author: NICKELL, Judge.

text:
    METRO LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY GOVERNMENT and the City of Louisville, Appellants, v. Shawn ABMA, and Other Individual Appellees as Designated in the Notice of Appeal. and Robert Akridge, and Other Individual Cross-Appellants as Designated in the Notice of Appeal, Cross-Appellants, v. City of Louisville, (Now Known as Metro Louisville/Jefferson County Government), Cross-Appellees.
    Nos. 2007-CA-001417-MR, 2007-CA-001527-MR.
    Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
    Sept. 4, 2009.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 2010.
    Discretionary Review Denied by Supreme Court Dec. 10, 2010.

      Laurence J. Zielke (argued), Hays Lawson, Janice M. Theriot, Louisville, KY, for appellant/cross-appellee Louisville Metro.
    John D. Parsons, Frankfort, KY, for appellee Commonwealth of Kentucky, Labor Cabinet .
    Ann B. Oldfather (argued), Vicki L. Buba, Louisville, KY, for Hasken appel-lees/cross-appellants.
    Thomas A. Woodley, Douglas L. Steele (argued), Washington, D.C., Herbert L. Segal, Louisville, KY, for Kurtsinger ap-pellees.
    Before ACREE and NICKELL, Judges; KNOPF, Senior Judge.

      . Pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 67C.101, the merger of the City of Louisville and Jefferson County on January 6, 2003, resulted in a consolidated local government now known as "Louisville/Jefferson Metro Government.” This entity is listed as "Metro Louisville/Jefferson County Government” in the style of this case because it identified itself that way in the notice of appeal.

       By order of this Court entered on April 28, 2008, the Labor Cabinet was dismissed from this appeal.

      . Senior Judge William L. Knopf sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 21.580.

   OPINION

NICKELL, Judge.

Metro Louisville/Jefferson County Government and the City of Louisville, Kentucky (collectively, the City) appeal from three separate rulings of the Jefferson Circuit Court, claiming first, that partial summary judgment was improvidently granted to two groups of firefighters, the Hasken Appellees and the Kurtsinger Ap-pellees, because the City did not breach a series of Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) it had negotiated with the International Association of Firefighters, Local 345; second, that the applicable statute of limitations for any contract claim filed by the firefighters should be five years, not fifteen years as the court found; and third, that a judgment certified by the court as final and appealable was really an interlocutory order because it left unanswered too many questions about damages, costs and attorneys’ fees, many of which were specifically reserved for future determination. For their part, the Hasken Appellees have filed a cross-appeal arguing the overtime pay formula should include the clothing allowance received by firefighters. After reviewing the record and the law, we affirm in all respects the opinion and order entered by the court on June 16, 2006. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion the judgment entered on September 21, 2006. Finally, we affirm the written order entered on June 17, 2007, denying the City’s motion to alter, amend or vacate the judgment entered on September 21, 2006.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is a companion case to Commonwealth v. Hasken, 265 S.W.3d 215 (Ky.App.2007). Both appeals stem from judicial and administrative claims filed by City of Louisville firefighters alleging miscalculation of overtime pay. Hasken, which began with the filing of a wage and hour law complaint with the Kentucky Labor Cabinet in May 2000, and ended with the denial of discretionary review by the Kentucky Supreme Court in October 2008, addressed only the statutory wage and hour law violation. In contrast, this appeal addresses only the state breach of contract claim.

Hasken had been rendered by a panel of this Court when this case was briefed, but it was pending in our Supreme Court on the City’s request for discretionary review. As a result, the proper overtime pay formula was a seminal issue in both Hasken and in the briefs filed in the case sub judice. However, when discretionary review was denied and Hasken became final, it became the law of the case that four of the five additional pay elements received by firefighters must be included in the overtime pay formula and that formula must be based on a forty-hour work week. Williamson v. Commonwealth, 767 S.W.2d 323 (Ky.1989) (law of the case doctrine prevents relitigation of issue raised and decided in prior appeal). In the wake of Hasken, there is nothing for us to decide regarding the cross-appeal and the City concedes the prime question now before us is whether the statute of limitations applicable to the breach of contract claim is five years or fifteen years.

