City of Daytona Beach v. Hawkins

Supreme Court of Florida

City of Daytona Beach v. Hawkins

373 So. 2d 681, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4759, 1979 WL 396266

CourtSupreme Court of Florida

DecidedJuly 18, 1979

DocketNos. 55496, 55521

StatusPublished

This text of 373 So. 2d 681 (City of Daytona Beach v. Hawkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of Daytona Beach v. Hawkins, 373 So. 2d 681, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4759, 1979 WL 396266 (Fla. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

HATCHETT, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Public Service Commission which requires Florida Power & Light Company to implement the direct method of collecting franchise fees from its customers. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We deny the petition for certiorari.

The direct method ordered by the Commission requires Florida Power & Light Company to collect its franchise fee expense only from resident-customers of municipalities receiving franchise fees from the company, as opposed to the traditional spread method which distributes the cost of these fees among municipal and non-municipal customers. The petitioners contend that the record is devoid of substantial and competent evidence to support the findings and conclusions contained in the Commission order. (Order No. 8524.) We disagree.

After public hearings were held giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard, a hearing examiner recommended that the company be ordered to implement the direct method of collecting franchise fees. After analyzing the merits of both positions, the Commission determined from the evidence that the direct method rather than the spread method was the more equitable and desirable method of cost distribution. This procedure fully complies with our directives in City of Plant City v. Hawkins, No. 54,972 (Fla. July 12, 1979), and City of Plant City v. Mayo, 337 So.2d 966 (Fla.1976). See also, City of St. Petersburg v. Hawkins, 366 So.2d 429 (Fla.1978).

After reviewing the record, we hold that the findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence and, therefore, deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, J., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HATCHETT, Justice.

This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Public Service Commission which requires Florida Power & Light Company to implement the direct method of collecting franchise fees from its customers. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. We deny the petition for certiorari.

The direct method ordered by the Commission requires Florida Power & Light Company to collect its franchise fee expense only from resident-customers of municipalities receiving franchise fees from the company, as opposed to the traditional spread method which distributes the cost of these fees among municipal and non-municipal customers. The petitioners contend that the record is devoid of substantial and competent evidence to support the findings and conclusions contained in the Commission order. (Order No. 8524.) We disagree.

After public hearings were held giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard, a hearing examiner recommended that the company be ordered to implement the direct method of collecting franchise fees. After analyzing the merits of both positions, the Commission determined from the evidence that the direct method rather than the spread method was the more equitable and desirable method of cost distribution. This procedure fully complies with our directives in City of Plant City v. Hawkins, No. 54,972 (Fla. July 12, 1979), and City of Plant City v. Mayo, 337 So.2d 966 (Fla.1976). See also, City of St. Petersburg v. Hawkins, 366 So.2d 429 (Fla.1978).

After reviewing the record, we hold that the findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence and, therefore, deny the petition for writ of certiorari.

It is so ordered.

BOYD, OVERTON and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, J., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 So. 2d 681, 1979 Fla. LEXIS 4759, 1979 WL 396266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-daytona-beach-v-hawkins-fla-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack