations and the referenced zoning
6988designation or, if the Development consists
6994of rehabilitation, the intended use is
7000allowed as a legally non - conforming use. To
7009the bes t of my knowledge, there are no
7018additional land use regulation hearings or
7024approvals required to obtain the zoning
7030classificati on or density described herein.
7036Assuming compliance with the applicable land
7042use regulations, there are no known
7048conditions whic h would preclude construction
7054or rehabilitation (as the case may be) of
7062the referenced Development on the proposed
7068site.
7069J oint Ex. 2 at 41 of 111. Mr. Huxford signed Houston Street's
7082form, verifying that the proposed development is consistent with
7091the Ci ty of Jacksonville's "local land use regulations and the
7102[applicable] zoning designation." Mr. Huxford had the authority
7110to make this statement on the city's behalf .
711955. Pine Grove claims that Houston Street's Local
7127Government Verification T hat Develo pm ent Is Consistent W ith
7138Zoning and Land Use Regulations form is incorrect and
7147nonresponsive because Houston Street has not yet obtained all
7156the necessary land use approvals, including the allegedly
7164available conceptual site plan approval mentioned previousl y .
7173Pine Grove's argument in this regard is identical to its
7183objection to Houston Street's site - plan status form, which was
7194rejected above. For the reasons previously given, therefore, it
7203is found that FHFC did not err in accept ing Mr. Huxford's
7215verificat ion of consistency with local zoning and land use
7225regulations as a valid expression of the City of Jacksonville's
7235position on these matters in relation to Houston Street's
7244proposed project .
724756. Thus, it is determined, as matter s of ultimate fact,
7258that Ho uston Street's application satisfied the RFA 's
7267specifications pertaining to Evidence of Site Control and
7275Ability to Proceed, and that FHFC made no mistake s in deeming
7287the application compliant with these requirements.
7293CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
72965 7 . DOAH has personal and subject matter jurisdiction in
7307this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and
7315120.57(3), Florida Statutes . See also Fla. Admin. Code R.
732567 - 60.009 . FHFC's decisions in this competitive process
7335determin e the substant ial interests of Pine Grove and Houston
7346Street, each of whom therefore has standing to participate in
7356this proceeding .
73595 8 . Pursuant to section 120.57(3)(f), the burden of proof
7370rests with the party opposing the propos ed agency action, s ee
7382State Contractin g & Eng'g Corp. v. Dep't of Transp. , 709 So. 2d
7395607, 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) , who must establish its allegations
7406by a preponderance of the evidence. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C.
7417Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
74285 9 . Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, spells out the
7438rules of decision applicable in bid protests. In pertinent
7447part, the statute provides:
7451In a competitive - procurement protest, other
7458than a rejection of all bids, the
7465administrative law judge shall conduct a de
7472novo proceedi ng to determine whether the
7479agency's proposed action is contrary to the
7486agency's governing statutes, the agency's
7491rules or policies, or the bid or proposal
7499specifications. The standard of proof for
7505such proceedings shall be whether the
7511proposed agency act ion was clearly
7517erroneous, contrary to competition,
7521arbitrary, or capricious.
752460 . The undersigned has discussed elsewhere, at length ,
7533the meaning of this statutory language, the analytical framework
7542established thereby, and the levels of deference to be afforded
7552to the agency's preliminary findings and conclusions. See,
7560e.g. , Care Access PSN, LLC v. Ag. for Health Care Admin. ,
7571Case No . 13 - 4113BID, 2014 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 3 , 41 - 55
7587(Fla. DOAH Jan. 2, 2014) . It is not necessary to review these
7600principles here.
760261. FHFC's intended decision cannot stand, as the agency
7611itself realizes, because Pine Grove 's application, after fixing
7620the factual misstatement about Stop #4203, fails to earn enough
7630points to remain competitive or even eligible . Pine Grove urges
7641the undersigned to recommend that FHFC waive a minor
7650irregularity in its application ÏÏ meaning not the material
7659misrepresentati on (which FHFC is willing to overlook), but the
7669reliance on Stop #4203 instead of Stop # 1397. What Pine Grove
7681really seeks (and needs) is the waiver of the RFA scoring
7692specifications so that at least 2.75 points could be awarded for
7703a faraway Public Bus S top . Such an action would be, of course,
7717clearly contrary to the specifications; it cannot be
7725recommended.
772662 . T he undersign ed found no variance, material or
7737otherwise, between Houston Street's application and the RFA
7745specifications relating to Evidenc e of Site Control and Ability
7755to Proceed. Therefore, it is concluded that Pine Grove's
7764objection s establish no grounds for disqualifying Houston
7772Street's application as nonresponsive .