Hasken held the circuit court correctly applied the five-year statute of limitations mentioned in KRS 413.120(2) to the wage and hour law violation because KRS Chapter 337 does not specify a separate statute of limitations for such a claim. Hasken also held there was no equitable tolling of the statute under KRS 413.190(2).

FACTS

While the appeal we consider today is limited to the breach of contract claim, it stems from the same miscalculation of overtime pay performed by the City between 1984 and 2001. On June 16, 2006, an opinion and order of the Jefferson Circuit Court was entered granting partial summary judgment to both firefighter groups and the City. The opinion found: the City breached a series of contracts with the firefighters by failing to compensate them for overtime pay in accordance with the CBAs, caselaw and both federal and state legislation; the firefighter’s claims were governed by the fifteen-year statute of limitations that applies to written contracts; and, as it found in its opinion entered on September 10, 2004, the clothing allowance was properly excluded from the overtime calculation because it was not an item of remuneration but instead was reimbursement of clothing costs.

The judgment drafted by the firefighters, at the court’s direction, was signed and entered by the court on September 21, 2006. In addition to reciting it was “final and appealable” pursuant to CR 54.02, the judgment stated: there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact; the firefighters were entitled to receive overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty; four additional elements of pay were to be included in the regular rate of pay; the overtime calculation was to be based on a forty-hour work week; the City violated its contract with the firefighters by miscalculating their overtime pay; because of the City’s miscalculation, any firefighter employed by the City was entitled to additional overtime pay but could not recover twice for any payment already received; the window for recovery was fifteen years or September 8, 1985, to date; and the firefighters were not entitled to additional overtime pay for the clothing allowance. The judgment went on to award pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and consequential damages, but reserved the precise amount of these items pending the taking of proof. Other questions reserved for further proceedings were: whether firefighters may recover contract damages for periods prior to September 9, 1985; whether the statute of limitations on the contract claim should be tolled; and finally, whether the firefighters were entitled to liquidated damages and the amount of any costs and attorneys’ fees owed to them on both the breach of contract claim and the wage and hour violation.

The City moved to alter, amend or vacate the judgment claiming: there were so many issues left unresolved and so much proof yet to be taken that the judgment was really interlocutory, even though it contained finality language; entry of the judgment would result in piecemeal appeals; and the City was insulated from any award of interest and attorneys’ fees by sovereign immunity. The motion was heard in October 2006, at which time the court stated from the bench that it would deny the motion, however, no contemporaneous written order was entered. A status conference on the motion was held on June 11, 2007. After reviewing the videotape record of the October hearing, the trial court entered a written order on June 15, 2007, formally denying the motion to alter, amend or vacate. This appeal and cross-appeal followed.

The complexion of this appeal changed greatly when Hasken became final. As a result, we restrict ourselves to three issues: 1) whether the City’s flawed overtime formula breached its CBAs with the firefighter’s union; 2) whether the fifteen-year statute of limitations applicable to written contracts governs the breach of contract claims; and finally, 3) whether the circuit court’s award of pre- and post-judgment interest is foreclosed by the City’s assertion of sovereign immunity.

I. Did the City breach its contract with the union?

This claim reaches us by way of the circuit court’s grant of partial summary judgment to the firefighters on their state law contract claims. When a grant of summary judgment is appealed to us, our standard of review “is whether the circuit judge correctly found that there were no issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Pearson ex rel. Trent v. National Feeding Systems, Inc., 90 S.W.3d 46, 49 (Ky.2002). A grant of summary judgment is appropriate only if “it would be impossible for the respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in his favor.” Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Serv. Ctr., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky.1991). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must construe the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and the non-moving party “cannot rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant’s denial of a disputed fact, but ‘must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.’ ” Id. at 480-81. While we defer to the trial court regarding factual issues, questions of law are reviewed de novo on appeal. Gosney v. Glenn, 163 S.W.3d 894, 898 (Ky.App.2005). Here, there appear to be no disputed issues of fact so our review of the circuit court’s application of the law to the facts is de novo. After reviewing the pleadings, the law, and specifically the law of the case as established in Hasken, we affirm in full the trial court’s opinion and order entered on June 16, 2006, granting partial summary judgment to both the Hasken Appellees and the Kurtsinger Ap-pellees.

To prove a breach of contract, the complainant must establish three things: 1) existence of a contract; 2) breach of that contract; and 3) damages flowing from the breach of contract. Barnett v. Mercy Health Partners-Lourdes, Inc., 233 S.W.3d 723, 727 (Ky.App.2007). Here, the parties do not dispute existence of a contract. Since at least 1984, the City and its firefighters have entered into a series of three-year CBAs. The heart of this appeal is the CBA in effect from July 1, 1998, through June 30, 2001, although the contracts between the two parties going back to at least 1984 contain similar language. All the parties agree, none of the CBAs defines “regular hourly rate of pay” or explains how to calculate overtime. The City argues the firefighters cannot maintain a separate contract action because the right to a specific calculation of overtime pay is derived not from the contract, but by operation of KRS Chapter 337, Kentucky’s wage and hour law. We disagree. The wage and hour law fills in any gaps in the CBA, but the City’s obligation to pay overtime is stated in the CBA negotiated between the City and the union.

In granting partial summary judgment to the firefighters, the circuit court discussed three separate grounds leading it to conclude the City had breached the CBA. Only one ground is necessary to prove a breach, but we deem all three grounds identified and discussed by the circuit court to be viable, compelling and sufficient.

The most direct route to finding a breach of contract, and the strongest ground endorsed by the circuit court, is the contract itself. Article 2, Section (l)(a) of the CBA is titled “General Provisions” and reads:

This Agreement shall be subject to the provisions, rights, limitations and requirements of the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Kentucky, the Statutes of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, all Federal laws, the Ordinances of the City of Louisville and Rules and Regulations of the Louisville Civil Service Board adopted pursuant to law without prejudice to the rights of either party to pursue such legal remedies as in its judgment seem proper.

As the trial court stated in its opinion entered on June 16, 2006, by inserting the above-quoted clause into the CBA,

the City agreed with the firefighters that their contract would be subject to federal and state statutes, which would of course include the FLSA and KRS Chapter 337. By agreeing to be subject to “the provisions, rights, limitations and requirements” of the FLSA and KRS Chapter 337, the parties essentially filled any void in the contract regarding calculation of the firefighters’ regular rate for purposes of determining overtime. Contrary to the City’s position that the CBA is “silent” on such matters, in fact the parties agreed upon the same manner of overtime calculation provided in KRS Chapter 337.

(footnote omitted). Thus, while the CBA negotiated by the parties did not spell out a formula for calculating overtime, the parties did agree that any calculation used would be consistent with both federal and state law.

The City claims the trial court wrongly “incorporated” or “read” the language of KRS Chapter 387 into the terms of the contract, thereby erroneously modifying it, since the CBA merely said the parties agreed to be “subject to” federal and state law. We reject this argument as pure semantics. “The language of a business contract should be construed in the light of what intelligent business men would reasonably expect.” Thompson-Starrett Co. v. Mason’s Adm’rs, 304 Ky. 764, 771, 201 S.W.2d 876, 881 (Ky.1947). In other words,

[business] contracts should be construed according to their plain meaning, to persons of sense and understanding, and not according to forced and refined interpretations which are intelligible only to lawyers and scarcely to [them].

17A Am. Jur. 2d, Contracts § 405 (1991) (footnote omitted). See also, Ranier v. Mt. Sterling National Bank, 812 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Ky.1991); Wilcox v. Wilcox, 406 S.W.2d 152, 153 (Ky.1966).

This Court has already held in Hasken that the City violated Kentucky’s wage and hour law. It naturally follows that a violation of state law constitutes a breach of contract when the agreement negotiated and signed by the parties specifically says the parties have agreed to be “subject to” state and federal law. To hold otherwise would be nonsensical and inconsistent with our primary goal of “ef-fectuat[ing] the intentions of the parties.” 3D Enterprises Contracting Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, 174 S.W.3d 440, 448 (Ky.2005) (citing Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 94 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Ky.App.2002)).

Furthermore, at oral argument, counsel for the City referenced the protracted negotiations that ultimately produced the CBAs with the union. We simply cannot accept the City’s contention that Article 2, Section (l)(a) of the CBA was mere surplusage and superfluous. If that were true, we would have to deem every clause in the agreement to be sur-plusage since all the provisions appear to be on equal footing. We seriously doubt the union would have bargained for, or agreed to, its members receiving less pay for overtime work than for their regular work, yet that is the result of the City’s formula. Thus, after reading the CBA in its entirety and reviewing the City’s formula, we are convinced there was a breach of contract based on the language of the contract.

The second avenue to finding a breach of contract is the intent of the parties under the CBA. Their intent was established previously in the Hasken opinion and we will not revisit that issue in this appeal except to say it is now the law of the case that the parties intended the overtime pay formula to include four of the additional pay elements and to be based on a forty-hour work week. Since the City excluded the four desired pay elements from the formula and based its calculations on a fifty-six hour work week, it did not compensate the firefighters as the parties intended and hence the City breached the CBAs.

The third avenue to finding a breach of contract is based on caselaw. The FLSA and KRS Chapter 337 establish the minimum requirements of every employment contract. While an employer may choose to give more than the minimum, an employer cannot contract to give less. Noel v. Season-Sash, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 901, 902 (Ky.App.1986) rev’d on other grounds, Parts Depot, Inc. v. Beiswenger, 170 S.W.3d 354 (Ky.2005); see also Featsent v. City of Youngstown, 70 F.3d 900 (6th Cir.1995) (union representatives cannot bargain away employee rights under the FLSA); Fletcher v. Grinnell Brothers, 64 F.Supp. 778 (E.D.Mich.1946) (citing Manseau v. United States, 52 F.Supp. 395 (E.D.Mich.1943)) (FLSA provisions “fixing the minimum measure of the employer’s liability to pay for services rendered by an employee, must be read into and form a part of every employment contract to which the act applies.”). Thus, the City breached the CBA not only upon the wording of the contract and the intent of the parties, but also upon well-settled caselaw.

The City suggests the firefighters had to do more to establish a breach of contract than simply allege a breach had occurred. Under the circumstances presented, however, we disagree. Once the firefighters proved the City had violated Kentucky’s wage and hour law, and that statutory violation was affirmed on appeal, the firefighters had satisfied their burden of proving a separate breach of contract claim.

Citing City of Louisville v. Gnagie, 716 S.W.2d 236 (Ky.1986), and Orms v. City of Louisville, 686 S.W.2d 464 (Ky.App.1984), the City argues the firefighters cannot complain now about its method of calculating overtime pay because it had used the same formula, without complaint, for twenty-six years. We reject this argument. As the trial court noted in its opinion and order entered on June 16, 2006, the FLSA and Kentucky’s wage and hour law would have no teeth and no purpose if their minimum requirements could be waived by alleged acquiescence. As the circuit court further stated, in light of Noel, Kentucky courts would not endorse an interpretation of a CBA that would compensate firefighters for overtime at a rate lower than that provided by KRS Chapter 337. As a result, violation of either the FLSA or KRS Chapter 337 also constituted a breach of the CBA. To seek redress, the firefighters were permitted to file an administrative claim, a wage and hour complaint, or both. In this case, they chose to file both.

Having established both the existence of a contract and a breach of that contract, all that remained for the firefighters to prove was the amount of damages to which they were entitled because of the breach. As evidenced by the judgment entered on September 21, 2006, the Jefferson Circuit Court found the firefighters were entitled to additional overtime pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, consequential damages and costs. The judgment did not specify a dollar amount for any of these items and it reserved ruling on other items, such as the tolling of the statute of limitations on the breach of contract claim, and entitlement to liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs for both the contract breach and the statutory violation. The judgment stated in relevant part:

4. As a result of this violation, each Plaintiff who has been employed as a Firefighter by the City of Louisville has a right to additional overtime pay on all hours worked each week in excess of Forty (40) hours and calculated on the State Educational Incentive Pay, Longevity Pay, Salary Supplement and July Bonus using a divisor of 2080 hours annually, or 40 hours per week, by virtue of the contracts with the City; and 5. Since the statue (sic) of limitations on a contract claim is fifteen (15) years pursuant to KRS 413.090, this contract entitlement applies to all time periods from September 8, 1985 to date; and
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant City shall pay each Plaintiff additional overtime pay (“AOP”) which shall be calculated by dividing the State Educational Incentive Pay, Longevity Pay, Salary Supplement and July Bonus received by each Plaintiff in each year subsequent to September 8, 1985, by Two Thousand Eighty Hours (2080) annually, or Forty (40) hours per week, then multiplying the resulting rate by 1.5 (representing time and one half) to arrive at an additional overtime pay rate. The additional overtime pay rate shall be multiplied by all hours over forty (40) in a work week (whether “scheduled” or “unscheduled”) worked by each Plaintiff, to arrive at the AOP to which that Plaintiff is entitled for that week. The weekly AOP shall not include any overtime pay already received by that Plaintiff in that week relating to State Educational Incentive Pay, Longevity Pay or July Bonus.
Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest on each weekly amount of AOP calculated under the preceding paragraph at the statutory rate of eight percent (8%), compounded annually, through the date of entry of this Judgment, and at the statutory rate of twelve percent (12%), compounded annually, subsequent to the entry of this Judgment until paid.
The entitlement under the Judgment shall not be duplicative of any recovery that might ultimately be made under this Court’s Opinion and Order/Judgment of September 10, 2004.
Plaintiffs are entitled to consequential damages to the extent that failure to pay the AOP required by this Judgment has caused a diminution in retirement pay or other benefits. The Court shall RESERVE for further proof the exact elements of consequential damages and the amounts thereof.
Plaintiffs are entitled to, and shall recover from Defendant City, their costs herein expended.
The Court has not addressed the issue of tolling of the statute of limitations on these contract claims, so the issue of whether there should be any recovery of contract damages for periods prior to September 9, 1985, is RESERVED for further proceedings.
Also RESERVED for further proceedings are Plaintiffs’ entitlement to liquidated damages and the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs owed to Plaintiffs under the Opinion and Order of June 16, 2006, and the Opinion and Order of September 10, 2004, as a result of Defendant City’s statutory violation of the Kentucky Wage and Hour Law, KRS 387.010, et seq. as set forth in both of said Opinions.
In all other regards, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this is a final and ap-pealable Judgment and there is no just cause for delay.

The City questions whether the circuit court’s judgment was really final or merely interlocutory. While it contains the finality language authorized by CR 54.02, the City claims so many questions were left unanswered about damages, costs and attorneys’ fees that it did not finally resolve anything. We disagree.

CR 54.02 is a procedural device that “allows a trial court dealing with multiple claims or multiple parties in a single action to grant a final judgment as to fewer than all of the claims or parties upon a determination that there is no just reason for delay.” Watson v. Best Financial Services, Inc., 245 S.W.3d 722, 723 (Ky.2008) (referencing similarity of Kentucky rule to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 54(b)). The rule vests discretion in the trial court to certify decisions as final and appealable even though they resolve only a portion of the claims presented to the court in multi-claim and/or multiparty litigation. Id. at 726.

When reviewing finality, we first consider whether the trial court’s certification of finality conclusively resolves the rights of the parties on at least one claim raised in the litigation. If it does, we then determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the judgment as being final on the claim(s) it purports to resolve. Id. at 727. After reviewing the judgment extensively, we see no error and no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s certification of finality.

While the judgment reserves some issues for the taking of proof or later determination, it does specify the formula the City is to use in calculating the additional overtime pay to which the firefighters are entitled. Thus, the judgment resolves a significant issue. Furthermore, had the parties used this formula to calculate additional overtime pay for approximately 800 firefighters, and we then reversed the trial court’s formula on appeal, much time and money would have been expended for naught. However, by certifying the judgment as final on some but not all of the pending issues, the trial court enabled the City to perfect an appeal, and based on this opinion may now proceed with confidence in calculating the damages to which the firefighters are entitled as a result of the City’s breach of the CBA as well as its violation of Kentucky’s wage and hour law. The City argues this procedure results in piecemeal litigation, and while that may be true, this case has already been reviewed by multiple courts at the City’s request. We are not so naive as to believe rendition of a single opinion at this juncture would have ended the litigation. In fact, the wage and hour violation has already been returned to the trial court for determination of damages. Now, the trial court can address the damages flowing from both the statutory violation and the breach of contract and determine all the damages, costs and attorneys’ fees due the firefighters in one fell swoop.

While we hold the firefighters sufficiently proved existence of a contract, breach, and entitlement to damages, we must specifically comment on portions of the judgment entered on September 21, 2006. First, we affirm the trial court’s formula for calculating overtime pay. That issue was previously settled under Haslcen and constitutes law of the case for our purposes. Second, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that “entitlement under [its] Judgment shall not be duplicative of any recovery that might ultimately be made under this Court’s Opinion and Order/Judgment of September 10, 2004[,]” to the extent the firefighters may recover damages for both the statutory wage and hour law violation and the state breach of contract claim, but there shall be no double recovery. Although stemming from the same miscalculation of overtime pay by the City, the statutory violation and the breach of contract claim are separate causes of action and the firefighters rightfully chose to pursue both claims and prevailed as to both. While the firefighters may recover damages under both causes of action, they may not recover twice for the same damage.

A plaintiff who alleges separate causes of action is not permitted to recover more than the amount of damage actually suffered. There cannot be double recovery for the same loss even though different theories of liability are alleged in the complaint. Thus, a plaintiff who recovers the full amount of damages for the breach of contract cannot recover damages in tort unless he alleges and proves the existence of additional damages attributable solely to the tort. However, there is no duplication of recovery if the damages are awarded for separate injuries.

22 Am. Jur. 2d Damages § 35 (footnotes omitted). Third, we affirm the trial court’s award of costs to the firefighters as permitted by CR 54.04. Fourth, we recognize the trial court reserved for further proceedings the exact elements and amounts of consequential damages. Therefore, we affirm the award of consequential damages only to the extent that they may be justified depending upon the proof developed in any future proceeding. Fifth, we make no comment on the other issues reserved by the trial court for future proceedings and proof which include the tolling of the statute of limitations on the contract claims; whether recovery for contract damages should be allowed prior to September 9, 1985; entitlement to liquidated damages; and the appropriate amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to be recovered for the statutory wage and hour law violation.

II. What is the applicable statute of limitations?

The second issue raised on appeal by the City, and now the prime issue raised in the wake of Hasken becoming final, is the appropriate statute of limitations governing the breach of contract claim. The City argues the firefighter’s claims should be limited to five years under KRS 413.120(2), the same as for the statutory violation. The firefighters disagree, maintaining they should have the benefit of the fifteen-year window provided in KRS 413.090(2) for actions on written contracts. In reviewing the record, we note that the City did not contest application of the fifteen-year statute of limitations in its response to the firefighter’s motions for partial summary judgment on the state law contract claims or in its motion to alter, amend or vacate the proposed judgment on the contract claims. Thus, whether that issue has been preserved for our review is questionable. With few exceptions, this Court does not review complaints unless they were first argued to the trial court and that court was given an opportunity to correct any error. Smith v. Commonwealth, 567 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Ky.1978). In this instance we have chosen to address the issue and we agree with the firefighters on the merits.

The underlying cause of action is a breach of contract claim. As noted previously, in Article 2, Section 1(a) of the CBA, the parties agreed “to be subject to” state law. Therefore, it is clear to us that the fifteen-year statute of limitations governing written contracts applies to the City’s breach of the CBA. While the contract claim stems from the same miscalculation of overtime pay as the statutory violation, the two claims are separate actions and we see no reason to apply a statute of limitations for a statutory violation to a contract breach when there is a specific statute on point. “[W]hen two statutes are in conflict, the more specific statute controls the general.” Light v. City of Louisville, 248 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Ky.2008). Thus, as the trial court correctly found, and the City did not challenge below, the appropriate statute of limitations is fifteen years as stated in KRS 413.090(2).

