The Issue The issues in this case are the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Petitioners pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2007);1 whether Petitioners are entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what amount should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact Each of the 14 Petitioners filed separate rule challenges, challenging the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 and challenging eight statements of policy of the Board of Pharmacy, which statements had not been adopted as rules. Prior to the filing of his or her rule challenge, each Petitioner had graduated from a pharmacy school located outside the United States and had taken and passed the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination, the Test of Spoken English, and the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Petitioners had been issued Intern Registrations by the Board of Pharmacy. All but two of the Petitioners had submitted an application to be admitted to the professional licensure examination. Those applications had been denied. All Petitioners, including the two Petitioners who had not submitted an application, had applied to the Board of Pharmacy for a variance or waiver to allow them to sit for the professional licensure examination. The Board of Pharmacy denied each Petitioner’s application for a variance or waiver. Each Petitioner had been represented by The Health Law Firm in their applications for a variance or waiver and wanted The Health Law Firm to continue to represent them in the rule challenge. When asked why the Petitioners had contacted The Health Law Firm to represent them, an attorney for The Health Law Firm stated: I think they have a network where word just gets around. And they-–I believe they even had some sort of list serve or Web site where they had all noted that they were being treated unfairly, and so they knew each other. And maybe our name got out on that or something. But they-–they all seemed to know each other-–seemed to know each other. Additionally, The Health Law Firm had sent out letters soliciting the foreign pharmacy graduates to join the rule challenge. An attorney for The Health Law Firm was not sure whether the letter had been posted on the web site for the foreign pharmacy graduates. In several of the invoices submitted by The Health Law Firm, there was a charge of $20.00 for a “[t]elephone conference with client’s colleagues who are in the same situation and interested in filing petitions for waivers and joining the rule challenge.”2 Thus, the circumstances surrounding the representation of Petitioners by The Health Law Firm do not demonstrate that it was a coincidence that Petitioners just happened to pick The Health Law Firm to represent them in the rule challenges. The Health Law Firm decided to file 14 separate petitions instead of one petition with 14 petitioners. The reason for the filing of the separate petitions was to increase the amount of attorney’s fees which could be awarded. Given the inexperience of attorneys at The Health Law Firm with rule challenges and the difficulty in understanding the speech of Petitioners, who received their pharmacy training in countries other than the United States, The Health Law Firm felt that it was not economically feasible to pursue the rule challenge for $15,000.00. Petitioners had a common goal, i.e. to be allowed to sit for the professional licensure examination. The wording of each of the petitions was essentially the same except for the names of the individual Petitioners. Because the issues were the same for all the rule challenges, the rule challenges were consolidated for final hearing. No final hearing was held in the consolidated cases. The parties agreed that, based on the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, there were no disputed issues of material fact and agreed to file proposed final orders addressing each party’s position regarding the application of the law to the stipulated facts. The Board of Pharmacy conceded that Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and Petitioners were determined to prevail on the issue of the invalidity of the existing rule. On the challenge to the Board of Pharmacy’s policy statements, four statements were determined to meet the definition of a rule. The Board of Pharmacy conceded in the parties’ pre-hearing stipulation that the instructions in the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination, directing applicants not to apply prior to obtaining all the required internship hours, constituted a non-rule policy. On August 1, 2008, in response to its concession that some of the statements or policies at issue were invalid non-rule policies, the Board of Pharmacy had published, in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly, a Notice of Rule Development for Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. On August 21, 2008, the Board of Pharmacy approved changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16- 26.2031, eliminating the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Examination Committee (FPGEC) requirement, incorporating by reference the Foreign Graduate Examination Application, and stating the time frames for the application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. Pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(e), Florida Statutes, the portion of the petitions dealing with the statements on which the Board of Pharmacy did not prevail was abated pending the rulemaking process. Petitioners did not prevail on four of the policy statements they challenged. These were the policy statements which the Board of Pharmacy contested. Based on the invoices submitted, the parties attempted to settle the case. Essentially, the Board of Pharmacy had started rule development which eliminated the requirement in the existing rule which caused it to be invalid and which dealt with the unpromulgated rule issues that the Board of Pharmacy had conceded in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Petitioners wanted to be able to sit for the National Association of Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) and the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE). All Petitioners who had a Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination pending on August 21, 2008, were approved by the Board of Pharmacy to sit for the NAPLEX and the Florida version of the MPJE. Thus, by August 21, 2008, those Petitioners had reached their goal. The impediment to settling the cases was the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded to Petitioners. There was no undue delay by the Board of Pharmacy or anything which could be attributed to the Board of Pharmacy as needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. The Board of Pharmacy correctly contended that the amount of fees requested by Petitioners was unreasonable. The Partial Final Order entered in the underlying rule challenges held that Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The Board of Pharmacy was not substantially justified in promulgating the challenged rule in the underlying case and did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed to warrant the promulgation of the challenged rule. The Board of Pharmacy did not demonstrate that the statements which constituted unpromulgated rules are required by the Federal Government to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. Each Petitioner entered into a contingency fee contract3 with The Health Law Firm to represent him or her in a rule challenge. The parties have agreed that the hourly rate of $350.00 per hour for the services of George F. Indest, III, Esquire, is reasonable and fair under the circumstances. The parties have agreed that some of the hourly rates being claimed for the other attorneys and employees of The Health Law Firm are reasonable and fair under the circumstances. Those fees are $200.00 and $150.00 per hour for the associate attorneys, $80.00 per hour for the paralegals, and $70.00 per hour for the legal assistants. There were a few entries in the invoices made by senior attorneys for whom the rate charged is $300.00 per hour. Based on the rates charged for the senior partner and the associate attorneys, an hourly rate of $300.00 for a senior attorney is reasonable. The names of the attorneys and staff and the respective hourly rate amount for each are listed below. In discussing the reasonableness of the fees claimed in the various invoices, the attorneys and staff will be referred to by their initials as listed in the invoices. Initials Name Hourly Rate GFI George F. Indest, III, Senior Partner $350.00 MLS Michael L. Smith, Senior Attorney $300.00 JK Joanne Kenna, Senior Attorney $300.00 TJJ Teresa J. James, Attorney $200.00 MRG Matthew R. Gross, Attorney $150.00 JP Justin Patrou, Law Clerk $100.00 GJ Gail Joshua, Senior Paralegal $80.00 PD Pamela Dumas, Litigation Clerk $80.00 SF Sandra Faiella, Paralegal $80.00 RS Rebecca Simmons, Paralegal $80.00 AE Alexa Eastwood, Legal Assistant $70.00 SE Shelly Estes, Legal Assistant $70.00 The amount of fees claimed by each Petitioner for representation by The Health Law Firm for the rule challenge is listed below. These amounts are based on the individual invoices and the first consolidated invoice:4 Name Amount Vipul Patel $15,212.36 Miriam Hernandez $15,683.36 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $11,469.36 Valliammai Natarajan $5,074.36 John H. Neamatalla $11,215.36 Samad Mridha $13,650.36 Se Young Yoon $12,292.36 Saurin Modi $10,093.36 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $11,764.36 Mijeong Chang $12,528.36 Nabil Khalil $10,272.36 Hadya Alameddine $5,313.36 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $4,585.36 Anand Narayanan $4,218.36 Total $143,372.04 Sandra Ambrose testified as an expert witness on behalf of Petitioners. Her opinion is that the amounts claimed are based on a reasonable number of hours expended in the litigation of the rule challenge. However, Ms. Ambrose has never represented a client in a rule challenge. It was Ms. Ambrose’s opinion that the difficulty in the cases was a result of the number of Petitioners not the issues to be litigated. Having reviewed all the invoices submitted in these cases, the undersigned cannot credit Ms. Ambrose’s testimony that the fees are reasonable. The Board of Pharmacy argues that the amount of fees and costs should be limited to the amount expended in the petition brought by the first Petitioner, Vipul Patel. The expert who testified for the Board of Pharmacy did not give a definite amount that he considered to be a reasonable fee in these cases. Prior to the final consolidation of all 14 rule challenges, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its services and costs by individual Petitioner. After all 14 rule challenges were consolidated, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its time and costs via a consolidated invoice. The undersigned has painstakingly reviewed all the invoices that were submitted to support Petitioners’ claims for fees and costs in the rule challenges and finds the fees requested are not reasonable. On May 15, 2008, the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2733RX contained the following entry for MRG. “Review/analyze final order. Strategize regarding final order.” The final order appears to be related to a petition5 for a waiver or variance before the Board of Pharmacy, and the entry is deleted. This conclusion is supported by the entry in the invoice dated May 29, 2008, relating to a telephone conference with the client relating to a re-petition for waiver. In Case No. 08-2730RX, there is an entry on May 27, 2008, for .10 hours for MRG, but no service is listed. That entry is deleted. On June 6, 2008, MRG entered .50 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX. The entry stated: “Continue preparing rule challenge and waiver.” The Health Law Firm represented the Petitioners in four of these cases before the Board of Pharmacy on June 10, 2008, on their petitions for a wavier or variance. The invoice does not delineate the amount of time that was spent on the rule challenge and the amount of time that was spent on the waiver cases. Therefore, the time is divided equally and .25 hours in each case is charged toward the rule challenge. 