FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
appeal from an order of the Florida Housing Finance
Corporation. Barney Smith, Chair.
Michael P. Donaldson and Christine Davis Graves of Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
R. Brown, General Counsel; Betty C. Zachem and Marisa G.
Button, Assistant General Counsels, Tallahassee, for Appellee
Florida Housing Finance Corp.
Maureen M. Daughton of Maureen McCarthy Daughton, LLC,
Tallahassee, for Appellee HTG Hammock Ridge.
Douglas P. Manson and Paria Shirzadi of Manson Bolves
Donaldson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee Madison Palms, LTD.
E. Blanton of Radey Law Firm, Tallahassee, for Appellee JIC
Grand Palms, LLC.
Christopher Bryant of Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant &
Atkinson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee Redding Development
appellant, Brownsville Manor, L.P. (Brownsville), appeals a
final order of the appellee, Florida Housing Finance
Corporation (Florida Housing), arguing Florida Housing erred
by reversing its determination that Brownsville was eligible
for federal low-income tax credit funding. We agree and
Housing is the entity charged with allocating and
distributing low income housing tax credits. Because the
demand exceeds the supply, the tax credits are awarded
competitively to housing developers for qualifying
developments as governed by Chapter 67-60, Florida
2015, Florida Housing issued Request for Application
2015-106, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing
Developments Located in Medium and Small Counties (the RFA),
in which it expected to have up to $10, 763, 426 of housing
credits available for developments serving families or the
elderly to be located in medium counties. There were
ninety-eight applications submitted in response to the RFA.
The RFA applicants were first deemed eligible or ineligible
for consideration for funding. The RFA included a point
system in which the applicants received up to a total of
twenty-eight points in three areas: (1) general development
experience (maximum of five points); (2) local government
contributions to the proposed development (maximum of five
points); and (3) proximity to services needed by the tenants
(maximum of eighteen points). The point totals were used to
determine threshold eligibility and to rank the applicants.
Because many of the applicants could potentially receive the
same point total, the applicants were also assigned a
randomly generated lottery number.
to the instant appeal is the proximity-to-services point
category. In order to be eligible for proximity points, an
applicant had to submit a Surveyor Certification Form that
included a mandatory development location point (DLP). The
DLP had to be a single point on the site on or within one
hundred feet of the existing residential building or the
building to be constructed as part of the proposed
development. If a proposed development was a "scattered
site, " as was Brownsville's,
the RFA stated that the DLP had to be "a single point on
the site with the most units that is located within 100 feet
of a residential building existing or to be constructed as
part of the proposed development." See also
Fla. Admin. Code. R. 67-48.002(33). The DLP served as the
starting point from which the distance to identified transit
and community services was measured. Depending on how far
each service was from the ...