III. May the City assert sovereign immunity ?

The City asserted sovereign immunity for the first time on appeal to this Court. Since sovereign immunity cannot be waived, except by the General Assembly, Kentucky Constitution § 231; Knott County Bd. of Ed. v. Mullins, 553 S.W.2d 852, 854 (Ky.App.1977), the defense may be asserted at any time and neéd not be affirmatively pled in answer to a complaint. Wells v. Com., Dept. of Highways, 384 S.W.2d 308 (Ky.1964). While we acknowledge sovereign immunity may be asserted at any time, we hold the City cannot prevail with the defense no matter when it is asserted.

At first blush, it would seem clear and obvious that an award of pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees would be forbidden by the City’s assertion of sovereign immunity. After all, Louisville/Jefferson Metro Government is the post-merger successor to the City of Louisville, and by statute it enjoys “the same sovereign immunity granted counties, their agencies, officers, and employees.” KRS 67C.101(2)(e). That all sounds well and good until one remembers the City of Louisville was never insulated by sovereign immunity — not when it contracted with the firefighter’s union, not when it breached the CBAs, and not when the circuit court’s order finding such breach, entered on September 21, 2006, became final. It is well-settled that a city, such as Louisville, is a “municipal corporation” and as such it does not qualify for the protection afforded by sovereign immunity. Kentucky Center far the Arts Corp. v. Berns, 801 S.W.2d 327, 332-2 (Ky.1990). Jefferson County may still assert sovereign immunity for pre-merger acts of its employees, but that is true because the county and its officials enjoyed sovereign immunity prior to the merger and Jefferson County was not abolished as a result of the merger. St. Matthews Fire Protection Dist. v. Aubrey, 304 S.W.3d 56 (Ky.App.2009).

We reject the City’s argument in its supplemental brief that “[t]here is no statute allowing the recovery of pre- or post-judgment interest against Louisville Metro.” That would be a true statement if the obligation to pay interest were Louisville Metro’s alone. However, in this instance, the obligation did not accrue because of actions taken by Louisville Metro. It is critically important to this analysis that Louisville Metro succeeded to the obligation by virtue of the merger under KRS 67C.123(3). Since the statute required the merged government to accept “all ... obligations of [Louisville] ... on the effective date of a consolidated local government[,]” the City and its successor, Louisville Metro, cannot now pick and choose the obligations it is willing to pay.

The City must clear a significant hurdle in its attempt to reduce its obligation to the firefighters as a result of this litigation since KRS 67C.123(3) specifies:

[notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 67C.115(2), all contracts, bonds, franchises and other obligations of the city of the first class and of the county in existence on the effective date of a consolidated local government shall continue in force and effect as obligations of the consolidated local government and the consolidated local government shall succeed to all rights and entitlements thereunder. All conflicts in the provisions of the contracts, bonds, franchises, or other obligations shall be resolved in a manner that does not impair the rights of any parties thereto.

(emphasis added). Based upon the foregoing statutory language, we conclude it has not cleared that hurdle and Metro Louisville is financially responsible for all damages assessed against the City for its miscalculation of overtime pay under the CBA. The City has cited cases establishing that Metro Louisville and Jefferson County enjoy sovereign immunity, but has cited no authority convincing us a city enjoys the same insulation or that a county or merged government may extend its protection to a city.

Aside from the inapplicability of the sovereign immunity defense to the City, we are deeply troubled by the City’s about-face on this issue. Since 2002, both orally and in writing, the City assured the firefighters it would not assert sovereign immunity or attempt to avoid the City’s pre-merger obligation once the City had consolidated with Jefferson County. On the strength of those assurances, the firefighters did not develop a record on this point in the trial court. Then, in its 2008 brief to this Court appealing the loss on the breach of contract claim, the City asserted sovereign immunity for the first time, and has since asserted the defense in the trial court as it pertains to the statutory wage and hour violation. To say the least, the City has been disingenuous in retreating from its previously established position. Nevertheless, we reject its assertion of sovereign immunity and hold the defense cannot be asserted by a newly merged government to avoid a contractual obligation resulting from an agreement entered into by one of its predecessors.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the opinion and order entered by the Jefferson Circuit Court on June 16, 2006. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, the judgment entered on September 21, 2006. Finally, we affirm the written order entered on June 17, 2007, denying the City’s motion to alter, amend or vacate the judgment entered on September 21, 2006. The cross-appeal filed by the Hasken Appellees was resolved against them in Hasken and is therefore moot for purposes of this appeal.