23. On June 9, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .30 hours for each case, which stated: “Prepare letter to Division of Administrative Hearings forwarding Petition for Rule Challenge to be filed.” The letter which accompanied the petitions in these cases stated: Dear Clerk: Attached for filing, please find a separate Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Agency Rule and the Invalidity of Agency Policy and Statements defined as Rules, for each of the individuals listed below: Miriam L. Hernandez Mirley Aleman-Alejo Se Young Yoon John H. Neamatalla Valliammai Natarajan Md. A. Samad Mridha Thank you for your assistance in this matter. For this letter, Petitioners are claiming 1.8 hours or $630.00. This is not reasonable. On the same date, GFI prepared a similar transmittal letter in Case No. 08-2728RX and listed .3 hours, which is a reasonable amount for the preparation of such a letter. Thus, the preparation of the transmittal letter on June 9th for Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX is reduced to .3 hours, which is prorated to .05 hours for those cases. The senior partner in The Health Law Firm claims 23.6 hours during June 3 through 5, 2008, for the following service which was entered on the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2730RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2733RX, and 08-2824RX. Conduct legal research, review statutes, cases (approximately 28 cases reviewed and analyzed) and two (2) different Florida Administrative Law legal treatises regarding rule challenges and challenging agency statements not adopted as rules, in order to properly prepare Petition for Formal Rule Challenge in case. Research legal issues including administrative agency rules exceeding authority granted in statutes, retroactive applications of agency rules, adding requirements to licensure requirements through administrative rules when those requirements are not contained in the statute. Review Rules of Procedure and Chapter 120 to determine contents of Rule Challenge Petition. Begin reviewing and revising draft for Rule Challenge in case. (Note: Only pro-rata portion of this time charged to each case.) The total amount of fees claimed for this research is $8,260.00. GFI testified that he had never done a rule challenge prior to filing the petitions in the instant cases. His fees for research due to his lack of knowledge of the basics of a rule challenge should not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy. A reasonable amount of time for his research is four hours. Thus, the amount for this legal research prorated among the ten cases for which it was listed is .4 hours. On July 19, 2008, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .60 hours in ten of the rule challenges for reviewing the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings for February 8 and April 5, 2008, and preparing a notice of filing the Transcripts with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Six hours to review the Transcripts and prepare a notice of filing is not reasonable. Three hours is determined to be a reasonable amount of time for this task, and that amount is prorated among the ten cases in which the charge was made. On June 10, 2008, members of The Health Law Firm attended a Board of Pharmacy meeting at which they represented foreign pharmacy graduates who had petitioned the Board of Pharmacy for a waiver or variance. In Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-3298RX, and 08-2733RX, the senior partner listed .90 hours for each case for preparation for the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting. The preparation related to the petitions for variances or waivers and should not be assessed for the instant cases. For June 10, 2008, JP listed .70 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2823RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2821RX, and 08-2733RX for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. For June 10, 2008, GFI entered 1.4 hours for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. The entries for attending the Board of Pharmacy meeting related to the petitions for waivers and should not be assessed in the instant cases. For June 19, 2008, the senior partner made the following entry in the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX: Travel to Boca Raton to meet with other health care lawyers and discuss issues in common on these cases and others. Discuss legal strategies that worked in the past and legal strategies to be avoided. Return from Boca Raton. Each entry was for one hour, for a total of eight hours claimed for a trip to Boca Raton, which equates to $2,880.00. Based on the entry, it seems that the trip included discussions of other cases that The Health Law Firm was handling or that other attorneys were handling. Additionally, there was no rationale for having to travel to Boca Raton to discuss the issues, and fees for such travel should not be awarded. A reasonable amount of time for discussion of the case with other attorneys by telephone would be .80 hours. The prorated amount of time for each case listed is .10 hours. On May 27, 2008, SF made a .30-hour entry in Case No. 08-2824RX for reviewing the agenda of the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting as it related to the client in Case No. 08-2824RX. The entry related to the client’s petition for a waiver, which was heard at the June 10th meeting and should be deleted. On May 30, 2008, in Case No. 08-2824RX, SF made a .40-hour entry for drafting a letter to client with retainer agreement. The entry is clerical and should be deleted. On June 18, 2008, an entry was made in the invoice in Case No. 08-2731RX, which stated: “Telephone call from husband of our client indicating that they want us to close this matter and that they do not wish to pursue it any further; follow-up memorandum to Mr. Indest regarding this.” Charges continued to be made to the client through July 16, 2008. Based on the entry to the invoice on June 18, 2008, no further charges should have been made to the client except for the filing of a voluntary dismissal of the rule challenge for the client. However, no voluntary dismissal was filed. Based on the absence of any further charges to the client after July 18, 2008, it is concluded that the client did wish not to proceed with her rule challenge. Any charges by The Health Law Firm after June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2731RX will not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy as it relates to the rule challenge. On June 19, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in ten of the cases: “Review June 10, 2008, Board of Pharmacy Agenda. Telephone conference with Court Reporter, Ms. Green, ordering transcript of the June 10, 2008, meeting.” An hour for reviewing an agenda and ordering a transcript is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and such time is prorated to the ten cases in which it is charged. 33. On June 20, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2823RX and 08-2824RX, TJJ made a .80-hour entry which stated: “Prepare draft motion for consolidation.” No motion was ever filed and would not have been necessary since the parties had agreed at the pre-hearing conference that the rule challenges would be consolidated. The time for this service should be deleted. 34. On July 10, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in several of the cases: “Review prehearing instruction orders and amended orders to determine respondent’s deadline to serve discovery responses.” The entry is duplicative of services provided by MRG on July 8, 2008, and should be deleted. 35. On July 15, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2729RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, TJJ had .40 hours for a total of 4.00 hours for the following entry: Prepare Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Discovery and assemble and copy documents to be attached to Motion. Prepare facsimile coversheets and transmit the Motion to the attorney for the Board of Pharmacy, Ms. Loucks, and to the clerk for the Division of Administrative Hearings. The copying, preparing facsimile coversheets, and transmitting the motion are clerical tasks. The entries are reduced to .20 hours due to the clerical nature of the tasks, which leaves a total of two hours for preparing a simple motion to compel. The time for the preparation of the motion to compel is not reasonable and is reduced to .10-hour for each entry. On July 22, 2008, the last Order consolidating all the cases was filed. The Order consisted of four paragraphs. On July 29, 2008, TJJ entered .10 hours in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08- 2730RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2824RX, 08-3510RX, 08-3488RX, 08-3347RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, and 08- 2821RX, and each entry stated: “Review order of consolidation filed on July 22, 2008, for common information needed for all cases.” Thus, Petitioners are claiming a total of 1.3 hours or $260.00 to review a four-paragraph Order of Consolidation. This claim is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time to review the Order was .10 hours, and the time shall be prorated among the cases for which it was claimed at .08 hours each. On July 24, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in ten of the cases which stated: Telephone conference with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal, First District to find out the start time of oral arguments on Custom Mobility (rule challenge case). Request information from clerk regarding how to listen to oral arguments online. Observing this oral argument will allow us to better prepare our case for possible appeal. First, a one-hour telephone conversation with the Clerk of District Court of Appeal to ascertain the time for an oral argument and to learn how to listen to oral arguments online is not reasonable. Second, it is not reasonable to charge the Board of Pharmacy with a call to the District Court of Appeal in the instant cases, even if the amount of time for the call had been reasonable. The one-hour charge for $200.00 for a telephone call is deleted. On July 30, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in 13 of the rule challenges. The entry stated: “Listen to oral arguments presented before District Court of Appeals, First District, in Custom Mobility case (rule challenge case).” The oral argument was not related to the instant rule challenges and should not be charged to the Board of Pharmacy. The 1.3 hours or $260.00 claim for listening to an oral argument is deleted. On August 4, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Joint Motion for Abeyance and Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Cases in Abeyance. Calendar deadlines regarding same.” The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the simple motion and Order is not reasonable. Calendaring is a clerical task. The time for this service is reduced to .01 hours for each entry. On August 5, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Respondent’s Objections and Responses to Petitioners’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Respondent’s Objections to Petitioners’ Second Set of Requests for Admissions.” The objections were that the interrogatories and requests for admissions exceeded 30. The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the pleadings is not reasonable. The time for this service is reduced to .04 for each entry. Petitioners had scheduled the depositions of Rebecca Poston and Daisy King for July 18, 2008. On July 17, 2008, Petitioners filed notices canceling the depositions. On July 17, 2008, PD entered .10 hours in ten of the rule challenges for the following entry: Telephone conference with Accurate Stenotype Reporters regarding cancellation of depositions of Daisy King and Rebecca Poston on July 18, 2008 and delay transcription of depositions of Erika Lilja and Elizabeth Ranne due to potential settlement. It is not reasonable to charge an hour to cancel depositions with the court reporter. A reasonable amount of time would be .10 hours, which is prorated to the ten cases to which it is charged. PD prepared the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. Poston and the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. King. Entries were made in ten of the cases for time for preparing the notices. The total time for preparing the two notices by PD was 1.45 hours. The time is not reasonable. A reasonable time to prepare two notices of canceling depositions would be .40 hours, which is prorated among the ten cases in which it was charged. One of the issues on which Petitioners did not prevail in the rule challenges was the issue of retroactive application of the rule. There are entries totaling 3.4 hours for JP for preparation of a memorandum dealing with the retroactive application of a rule issue. GFI entered .30 hours for the same issue. The time relating to the retroactive application issue is deleted. On April 19, 2008, MRG entered .20 hours each in several cases, which related to the rule challenge and retroactive application issue. That time is reduced by half. On May 6, 2008, MRG made .60-hour entries in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, which showed the preparation of three sections of the petition. One of the sections dealt with the retroactive application issue, and the entries are reduced by .20 hours for that issue. The invoices demonstrated that a considerable amount of time was charged for legal assistants and paralegals. Much of this time was for clerical tasks. SE is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a legal assistant. The majority of the entries by SE dealt with the photocopying, labeling, organizing, indexing, and filing documents. These services performed by SE are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. RS is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant. The majority of the entries in the invoices for RS deal with receiving, reviewing, labeling, indexing, scanning, summarizing, and calendaring pleadings and orders that were received in the cases. These services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. Petitioners in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2732RX, and 08-2733RX each claimed .30 hours for RS for the following service on April 30, 2008: Received and reviewed letter from Department of Health regarding our Public Records Request dated April 28, 2008 relating to client’s case. Index document for filing and scanning for use of attorneys at hearing. However, .90 hours for reviewing and indexing a letter is not reasonable and is clerical in nature. On June 17, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX, RS entered .60 hours for preparing, copying, and sending a letter to the client forwarding a copy of the Order of Assignment. That entry is reduced to .30 hours, since at least half of the time appeared to be for clerical tasks. AE, who is identified as a legal assistant in Petitioners’ exhibits, has numerous entries in the invoices for receiving, indexing, filing, calendaring, and providing pleadings and orders to clients. Those services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-2728RX, PD, identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal, made entries on June 16 and June 25, 2008, for .30 hours each. These entries were to update the litigation schedule with the hearing date. The entry is clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. SF, who is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant, made an entry for .30 hours in Case No. 08-2728RX on June 26, 2008, and in Case No. 08-2732RX on June 11, 2008, for forwarding orders to the client. An entry was made on July 10, 2008, in Case No. 08-2728RX and on June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX for .30 hours for processing the retainer package. Additionally, SF had entries for organizing and filing transcripts and orders. Such services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-3488RX, SF made a .30-hour entry on June 30, 2008, for updating the parties list and document file and a .50-hour entry on June 26, 2008, for completing opening procedures. In the same case, SF made two entries on July 7, 2008, for a total of 1.5 hours for preparing a retainer package and sending it to the client. These tasks are clerical. On June 24, 2008, SF made the following .30-hour entry in 11 of the cases: “Finalize and forward Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing to client in this matter.” These entries are deleted; as they represent clerical tasks and an unreasonable amount of time to finalize a motion for continuance for which GFI had charged 1.1 hours for preparing the motion. In several cases JP, identified as a law clerk, made entries on July 15, 2008, for .30-hour for creating, numbering, and copying exhibits. Such service is clerical. On July 30, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy regarding filing and Service of Petitioners’ Fourth Set of Request to Produce and Second Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.6 hours is not a reasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time to prepare such documents is .50 hours, and the time is prorated among the 13 cases. On July 28, 2008, PD made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Notice of Filing Videotaped Depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. Prepare draft of Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Elizabeth Ranne. However, 1.3 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare two notices of filing depositions. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and that amount is prorated among the 13 cases. On June 17, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in each of the 11 cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy, regarding filing and service of Petitioners’ First Set of Request to Produce, Petitioners’ First Set of Request for Admissions and Petitioners’ First Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.2 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time is .50, which is prorated among the 11 cases. 58. On June 21, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX, there is a .30-hour entry for SF for finalizing and forwarding a petition for formal hearing to the Department of Health for filing. This entry does not appear to be related to the rule challenges and is deleted. In Case No. 08-3298RX, MRG made an entry of .50 hours for a telephone conference regarding the date of rule challenge and petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing dealt with the client’s petition for waiver and should not be included. Thus, the entry is reduced to .25 hours. After all the cases were consolidated The Health Law Firm began to make entries for all cases in the first consolidated invoice. On July 28, 2008, GFI made an entry of 2.8 hours, which related exclusively to the issue of retroactive application of the rule. This entry is deleted. RS made entries in the first consolidated invoice for August 12, 14, 28, and 29, 2008, and September 2, 5, 10, and 18, 2008, relating to filing, indexing, copying, and forwarding documents. There are similar entries for SF on August 26, 2008, and September 4 and 9, 2008, and for AE on September 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. PD had entries for reviewing, organizing, and indexing documents on September 4, 8, 11, and 17, 2008, and October 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. There were numerous entries in August 2008 relating to a Board of Pharmacy meeting on August 21, 2008, in which the Board of Pharmacy heard motions for reconsideration of orders denying Petitioners’ petitions for waivers. Those entries are related to the petitions for waiver and not to the rule challenges. Although, The Health Law Firm makes reference to a settlement agreement in which the Board of Pharmacy agreed to grant the waivers, there was no settlement agreement of the rule challenges because the parties proceeded to litigate the issues by summary disposition. Thus, the references to attending and preparing for the August 21, 2008, Board of Pharmacy meeting as well as advising the clients of the outcome of the meeting on August 20 and 21, 2008, are deleted. Additionally, an entry by MRG on August 20, 2008, which included reviewing the August 21st agenda is reduced to .75 hours. On August 25, 2008, MRG made an entry which included a telephone conference with Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Ms. Ranne regarding Mr. Bui. Mr. Bui is not a Petitioner, and the entry is reduced to .55 hours. Based on the invoices, it appears that Mr. Bui and Ms. Ranne were also foreign pharmacy graduates seeking waivers from the Board of Pharmacy. On August 29, 2008, MRG made another entry which included the preparation of an e-mail to Mr. Bui. The entry is reduced to two hours. On August 6, 2008, MRG made a 1.80-hour entry which included preparing e-mail to Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Mr. Sokkan regarding the rule challenge and settlement negotiations. Neither of these persons is a Petitioner; thus, the entry is reduced to .60 hours. On August 28, 2008, TJJ made a 3.60-hour entry for researching and preparing Petitioners’ second motion to compel discovery. No such motion was filed. Thus, the entry is deleted. Another entry was made on September 2, 2008, which included, among other things, the revision of the motion to compel. That entry is reduced to .80 hours. On August 8, 2008, MRG made a 1.00-hour entry which included a telephone conference with Ms. Alameddine regarding her passing the MPJE and being licensed in Michigan. Those issues relate to the petition for reconsideration of the waiver. The entry is reduced to .50 hours. On September 4, 2008, TJJ made a .80-hour entry for preparing a letter to Mr. Modi regarding his approval to take the examination, a 1.00-hour entry dealing with Mr. Lakshminarary’s application, a .90-hour entry dealing with Petitioner Narayanan’s application, a .70-hour entry dealing with Mr. Shah’s application, and a .60-hour entry dealing with Ms. Hernandez’s application. The entries deal with the petitions for a waiver and are deleted. On September 4, 2008, MRG made an entry which included, among other tasks, time for determining if the Board of Pharmacy had sufficient funds to pay Petitioners’ attorney’s fees. This entry is reduced to two hours. On October 10, 2008, MRG made a 1.20-hour entry which included, among other things, analyzing pleadings to determine if persons who were not Petitioners should file petitions for attorney’s fees. The entry is reduced to .60 hours. On July 16, 2008, MRG and JP made entries in ten of the cases for traveling to Tallahassee and attending the depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. The total hours for MRG was 16.9 hours and for JP the total was 17 hours. These total hours are reduced by ten hours each for travel time. On August 12 and 13, 2008, MRG made entries which included travel time to attend Board of Pharmacy meetings.6 Those entries are reduced each by one hour to account for travel time. The following is a listing of the amount of hours and dollar amount for fees, which are considered to be reasonable for