7777RECOMMENDATION
7778Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
7788Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Housing Finance
7797Corporation enter a Final Order rescinding the preliminary award
7806to Pine Grove and designating Houston Stree t as the recipient of
7818the tax credits being made available for the development in the
"7829F amily or Elderly Demographic Commitment" category to be built
7839i n Duval County .
7844DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August , 201 5 , in
7855Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
7859S
7860___________________________________
7861JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM
7865Administrative Law Judge
7868Division of Administrative Hearings
7872The DeSoto Building
78751230 Apalachee Parkway
7878Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
7883(850) 488 - 9675
7887Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
7893www.doah.state.fl.us
7894Filed with the Clerk of the
7900Division of Administrative Hearings
7904this 18th day of August , 2015.
7910ENDNOTES
79111 / For some applicants, the required minimum Transit Servic e
7922Score was 1.5. This reduced threshold is not applicable,
7931however, in the instant case.
79362 / Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes, forbids consideration
7944of "submissions made after the bid or proposal opening which
7954amend or supplement the bid or proposal." Thus, FHFC is not
7965permitted to award an applicant points, even (or perhaps
7974especially) if only by implication, for a quality established
7983exclusively by in formation or evidence submitted post - opening.
79933 / In light of these determinations, it is not necessary for the
8006undersigned to resolve the ambiguity in the RFA's site control
8016provisions. To avoid future uncertainty, however, FHFC might
8024want to make clear its interpretation of these provisions in its
8035Final Order, or to consider tightening the pertinent provisions
8044in its next request for applications.
8050COPIES FURNISHED :
8053M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire
8057Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and
8061Atkinson, P.A.
8063Post Office Box 1110
80672060 Delta Way
8070Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 1110
8075(eServed)
8076Christopher D. McGuire, Esquire
8080Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel
8085Florida Housing Finance Corporation
8089227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000
8095Tallahassee, Florida 32301
8098(eServed)
8099Michael J. Glazer, Esquire
8103Erik M. Figlio, Esquire
8107Ausley and McMullen, P.A.
8111123 South Calhoun Street
8115Post Office Box 391
8119Tallahassee, Florida 32301
8122(eServed)
8123Kate Flemming, Corporation Clerk
8127Florida Housing Finance Corporation
8131227 North Bronough Street, Suite 5000
8137Tallahassee, Florida 32301
8140(eServed)
8141NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
8147All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
815710 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions
8168to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that
8179will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 08/18/2015
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/31/2015
- Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order of Petitioner Houston Street Manor Limited Partnership filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/01/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Clarification of Order Denying Motion for Protective Order filed.
- PDF:
- 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.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/29/2015
- Proceedings: PGS's Response to Motion for Protective Order and Request for Attorneys' Fees filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/26/2015
- Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Hearing on Petitioner's Motion for Protective Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/26/2015
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of Amy Garmon and Ken Reecy) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/24/2015
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (of James Clement and Folks Huxford) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Responses to Intervenor's First Request for Admissions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Intervenor's Second Request for for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Answers to Intervenor's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner Houston Street Manor's Response in Opposition to Intervenor Pine Grove Senior's Motion to Strike filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/17/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Intervenor's Motion to Dismiss filed.
- PDF:
- 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.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/17/2015
- Proceedings: Pine Grove Senior's Response to First Requests for Admission to Intervenor filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/16/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of Answers to Intervenor's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- 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.
- PDF:
- 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.
- PDF:
- 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.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/12/2015
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Intervenor filed.
- PDF:
- 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.
- PDF:
- 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.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/11/2015
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 8 and 9, 2015; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- 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.
Case Information
- Judge:
- JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM
- Date Filed:
- 06/09/2015
- Date Assignment:
- 06/10/2015
- Last Docket Entry:
- 08/18/2015
- Location:
- Tallahassee, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- Florida Housing Finance Corporation
- Suffix:
- BID
Counsels
-
Hugh R. Brown, Esquire
Florida Housing Finance Corporation
Suite 5000
227 North Bronough Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 488-4197 -
M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire
Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant and Atkinson, P.A.
Post Office Box 1110
2060 Delta Way
Tallahassee, FL 323021110
(850) 521-0700 -
Erik Matthew Figlio, Esquire
Ausley and McMullen, P.A.
123 South Calhoun Street
Post Office Box 391
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 425-5478 -
Michael J Glazer, Esquire
Ausley and McMullen
123 South Calhoun Street
Post Office Box 391
Tallahassee, FL 32302
(850) 224-9115 -
Christopher Dale McGuire, Esquire
Florida Housing Finance Corporation
227 North Bronough Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 488-4197 -
Hugh R. Brown, General Counsel
Address of Record -
Hugh R Brown, General Counsel
Address of Record -
Michael J. Glazer, Esquire
Address of Record