Leon FL Administrative law, Environmental Law and Government -- eLawyers

20-000140BID BERKELEY LANDING, LTD., AND BERKELEY LANDING DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2020)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 14, 2020

The issue is whether the actions of Florida Housing concerning the review and scoring of the responses to Request for Applications 2019-102 (“RFA”), titled “Community Development Block Grant--Disaster Recovery (‘CDBG- DR’) to be Used in Conjunction with Tax-Exempt MMRB and Non- Competitive Housing Credits in Counties Deemed Hurricane Recovery Priorities,” were contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the RFA specifications.Resolution of five consolidated protests involving seven RFA applicants and various issues.

SC14-1465 Stephen J. Rogers v. United States (2015)

Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Nov. 05, 2015

Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC14-1465 _ STEPHEN J. ROGERS, et al., Appellants, vs. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. [November 5, 2015] CANADY, J. Under the authority of article V, section 3(b)(6) of the Florida Constitution, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has certified to this Court a question of Florida law which the Court of Appeals found would be determinative of an appeal pending in that court and upon which that court found there to be “no controlling pr..

19-002328BID THE VISTAS AT FOUNTAINHEAD LIMITED PARTNERSHIP vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 02, 2019

The issues in this protest are whether Respondent's intended action——i.e., deeming Petitioner's application ineligible for funding on the grounds that the amount of capital the applicant's equity proposal states will be invested during construction is insufficient to cover development costs——is contrary to governing statutes, administrative rules, or the specifications of the solicitation; and, if so, whether this erroneous action is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary or capricious.Respondent's intended action of deeming an application ineligible due to material ambiguity in the application regarding the amount of equity to be paid prior to construction completion should not be disturbed.

19-002275BID HTG OAK VALLEY, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 30, 2019

The issues in this protest are whether either or both of Respondent's intended actions in dispute——namely, (i) deeming one application eligible for funding despite the existence of reasonable grounds for uncertainty as to whether the amount of capital the applicant's equity proposal states will be invested during construction is sufficient to cover development costs; and (ii) awarding another applicant a number of proximity points based on information in its application that was later discovered to be mistaken——are contrary to governing statutes, administrative rules, or the specifications of the solicitation; and, if so, whether the erroneous action or actions are contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary or capricious.Intended action deeming an application eligible despite material ambiguity therein regarding the amount of equity available for construction should be set aside; another applicant's proximity points should be reduced to conform to corrected distance data.

19-001396BID DURHAM PLACE, LTD; AND DURHAM PLACE DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 2019

The issue in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2018-112 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.Neither Pet'r.(s) proved that Florida Housing's intended award is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications; further, the existence of a temporary injunction does not inhibit Florida Housing from awarding tax credits.

19-001397BID AMELIA COURT AT CREATIVE VILLAGE - PHASE II PARTNERS, LTD. vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 2019

The issue in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2018-112 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.Neither Pet'r.(s) proved that Florida Housing's intended award is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications; further, the existence of a temporary injunction does not inhibit Florida Housing from awarding tax credits.

18-002027BID FOUR6 SKYWAY, LLC, AND DDA DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND EAGLE RIDGE APARTMENTS, LLLP (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 18, 2018

The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s, intended award of funding under Request for Applications 2017-113 was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.Petitioner failed to prove that Florida Housing's intended award of funding was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications; or, that Florida Housing should have waived Petitioner's error as a "minor irregularity."

18-002966BID MADISON OAKS, LLC AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 08, 2018

Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), decision to award funding, pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-111 (“the RFA”), to HTG Sunset, LLC (“Sunset Lake”); HTG Creekside, LLC (“Oaks at Creekside”); and Harper’s Pointe, LP (“Harper’s Pointe”), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the decision is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioners proved that Respondent's intended award of proximity points to Intervenor was contrary to the specifications of the RFA, and was clearly erroneous.

18-002967BID STERLING TERRACE, LTD AND STERLING TERRACE DEVELOPER, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 08, 2018

Whether Respondent, Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”), decision to award funding, pursuant to Request for Applications 2017-111 (“the RFA”), to HTG Sunset, LLC (“Sunset Lake”); HTG Creekside, LLC (“Oaks at Creekside”); and Harper’s Pointe, LP (“Harper’s Pointe”), is contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the RFA specifications; and, if so, whether the decision is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioners proved that Respondent's intended award of proximity points to Intervenor was contrary to the specifications of the RFA, and was clearly erroneous.

18-001558BID MADISON HIGHLANDS, LLC, AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 26, 2018

The issue is whether Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (Florida Housing) intended decision on January 29, 2016, to award low-income housing tax credits for an affordable housing development in Hillsborough County pursuant to Request for Applications 2015-107 (RFA-107) was contrary to Florida Housing’s rules, policies, or solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether that determination was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioners failed to prove that Florida Housing's intended award of tax credits violated section 120.57(3)(f).

Craig Deron Varn