the rule challenges. Individual and First Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 146.10 $350.00 $51,135.00 MLS 3.70 $300.00 $1,110.00 JK 1.40 $300.00 $420.00 TJJ 80.13 $200.00 $16,026.00 MRG 210.16 $150.00 $31,824.00 JP 37.80 $100.00 $3,780.00 PD 39.053 $80.00 $3,124.24 SF 16.80 $80.00 $1,344.00 GJ .40 $80.00 $32.00 RS 1.3 $80.00 $104.00 $108,899.24 The Partial Final Order found that Petitioners were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, the issue of entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was not an issue that was litigated in the instant fee cases. The issue of whether Petitioners were entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, were entitlement issues which were litigated in the instant fee cases.7 Most of the charges dealing with the petitions for fees and costs are related to the amount of fees that are to be awarded and not to the entitlement to fees. In Petitioners’ second consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 4), there is a two-hour entry by MLS on November 3, 2008, for research of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. This entry is deleted since the issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, had already been determined. The following entries in the second consolidated invoice relate to the litigation of the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 11-5-08 GFI 6.90 hours 11-6-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-6-08 GFI 7.40 hours 11-7-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-7-08 MLS 1.00 hour 11-7-08 JCP 7.00 hours 11-8-08 JCP 1.00 hours 11-8-08 GFI 7.10 hours 1-26-09 GFI 1.00 hour 2-9-09 GFI .60 hours 2-10-09 GFI .30 hours 2-12-09 GFI .60 hours 2-17-09 GFI .30 hours 2-17-09 GFI .60 hours 2-19-09 GFI .60 hours The following entries were made in the second consolidated invoice for clerical tasks performed by paralegals and legal assistants: 11-3-08 RAS .30 hours 2-9-09 RAS .30 hours 2-10-09 RAS .30 hours 2-12-09 ACE .40 hours The issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was a small portion of the litigation relating to attorney’s fees and costs. The major areas of litigation dealt with the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded. The invoices do not specifically set forth the amount of time that was spent on the issue of entitlement to fees on statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Based on a review of the pleadings in these fee cases and a review of the invoices submitted for litigation of attorney’s fees and costs, it is concluded that ten percent of the time should be allocated to the issue of entitlement to fees. The percentage is applied to the fees after the fees listed in paragraphs 76, 77, and 78, above, have been deleted. Thus, the following entries in the second consolidated invoice are reduced to the following amount of hours: 11-1-08 JCP .26 hours 11-3-08 MLS .10 hours 11-4-08 MLS .40 hours 11-8-08 JCP .32 hours 12-22-08 GFI .04 hours 12-30-08 MLS .03 hours 1-7-09 GFI .02 hours 1-14-09 GFI .04 hours 1-15-09 GFI .07 hours In the third consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 5), the following entries relate to the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 3-4-09 SME 4.80 hours 3-4-09 GFI 1.20 hours 4-3-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-7-09 GFI .50 hours 4-7-09 GFI .60 hours 4-7-09 GFI .30 hours 4-8-09 GFI 4.20 hours 4-8-09 GFI 1.00 hour 4-9-09 MRG 1.50 hours 4-9-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-11-09 GFI .60 hours 4-15-09 GFI 4.40 hours On April 14, 2009, GFI made an entry which included time for travel to the expert witness’ office. The entry is reduced by .75 hours for travel time. Ten percent of the time not excluded or reduced above related to the issue of entitlement of fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The following entries are reduced to that percentage: 3-31-09 GFI .05 hours 4-1-09 GFI .20 hours 4-6-09 GFI .19 hours 4-6-09 GFI .03 hours 4-7-09 MRG .05 hours 4-7-09 GFI .07 hours 4-7-09 GFI .19 hours 4-7-09 GFI .27 hours 4-9-09 GFI .10 hours 4-13-09 GFI .50 hours 4-14-09 GFI .48 hours 4-14-09 GFI .275 hours The following is a list of the fees in the second and third consolidated invoices which are related to entitlement of fees pursuant to Florida Statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Second and Third Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 2.525 $350.00 $883.75 MLS .43 $300.00 $129.00 MRG .05 $150.00 $7.50 JCP .32 $100.00 $32.00 $1,052.25 With the exception of the costs related to the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings of April 8 and 9, 2008, and June 10, 2008, Respondent, as stipulated in the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, does not dispute that the amounts of costs set forth in the invoices submitted by Petitioners are fair and reasonable.8 The cost of the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings on April 8 and 9, 2008, was $1,476.00. The cost of the Transcript of the Board of Pharmacy meeting on June 10, 2008, was $524.00. At the final hearing, the Board of Pharmacy’s objection appeared to be based on the timing of the payment of the court reporter’s fees related to the transcribing of those meetings. The Transcripts were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings prior to the issuance of the Partial Final Order. Thus, the costs of the transcribing of the Board of Pharmacy meetings are properly included in the amount of costs to be awarded to Petitioners. The amounts of the costs claimed for the rule challenges in the individual and first consolidated invoice are reasonable. The costs incurred by Petitioners for the rule challenges as set forth in the individual and first consolidated invoices are listed below: Name Amount Vipul Patel $1,773.62 Miriam Hernandez $1,801.41 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $1,213.80 Valliammai Natarajan $321.17[9] John H. Neamatalla $1,118.72 Samad Mridha $975.12 Se Young Yoon $1,097.07 Saurin Modi $1,168.75 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $1,119.24 Mijeong Chang $1,213.16 Nabil Khalil $961.32 Hadya Alameddine $464.60 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $509.71 Anand Narayanan $461.87 The total amount of costs to be awarded for the challenge to the existing rule and to the policy statements is $14,199.56. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the second consolidated invoice. The second consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $2,096.12. Therefore, the costs for the second consolidated invoice are reduced to $209.61,10 which represents the amount attributable to litigation of entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the third consolidated invoice. The third consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $580.62. Therefore, the costs for the third consolidated invoice are reduced to $58.06,11 which represents the amount attributable to litigating the entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. Petitioners incurred costs in the litigation of the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Petitioners retained an expert witness, Sandra Ambrose, Esquire. Ms. Ambrose’s fee relating to the issue of attorney’s fees is $5,200.00. Her fee is reasonable; however, Ms. Ambrose’s testimony was related to the amount of the fees not to the entitlement to fees and are, therefore, not awarded as part of the costs. The total costs to be awarded for the litigation of the fees is $267.67.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent applied the following policy to Petitioner and, if so, whether the policy constitutes an unpromulgated "rule" as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. If during its review of a rate change filing, DOI determines an insurer is not in compliance with the annual rate filing requirements of section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, and if the filing involves a Medicare Supplement form, section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, then DOI will only approve an "annual portion" as a percentage of the rate change requested based on the elapsed time period since the last approved rate filing.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Central States Health and Life Company of Omaha (hereinafter referred to as "Central States"), is a corporation domiciled in Nebraska. Central States holds a certificate of authority issued by the Department which allows it to sell life and health insurance, including individual and group standardized Medicare supplement policies, in Florida. Respondent, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the review and approval of health insurance policy forms used in Florida. General Requirements for Medicare Supplement Policy Forms in Florida. No "basic insurance policy" may be delivered in Florida unless the "form" has first been approved by the Department. Section 627.410(1), Florida Statutes. Section 627.410(6), Florida Statutes, additionally requires that a copy of the applicable rating manual or rating schedule included as part of a insurance policy form must be filed with the Department for approval before any "health insurance policy form" is delivered in Florida. Pursuant to Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, insurers required to file rating manuals or rating schedules pursuant to Section 627.410(6), Florida Statutes, must make an "annual filing" with the department. The rating manual and rating schedule requirements of Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, may be satisfied by: A "rate filing prepared by an actuary which contains documentation demonstrating the reasonableness of benefits in relation to premiums charged in accordance with the applicable rating laws and rules promulgated by the department." Section 627.410(7)(b)1, Florida Statutes; or "If no rate change is proposed, a filing which consists of a certification by an actuary that benefits are reasonable in relation to premiums currently charged in accordance with applicable laws and rules promulgated by the department." Section 627.410(7)(b)2, Florida Statutes. The filing requirements of Section 627.410(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, apply to Medicare supplement forms. Section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, limits the manner in which entities providing Medicare supplement policies may meet the annual filing requirement of Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes. Section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, eliminates the use of the certification procedure described in Finding of Fact 7.b., supra, by Medicare supplement policy providers. Section 627.6745(2), Florida Statutes, requires that all providers of Medicare supplement policy forms: . . . file annually its rates, rating schedules, and supporting documentation demonstrating that it is in compliance with the applicable loss ratio standards of this code. The filing of rates and rating schedules shall demonstrate that the actual and expected losses in relations to premiums comply with the requirements of this section. Rule 4-156.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires that issuers of Medicare supplement policies and certificates must file their rates annually "for approval by the Department in accordance with Section 627.410, Florida Statutes." Section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, also provides limitations on the rates which may be charged for Medicare supplement policies: Medicare supplement policies shall return the following to policyholders in the form of aggregate benefits under the policy, with respect to the lifetime of the policy, on the basis of earned premiums and on the basis of incurred claims experience . . . and in accordance with accepted actuarial principles and practices: At least 75 percent of the aggregate amount of premiums earned in the case of group policies. . . . for individual policies issued on or after July 1, 1989, at least 65 percent of the aggregate amount of premiums earned. . . . Stated very simply, this provision requires that for every dollar of premiums earned, a minimum of 75 cents must be paid in claims for group policies and a minimum of 65 cents must be paid in claims for individual policies. The grounds for disapproval of "any form filed under s. 627.410" are provided in Section 627.411, Florida Statutes. In pertinent part, Section 627.411(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a "form" may be disapproved if the form: (e) Is for health insurance, and provides benefits which are unreasonable in relation to the premium charged, contains provisions which are unfair or inequitable or contrary to the public policy of this state or which encourage misrepresentation or which apply rating practices which result in premium escalations that are not viable for the policyholder market or result in unfair discrimination in sales practices. The Department has adopted rules establishing rate filing procedures. Rule 4-149.003, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 4-149.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the information an actuary must provide and the manner in which an actuary is to provide that information. The Department has also adopted rules providing the manner in which the reasonableness of benefits in relation to premiums will be determined. Rule 4-149.005, Florida Administrative Code. Central States' 1998 Rate Increase Filings and the Department's Denial Thereof. On or about January 20, 1998, Central States filed two requests for rate increase with the Department. One request sought a 39% increase for Individual Medicare supplement policy forms (hereinafter referred to as "Individual Medicare Forms") sold in Florida and the other sought a 39% increase for Group Medicare supplement policy forms (hereinafter referred to as "Group Medicare Forms") sold in Florida. For purposes of this Final Order all Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law apply equally to each type of rate increase request unless otherwise noted. Both rate increase requests were accompanied by an actuarial memorandum certified by Dawn Helwig, an actuary retained by Central States. The rate increase requests were reviewed by Linda Ziegler, an actuary employed by the Department. Following her review, Ms. Ziegler asked for additional information or explanation concerning several issues by letters dated February 10, 1998. By letter dated February 18, 1998, Central States responded to Ms. Ziegler's letters. Each of the issues raised by Ms. Ziegler was addressed in the February 18, 1998, letter. After review of Central States' rate increase requests, the Department informed Central States that the 39% rate increases it had requested were disapproved. Central States was informed of the denial by letter dated March 6, 1998. The Department also informed Central States in the March 6, 1998, denial letter that rate increases of 9.6% were "APPROVED." Central States was requested to "provide revised rate pages reflecting the approved rate increase by March 20, 1998." The Department denied the 39% rate increase requests for three reasons: The Department determined that the rate increases sought by Central States did not provide benefits which were reasonable in relation to the premium to be charged. Therefore, the Department denied the rate increase requests pursuant to Section 627.411(1)(e), Florida Statutes. This determination was based upon a finding that Central States' projected Anticipated Loss Ratio did not meet or exceed the weighted average of the Anticipated Loss Ratio *N (hereinafter referred to as the "*N Test"). "Anticipated Loss Ratio" is defined in Rule 4- 149.006(3)(b)20, Florida Administrative Code, as essentially the present value of future benefits (claims) divided by the present value of future premiums. The conclusion that Central States' projected Anticipated Loss Ratio did not meet or exceed the *N Test was based essentially upon four areas of disagreement with Ms. Helwig's calculations in her actuarial memoranda; The Department determined that Central States' "forms" were in violation of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department denied the rate increase requests pursuant to Section 627.411(1)(a), Florida Statutes. This determination was based upon the Department's conclusion that Central States had failed to make annual rate filings as required by Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-156.011, Florida Administrative Code; and The Department determined that Central States' requested rates were not "viable." Therefore, the Department denied the rate increase requests pursuant to Section 627.411(1)(e), Florida Statutes. This determination was based upon the Department's conclusion that because Central States had failed to obtain annual approval of its Individual and Group Medicare Forms for several years the amount of the increases sought by Central States was not "viable." The four areas of disagreement with Ms. Helwig's calculations are: What Individual Medicare Forms should be considered to have been issued to individual customers after "6/1/94" for purposes of Rule 4-149.005(2), Florida Administrative Code. (This issue only impacted Central States' Individual Medicare Forms request); Whether Central States should pool its experience with its Individual and Group Medicare Forms; Whether Central States should use its actual nationwide experience instead of its actual nationwide experience "adjusted to the Florida Rate basis"; and Whether it was appropriate for Central States to assume that its premiums would be received and its claims incurred at the beginning of the year. The Department concluded that 32.7% increases would meet the *N Test if the four areas of disagreement with Ms. Helwig were corrected by Central States. The four areas of disagreement are the subject of Case Numbers 98-1562 and 98-1563. The Department also concluded, however, that even if Central States met the *N Test it would only be entitled to a one-year adjustment which it calculated to be 9.6%. It is this determination that Central States has alleged constitutes the application of an unpromulgated rule. The Challenged Unpromulgated "Rule." The specific statement or statement description challenged by Central States as an unpromulgated rule is as follows: If during its review of a rate change filing, DOI determines an insurer is not in compliance with the annual rate filing requirements of section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, and if the filing involves a Medicare Supplement form, section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, then DOI will only approve an "annual portion" as a percentage of the rate change requested based on the elapsed time period since the last approved rate filing. (The foregoing statement of policy will be referred to as the Challenged Policy"). Central States has alleged that the Department applied the Challenged Policy to it in denying its rate increase requests. Central States has also alleged that the Challenged Policy had not been adopted or proposed as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, at the time of its application by the Department. The Department's Application of the Challenged Policy. The Challenged Policy is actually more than one policy. First, the Challenged Policy includes a policy of the Department that it will not allow a rate increase for Individual or Group Medicare supplement forms attributable to more than a one-year period if an insurer fails to comply with the annual filing requirement of Section 627.410(7)(b), Florida Statutes. This policy is based upon the Department's conclusion that the failure to obtain annual approval means that any future "form" filed by an insurer is in violation of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, and its conclusion that any future rate increase will not be viable. Secondly, the Challenged Policy includes a policy of the Department that, if the annual filing requirement has not been met, it will only approve an "annual portion" as a percentage of the rate change requested based on the elapsed time period since the last approved rate filing. The evidence in this case proved that the first part of the Challenged Policy formed a large part of the basis for the Department's denial of Central States' applications for rate increases. The evidence also proved that the second part of the Challenged Policy was relied upon by the Department in determining that increases of 9.6% would be acceptable. The Challenged Policy was a statement of general applicability implementing and interpreting Section 627.411(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and prescribing policy of the Department concerning the procedures the Department intended to follow in determining a viable rate of increase for Medicare supplement forms where an insurer has not made the annual filings required by Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes. The Department has not disputed this finding. The Challenged Policy, as alleged by Central States, constitutes a "rule" as that term is defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. The Challenged Policy had not been adopted by the rulemaking procedure provided in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, at the time of its application to Central States. Throughout this proceeding, the Department has conceded that the Challenged Policy is a "rule" and that the Challenged Policy has not been adopted by rulemaking. Feasibility of Rulemaking. The Challenged Policy was proposed for adoption as a rule by the Department prior to the filing of the petition in this case. On November 7, 1997, the Department caused notice of its intent to adopt proposed rules to be published. Volume 23, Number 45, Pages 6045-6068 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (November 7, 1997). Pursuant to this notice the Department indicated its intent to repeal Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, and replace it with a new Chapter 4-149. Included in the newly proposed rule chapter, the Department included newly proposed rule 4-149.108(14): (14) If an insurer has not made an annual rate filing or certification stating the reasonableness of benefits in relation to the premiums charged as required by section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, other than when the department approved a lower increase than what was requested, the current rate increase request shall be limited to the current year's increase. The current year's increase is defined as the maximum level average annual increase permitted by this part, determined assuming that the insurer had implemented level annual rate increase for the period where no filing or certification had been made. (Hereinafter referred to as the "First Proposed Policy"). Volume 23, Number 45, Pages 6045-6068 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (November 7, 1997)(hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Rules"). Neither party disputes the fact that the Challenged Policy is included in the First Proposed Policy. Nor do the parties dispute that the Department applied the policies of the First Proposed Policy to Central States in March 1998 in denying its requested rate increases and approving a 9.6% rate increase. Therefore, the evidence failed to prove that rulemaking was not feasible and practicable under Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was represented by in this case by Michael Linsky, Esquire, beginning in April 1988. Two complaints of discrimination had been brought against the Department of Corrections by Petitioner. Linsky is an experienced trial lawyer having been admitted to the Florida Bar in 1970. However, he had no experience with discrimination cases prior to these proceedings. The Florida Commission on Human Relations found the Department had committed an unlawful employment practice when it assigned Petitioner to perimeter post duty and transferred him to Polk Correctional Institution in retaliation for having filed a discrimination complaint. Linsky originally took Petitioner's case on a contingency fee basis, but later it was decided between Linsky and Petitioner that the fee would be whatever was awarded by the Commission. Petitioner was only to be responsible for costs. Linsky submitted into evidence as Exhibit 1 a list of dates and hours expended on this case. However, this exhibit was prepared by Linsky's secretary some months after the events depicted and appear grossly exaggerated in some instances. Linsky claims a total of 159.35 hours expended. Linsky testified that his billing rate from April 1988 to December 1988 was $175 per hour, and thereafter it was raised to $190 per hour. Petitioner's expert witnesses contend the average billing rate in the Tampa area for this type of case ranges from $125 to $175 per hour. Respondent's expert witnesses contend the fees awarded run from $100 to $150 per hour. I find the appropriate fee in this case to be $135 per hour. Although Linsky claims to have spent 159.35 hour on this case, including the attorney's fees portion, 1 find that only 100 hours are reasonable. Costs of $423.60 is not disputed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Corrections be directed to pay Sefsick's attorney $13,500 attorney's fees and $423.60 costs in these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except: 3. This proposed finding is accepted as a recital of the testimony presented, but rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #8. 5. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #7. 6 and 7. Accepted as legal argument, but rejected as a finding of fact. Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Linsky, Esquire 600 North Florida Avenue Suite 1610 Tampa, FL 33602 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Richard L. Dugger Secretary Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 =================================================================
The Issue What amount should be awarded Petitioners as attorney's fees and costs in the underlying case in this matter, Savona et al. v. AHCA, Case No. 97-5909RU (DOAH Amended Final Order On Remand issued November 6, 1998).
Findings Of Fact Petitioners challenged a non-rule statement and policy of Respondent which limited physicians' Medicare cost-sharing reimbursement to the rate for Medicaid. Petitioners submitted an itemized statement of the requested hours, a summary of hours by stages of the case, and a summary of total hours, rates, and expenses requested. The hours and rates are supported by the testimony of Petitioners' counsel, David K. Miller, and corroborated by testimony of Attorney Samatha Boge and Attorney Nancy Linnan. An affidavit of Attorney Barry Richard in a related case adds further corroboration to hourly rates submitted by Petitioners' counsel. Respondent did not present independent evidence concerning proper number of hours, rates or expenses. Respondent did challenge some portions of the hours claimed by Petitioners' counsel and opposed the claim for fees and costs in its entirety. As established by testimony of David K. Miller, Samantha Boge, and Nancy Linnan, all attorneys licensed and practicing in Florida, the time spent by Petitioners’ attorneys in the initial proceeding and their hourly rates were reasonable. Further corroboration of testimony regarding hourly rates was presented by an affidavit from Barry Richard, an attorney in a related case. Petitioners have revised the number of hours properly allocated to this case and reduced same by 1.9 hours from hours allocated to M. Stephen Turner, one of the Petitioners’ attorneys. Respondent also challenges 3.9 hours charged by Petitioners' attorneys for monitoring of legislation, specifically senate bill 384, amending the law governing Petitioners rights to payment on crossover claims. The claim of counsel for Petitioners that this 3.9 hours (performed by Attorney Jody Chase) is relevant to proceedings in the underlying action, is not credited and these hours are also deducted from Petitioners’ claim for fees and costs. Petitioners request as adjusted is summarized as follows: M. Stephen Turner 73.7 hours@ $300/hr.= $22,110.00 David K. Miller 240.4 hours@ $225/hr.= 54,090.00 15.0 hours@ $225/hr.= 3,375.00 Other Partners .10 hours@ $225/hr.= 22.50 Associate .3 hours@ $175/hr.= 52.50 Paralegals 2.4 hours@ $ 75/hr.= $180.00 Fees $79,830.00 Expenses 2,280.00 Total $82,110.00 As modified above, the hours and rates requested are found to be reasonable in view of the novelty and complexity of issues, level of legal skills required, and the amount potentially at stake to Petitioners. Particularly, the amount awarded is justified in view of customary amounts charged or awarded for comparable services. The requested expense reimbursement is also reasonable. The expenses are of the kind typically billed to clients in addition to the hourly rate charged.
The Issue Whether Respondent may levy upon property belonging to Petitioner (specially, funds in Petitioner's account, number 300126719, at Admiralty Bank), as proposed in Respondent's March 30, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner operates a Chevron station at 4109 Northlake Boulevard in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, at which it engages in the business of selling motor fuels at posted retail prices. Petitioner maintains a business account at Admiralty Bank. The number of its account is . Petitioner's Local Option Motor Fuel License number is 60-023068. Petitioner was delinquent in remitting to the Department "local option gas tax" payments for the period from July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. The Department provided Petitioner notice of Petitioner's failure to make these payments. The Department filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Palm Beach County a Tax Warrant "for collection of delinquent local option gas tax[es]," in the amount of $106,904.62, plus penalties (in the amount of $59,556.47), interest (in the amount of $12,026.25), and the amount of the "filing fee" ($12.00), for a "grand total" of $178,499.34. Rafael Fanjul is the president and sole owner of Petitioner. On May 2, 1997, Mr. Fanjul, on behalf of Petitioner, entered into a Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $178,024.29 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. Petitioner made some, but not all of the payments, set forth on the Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the Stipulation Agreement. 4/ On May 1, 1998, Petitioner entered into a second Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S 4806, THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $142,701.38 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the second Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. Petitioner made some, but not all of the payments, set forth on the Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the second Stipulation Agreement. 5/ On August 12, 1999, Petitioner entered into a third Stipulation Agreement with the Department, which provided as follows: THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND ELF SERVICES, D/B/A PALM BEACH CHEVRON S/S 4806, THE TAXPAYER, TAX IDENTIFICATION NO. 60- 123068, HEREBY AGREE THAT THE $88,375.04 TAX LIABILITY IS DUE THE STATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS FURTHER AGREED THE SUM OF TAX, PENALTY, AND INTEREST REFERENCED ON THE WARRANT OR WARRANTS DATED 02/20/97 IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: The taxpayer will retire the tax, penalty, and interest shown on the Tax Warrant or Warrants whose dates or dates are shown above. The taxpayer waives any and all rights to institute any further judicial or administrative proceedings under S.72.011, F.S., with respect to this liability and; The taxpayer further agrees to meet each payment term which is detailed on the Amortization Schedule and Payment Coupons provided by the Department of Revenue. IN THE EVENT THE TAXPAYER FAILS TO MEET THE PAYMENT TERMS DETAILED ON THE ENCLOSED AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE AND PAYMENT COUPONS OR FAILS TO TIMELY REMIT ALL TAXES WHICH BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THIS AGREEMENT, ANY UNPAID BALANCE OF TAX, PENALTY, AND/OR INTEREST SCHEDULED PURSUANT TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE. Mr. Fanjul had the authority to bind Petitioner to the terms set forth in the third Stipulation Agreement. There has been no showing that, in so doing, he acted involuntarily or under coercion or duress. The Amortization Schedule incorporated by reference in the third Stipulation Agreement required Petitioner to make 47 weekly payments of $1,000.00 each from August 12, 1999, to June 29, 2000, and to make a final payment of $28,994.57 on July 6, 2000. As of January 12, 2000, Petitioner was five payments behind. Accordingly, on that date, the Department sent a Notice of Delinquent Tax to Admiralty Bank, which read as follows: RE: ELF SERVICES INC. DBA: PALM BEACH GARDENS CHEVRON STA 48206 FEI: 65-0055086 ACCT: ST#: To Whom It May Concern: You are being notified, under the authority contained is Subsection 212.10(3), Florida Statutes, that the referenced dealer is delinquent in the payment of gas tax liabilities in the amount of $75,581.47 to the State of Florida. You may not transfer or dispose of any credits, debts, or other personal property owed to the dealer, that are to become under your control during the effective period of this notice. Any assets in your possession exceeding the dollar amount shown above may be released in the ordinary course of business. This notice shall remain in effect until the Department consents to a transfer or disposition or until sixty (60) days elapse after receipt of this notice, whichever period expires the earliest. Please furnish a list of all credits, debts, or other property owed to the dealer in your possession and the value of these assets to the Department. Chapter 212.10(3), F.S. requires this list within five (5) days. If you fail to comply with this notice, you may become liable to the State of Florida to the extent of the value of the property or amount of debts or credits disposed of or transferred. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at the telephone number below. On or about January 18, 2000, in response to the foregoing notice, Admiralty Bank advised the Department in writing that "the balance being held" in Petitioner's account at the bank was $2,223.53. On February 10, 2000, the Department sent Admiralty Bank a Notice of Freeze, which read as follows: RE: Elf Services Inc. DBA Palm Beach Gardens Chevron FEI: 65-0055086 ACCT: ST#: Dear Custodian: You are hereby notified that pursuant to Section 213.67, Florida Statutes, the person identified above has a delinquent liability for tax, penalty, and interest of $75,581.47, which is due the State of Florida. Therefore, as of the date you receive this Notice you may not transfer, dispose, or return any credits, debts, or other personal property owned/controlled by, or owed to, this taxpayer which are in your possession or control. This Notice remains in effect until the Department of Revenue consents to a transfer, disposition, or return, or until 60 consecutive calendar days elapse from the date of receipt of this Notice of Freeze, whichever occurs first. Further, Section 213.67(2), F.S., and Rule 12-21, Florida Administrative Code, require you to advise the Department of Revenue, within 5 days of your receipt of this Notice, of any credits, debts, or other personal property owned by, or owed to, this taxpayer which are in your possession or control. You must furnish this information to the office and address listed below. Your failure to comply with this Notice of Freeze may make you liable for the amount of tax owed, up to the amount of the value of the credits, debts or personal property transferred. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions please contact the undersigned at the telephone number listed below. On March 22, 2000, the Department sent to Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Levy upon Petitioner's "Bank Account # , in the amount of $2,320.07, . . . in the possession or control of Admiralty Bank" "for nonpayment of taxes, penalty and interest in the sum of $75,581.47." After receiving information from Admiralty Bank that Petitioner actually had $7,293.36 in its account at the bank, the Department, on March 30, 2000, sent Petitioner a second Notice of Intent to Levy, which was identical in all respects to the March 22, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy except that it reflected that Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank contained $7,293.36, instead of $2,320.07. Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank does not contain any monies paid by a third party to Petitioner as salary or wages. The amount of the Petitioner's current outstanding delinquent "tax liability" is $75,581.47.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order upholding its March 30, 2000, Notice of Intent to Levy and proceed with the garnishment of the funds in Petitioner's account at Admiralty Bank. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2000.
The Issue Whether the application of Petitioner Florida Cities Water Company, to increase the ratios it charges customers for water service in Lee County should be granted. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATION Conclusions: Factors pertinent to ratemaking and enumerated in Section 367.081, Florida Statutes, have been considered in this pro- ceeding. The Petitioner utility has not justified use of "year-end" rate base; those adjustments which it has supported with a preponderance of evidence have been accepted, those lacking sufficient eviden- tiary support have been rejected. Peti- tioner's application for rate increase should be granted to the extent provided in this Recommended Order; the resulting rates are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unjustly discriminatory. Recommendation: That the Commission recalculate adjusted rate base, operating income, and the result- ing additional and total gross revenues in a manner consistent with this Recommended Order, and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the Base facility charge concept designed to generate the addi- tional and total annual gross revenues so specified.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Application By its application, the UTILITY seeks authority to increase its rates sufficiently to generate additional annual gross revenues of $1,483,300. It attributes the need for increased revenues to extensive additions recently made to its water plant pursuant to COMMISSION Order No. 6209 entered in Docket 74176-W. The UTILITY claims that the increased investment and higher operating expenses associated with such plant additions effectively reduce its rate of return to 4.2 percent; it asserts that the requested additional revenues are necessary to allow it to earn a fair and reasonable rate of return of 12 percent. (Testimony of Reeves, Cardey; P-2, P-8.) II. Rate Base There are three issues involving the proper determination of rate base in this case: (1) whether "year-end", rather than "average" rate base should be used, (2) whether an Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) for post-test period additions allowed in rate base is proper, and (3) whether connection fees collected from 1969 to 1973 should be recorded as Contributions in Aid of Construction (CIAC) "Year-end" v. "Average Rate Base In determining rate base, absent extraordinary or emergency conditions or situations, "average" rather than "year- end" investment during the test period should be used. City of Miami v. Florida Public Service Commission, 208 So.2d (Fla. 1968). The Florida Supreme Court has suggested that average investment "should not be departed from except in the most unusual and extraordinary situations where not to do so would result in rates too low as to be confiscatory to the utility." Id. at 258. Year-end investment may be used only when a utility is experiencing extraordinary growth. Citizens v. Hawkins, 356 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1978). The UTILITY has not established that it meets the standard for utilization of "year-end" rate base, i.e. , that it has experienced unusual and extraordinary growth. Its customer growth rate averaged 8.2 percent for the last seven years, with a 10.56 percent gain during the test year. This growth rate has been experienced by many other Florida utilities of similar size and is neither extraordinary nor unusual. Neither is the UTILITY's growth extraordinary when measured in terms of water sold. Between 1975 and 1979, its growth in water sales averaged approximately 11 per- cent, in 1980--6 percent. In terms of plant growth, the UTILITY averaged 19.37 percent over the last seven years; the growth rate for 1979 was 12.03 percent. However, in 3980, its investment in gross plant grew at a 33 percent rate. The UTILITY's growth rate was repeatedly described as "substantial" by its consultant, K. R. Cardey, but substantial growth does not equate to extraordinary or unusual growth as defined by the Florida Supreme Court. Furthermore, the UTILITY did not establish that failure to use "year-end" rate base would reduce its rates to a confiscatory level. See, City of Miami, supra. It follows that "average" investment during the test period is the proper method to utilize in determining rates in this case. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding.) Appropriateness of Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) After the test period, the UTILITY completed five major additions to its plant, all of which were required by previous order of the COMMISSION. (Order No. 6209, Docket 74176-W.) The COMMISSION agrees that, since it required these post-test period additions, they should be included in rate base at full weight. Since these additions, which total $5,966,569, were under construction during the test period, the COMMISSION contends they should be recorded as Construction Work in Progress (CWIP). The UTILITY agrees that these additions should be included in rate base but seeks to include, as well , an AFUDC allowance in the amount of $326,422.2 AFUDC represents interest that was capitalized on each of these additions while they were under construction during and after the test period. Since these additions are already included in rate base at full weight, the inclusion of AFUDC in rate base would allow the UTILITY to duplicate earnings on its investment. Such a result would be unreasonable, improper, and should not be allowed. (Testimony of Reeves, Deterding; P-1, P-3, P-10, R-2.) Connection Fees: CIAC or Revenue From 1969 through 1973, the UTILITY operated under the regulatory jurisdiction of Lee County, not the COMMISSION. During those years, it was the UTILITY's practice and policy to record connection fees, which totaled $226,582, as revenue, not CIAC. Since connection fees are ordinarily considered CIAC, the COMMISSION proposes to adjust CIAC by $226,582. (Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) Contributions in Aid of Construction are defined as monies used to offset the acquisition, improvement, or construction cost of utility property used to provide service to the public. Section 367.081(2), Florida Statutes (1980). The UTILITY's consultant testified that connection fees collected and credited to revenue by the UTILITY during 1971, 1972, and 1973, totaling $176,773, were "not used to offset the improvements or construction costs of the [UTILITY's] property. (P-8, p. 6.) The COMMISSION, on cross-examination, did not question the accuracy or impeach the credibility of this statement; neither did it present any evidence to controvert or rebut the UTILITY's assertion as to how the connection fees were used. The only evidence on the question presented by the COMMISSION consisted of its accountant's conclusion: "During the years from 1969 to 1973, Florida Cities Water Company recorded many tap-in fees collected as revenue. These should properly be recorded as contributions in aid to construction. This adjustment [of $226,582] adds these contributions." p. 5.)(Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) In its Proposed Recommended Order, the COMMISSION asserts that the UTILITY has the burden of showing: (1) the correctness of collecting funds normally authorized for service availability and using them for another purpose, and (2) the exact manner in which the funds were used. (Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6.) However, there was no evidence in the record to show that the UTILITY's treatment of connection fees during 1971 through 1973, was incorrect or violative of Lee County's regulatory standards. Neither is there any evidence to show that the connection fees collected in those years were used as contributions in aid of construction, i.e., to offset acquisition, improvement, or construction costs. The only evidence presented as to how those fees were actually used was that of the UTILITY's consultant; he testified that those funds were used only to defray operation and other expenses associated with the new customers. This evidence was sufficient to shift to the COMMISSION the burden of presenting evidence on the question or discrediting the evidence presented by the UTILITY. The COMMISSION did neither. It is found, therefore, that the $176,773, representing connection fees collected between 1971 and 1973, do not constitute CIAC, the UTILITY's testimony in this regard being persuasive. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-8, R-2.) However, as to the years 1969 through 1970, the UTILITY presented no evidence that the $48,809 in connection fees collected during that time were used only for operating and maintenance expenses and not to offset acquisition, improvement, or construction costs. In the absence of such evidence, the COMMISSION testimony that connection fees should ordinarily be treated as CIAC is persuasive. The connection fees collected during 1969 and 1970, calculated to be $49,809, are therefore properly included as CIAC. (Testimony of Deterding, Cardey; P-8, R-2.) In light of the above findings and the absence of disagreement concerning other adjustments proposed by the COMMISSION, the elements of the UTILITY's adjusted rate base are: RATE BASE Test Year Ended March 31, 1980 Utility Plat in Service $ 11,178,094 Construction Work in Progress 5,966,569 3/ Accumulated Appreciation (626, 160) CIAC,(Net of Amortization) (3,041,747) 4/ Advances for Construction (111,567) AFUDC (326,422) 5/ Working Capital Allowance 146,911 Materials and Supplies 117,450 Income Tax Lay [To be calculated based on additional gross revenues rec- opmended herein.] RATE BASE [To be determined upon recalculation.] In order to determine the adjusted rate base which should be utilized, Income Tax Lag requires recalculation in a manner consistent with the above findings and Section III below. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-3, P-8, P-10, R- 2.) III. Operating Income Operating Expense: Water Royalty Charge In calculating operating income for the test year, the UTILITY included $18,577 as an operating expense attributed to a $.03 per gallon royalty charge it paid an affiliate for water pumped from the Green Meadows well field. The UTILITY operates this water field on a 21-acre site and has easements to locate 26 wells. It pays no other cost for the water. The COMMISSION disputes the reasonableness of this charge because it is not an arms-length transaction, and the UTILITY has not explained the basis of the $.03 charge, the cost to the affiliate of the land involved and its subsequent sales price (the affiliate reserving the water use rights) , and the identity of the present owner. The COMMISSION's accountant testified that reasonableness of the charge could be determined by analyzing the costs of the rental of the land based on the original cost of the property to the affiliate. In response, the UTILITY established that the $18,577 expense is less than it would cost tide UTILITY, in terms of annual revenue requirements, to purchase the land involved. But the UTILITY failed to address the cost of renting the property, based on the affiliate's acquisition costs, or furnish information necessary to make such a determination. The COMMISSION is entitled to clearly scrutinize the expenses claimed by a utility and require that their reasonableness be shown. Tide UTILITY did not adequately explain or support the reasonableness of its claimed royalty expense, and it should therefore be disallowed. (Testimony of Reeves, Deterding; P-6, R-2.) Depreciation and Taxes: Adjustments Attributable to Post-Test Period Plant Additions The parties disagree on whether adjustments should be made to test year operating expenses to reflect increases in depreciation and taxes due to the five post-test year plant additions completed subsequent to the test period. The evidence is uncontroverted that these plant additions, including the Green Meadows water treatment plant and related facilities, were required by prior COMMISSION order and that they were necessary to provide service to existing customers of the UTILITY. The parties have also agreed that the full cost of these additions should be included in rate base, at full weight. The operating expenses of the UTILITY during the test year should be adjusted as was rate base, for known and no net changes in order to reflect conditions which will prevail when the rates become effective. The UTILITY's 2.1 percent composite depreciation rate should thus be applied against the new plant additions, and tide resulting depreciation expense included in the cost of providing service. Similarly, taxes (other than income) on the $5,960,569 worth of plant additions are known and eminent, are a cost of providing service, and should be included as an adjustment to test year taxes. The COMMISSION presented no policy or factual justification or explanation for its opposition to these adjustments to test year operating expenses. It does not contend that these expenses are other than known and eminent, attributable to the government-ordered plant additions, and will be part of the cost of providing service during the period the new rates will be in effect. The UTILITY's evidence in support of these adjustments is therefore persuasive. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-8, P-10, R-2.) Similarly, the UTILITY contended that test year income tax should be adjusted to reflect changes in revenue, operating expenses, depreciation, taxes, and interest expenses attributed to operation of the new plant addition. The COMMISSION offered no reason or explanation why such an income tax adjustment should not be made; changes in income tax due to the operation of the plant additions are known and eminent, and should be allowed as adjustments to test year expenses in order to adequately represent the UTILITY's future costs of service. However, due to the findings herein relating to use of "average rate base, the AFUDC allowance, treatment of connection fees previously collected, the water royalty charge, depreciation, and taxes, the income tax adjustment proposed by the UTILITY requires recalculation. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-0, P-10, R-2.) In light of the above findings, and the UTILITY's lack of opposition to other adjustments proposed by the COMMISSION, the known elements of adjusted operating income are: operating revenues of $2,419,437 and operating expense (operation) of $1,175,291. In order to determine adjusted operating income which should be used in this case, depreciation, taxes other than income, and income taxes require recalculation consistent with the findings contained in Sections II and III, infra. (Testimony of Cardey, Deterding; P-1, P-8, P-10, R- 2.) IV. Capital Structure, Cost of Capital, and Rate of Return The parties agree that UTILITY's capital structure and cost of capital are as follows: CAPITALIZATION COMPOSITE WEIGHT Rate 15 pct. 16 pct. Long-Term Debt 49.33 pct. 10.68 pct. 5.27 pct. 5.27 pct. Equity Capital 41.25 15-18 6.19 6.60 Subtotal 90.58 pct. 11.46 pct. 11.87 Deferred Federal Income Taxes 4.74 pct. -0- -0- -0- Customer Deposits .90 8.00 .07 .07 subtotal 96.22 Investment Tax Credit 3.79 pct. Average 11.53 .45 pct. 11.94 pct. .45 TOTAL 100.00 pct. 11.98 pct. 12.39 pct. They are also in agreement that a 12 percent return on the UTILITY's rate base, including a 15-16 percent return on equity, is a fair and reasonable rate of return. (COMMISSION's Proposed Recommended Order, p. 7; P-8, P-5.) V. Additional Required Revenues In order to determine the additional gross revenues which the UTILITY should file rates designed to generate, the authorized operating income should be computed by multiplying 12 percent times the adjusted rate base computed pursuant to Paragraph 10 above. The UTILITY should then be authorized to earn additional gross revenues equivalent to thee difference between the authorized operating income and the adjusted test year operating income computed pursuant to Paragraph 14 above. VI. Rate Structure and Rates The UTILITY proposes, with the COMMISSION's concurrence, that its new rates be structured in accordance with the Base Facility Charge Rate Design (BFC) and that the 25 percent surcharge currently imposed on general service customers be eliminated. The new BFC rate structure design contains a customer charge and a gallonage charge, both of which are directly related to the cost of providing the service. The customer charge assures that all customers pay their pro rata share of certain fixed and operating costs of the UTILITY which are not related to the amount of water used by the customer. The gallonage charge is based on the actual amounts of water used. With implementation of the base facility charge system, the UTILITY should lower its current $20 charge for reconnections during working hours to $10; similarly, its current $25 charge for reconnection after working hours should be reduced to $15. These lower charges are sufficient to cover the costs associated with the service rendered. The UTILITY also proposes various increases in its service availability, or connection charges. These increases, based on increased construction costs, will be used to finance additional facilities and stabilize rates to existing customers. The BFC rate design system proposed by the UTILITY is fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory. In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider the "alternative" rate structure which was presented to the COMMISSION staff on the day of hearing. With such time constraints, meaningful review of the "alternative" rate structure proposal was not possible. (Testimony of Byrd, Collier; R-1, R-3.) VII. Adequacy of Service Customer testimony criticized the 25 percent surcharge currently Imposed on general service customers, and the magnitude of the requested rate increase. Several customers complained of the quality of the water supplied. Under the proposed rate structure, tide surcharge on general service customers will be eliminated. While several customers complained of sediment in their drinking water, testimony established that the new Green Meadows softening plant should help alleviate that problem. The water supplied by the UTILITY meets all regulatory and health standards of the Health Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. The UTILITY is currently under no citation for violation of any regulatory standards. It is found that the quality of the water service offered by the UTILITY is adequate. (Testimony of Collier, Reeves, Customers; P-7.) VIII. Franchise Fees The UTILITY has collected $395,000 in "franchise fees" for Lee County, but has not paid them to the county due to questions surrounding the legality of the franchise fee. Neither have the funds been placed in a special escrow account pending resolution of this controversy. The UTILITY should ensure that such franchise fees are deposited in a special interest-bearing escrow account, and take steps to ensure that this controversy is resolved without further delay. (Testimony of Cardey; Late-filed Exhibit P-12.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the COMMISSION recalculate adjusted rate base, operating income, and the resulting additional and total gross revenues in a manner consistent with this Recommended Orders and that Petitioner be authorized to file new rates structured on the base facility charge concept designed to generate the additional and total annual gross revenues so specified. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent condominium association timely mailed or hand delivered to unit owners either a copy of the annual financial report for the year 2004 or, alternatively, a notice stating that a copy of the report would be provided to any owner, free of charge, upon request.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Eden Isles Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association") is the entity responsible for operating the common elements of the Eden Isles Condominium ("Condominium"), which consists of seven buildings comprising 364 units. As such, the Association is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes ("Division"). The Association retained Louis John Claps, C.P.A. & Associates, P.A. ("Claps") to audit the Association's books and prepare a financial statement respecting the year ending December 31, 2004. Thereafter, under a cover letter dated May 2, 2005, Claps delivered to the Association a financial report for the year 2004. This financial report was readily available to the members of the Association's governing Board of Directors ("Board"), who in turn could make copies thereof for delivery to the unit owners in their respective buildings. (The owners in each building elect a "building director" to serve on the Board.) In addition, the financial report was available for inspection and copying at the Association's office; any unit owner who asked for a copy was given one. The Association, however, did not mail or hand deliver to each unit owner either a copy of the financial report or, alternatively, a notice stating that a copy of such report could be had, at no charge, upon request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order finding the Association guilty of the charge of failing to timely provide each unit owner with either the annual financial report for the year 2004 or, alternatively, a notice stating that a copy of such report would be delivered, without charge, to any owner who requested one. In consequence of the Association's violation of Section 718.111(13), Florida Statutes, the Division should: (a) impose a civil penalty against the Association in the amount of $1,092; (b) order the Association to mail or hand deliver to each unit owner, within 30 days after the date of the Final Order, either a copy of the financial report for the year 2004 or, alternatively, a notice stating that a copy of such report will be provided at no cost to any owner who requests one in writing; and (c) order the Association to furnish the Division, within 45 days after the date of the Final Order, with an affidavit attesting that the remedial action just described has been taken. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2007.