ALL CONCUR.

      . The actions giving rise to this appeal were initiated in 2000 and 2001, before the city-county merger, and are based on contracts the City negotiated with the firefighter’s union. While it is neither a city government nor a county government, Louisville/Jefferson Metro Government "[possesses] the greater powers conferred upon, and is subject to the lesser restrictions applicable to, county government and cities of the first class under the Constitution and general laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.” KRS 67C.101(2)(d). It also enjoys "the same sovereign immunity granted counties, their agencies, officers, and employees.” KRS 67C.101(2)(e).

      .Each of the orders from which this appeal emanates is the product of the Jefferson Circuit Court, but each was rendered by a different judge. The opinion and order entered on June 16, 2006, granting partial summary judgment to the firefighters, was authored by Judge Lisabeth Hughes Abramson. When she was appointed to serve on this Court, the case was assigned to Judge Thomas E. McDonald in his capacity as a senior judge. He signed the judgment on the partial summary judgment entered on September 21, 2006. When Judge Mary M. Shaw came on the circuit bench, the case was assigned to her. She signed an order entered on June 15, 2007, formally denying a motion to alter, amend or vacate the order of September 21, 2006. Judge McDonald had denied the motion from the bench, but no written order was filed. Judge Shaw's order corrected that oversight.

      . In September 2000, the Hasken Appellees, a group of retired firefighters, filed a complaint in federal district court alleging a common law breach of contract claim as well as violations of both the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. (FLSA), and Kentucky’s wage and hour law as codified in KRS Chapter 377, et seq. While recognizing the firefighters could bring an action for breach of contract, separate and apart from the alleged statutory violations, the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. The alleged state wage and hour law violation was dismissed for failure to exhaust state administrative remedies. Hasken v. City of Louisville, 173 F.Supp.2d 654 (W.D.Ky.2001).
      Prior to the filing of the federal action described above, in May 2000, the Kurtsinger Appellees, a separate group of both active and retired firefighters, had filed a wage and hour law complaint with the Kentucky Labor Cabinet alleging miscalculation of overtime pay by the City. The Hasken Appellees intervened in this administrative claim. Following investigation by the Labor Cabinet and the taking of proof by a hearing officer from the Office of the Attorney General, and issuance of a recommendation by that officer, the Labor Secretary issued a contrary order which was appealed to the Jefferson Circuit Court. On September 10, 2004, the circuit court entered an opinion and order granting partial summary judgment to the firefighters upon finding the City had committed a wage and hour violation; the applicable statute of limitations for the violation was five years as stated in KRS 413.120(2); and, because the Labor Secretary used a flawed overtime formula, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the hearing officer were to be adopted as the Secretary's final order. The circuit court’s opinion also granted partial summary judgment to the City after finding the clothing allowance was properly excluded from the overtime formula because it was reimbursement rather than remuneration, and the five-year statute of limitations was not equitably tolled under KRS 413.190(2) because there was no proof of deceit by the City. It is the circuit court’s opinion and order entered on September 10, 2004, addressing only the state wage and hour law violation, that was recently affirmed by a panel of this Court in Hasken. The state wage and hour violation is currently pending in the Jefferson Circuit Court for the determination of damages.
      The debate between a forty-hour work week and a fifty-six hour work week is rooted in KRS 95.275 which requires all firefighters to be available for work at all hours and prohibits an employer from reducing a firefighter's pay, rank or benefits as a result of working forty-eight or seventy-two hour weeks. Firefighters typically work a twenty-four hour shift and are then off work for the next forty-eight hours which results in an average work week of fifty-six hours, the number used by the City in its overtime pay formula. However, Article 13, Section 1 of the CBA in effect between July 1, 1998, and June 30, 2001, states in relevant part, ”[a]n employee will receive one and one-half (1 ½) times his regular hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in any one (1) work week (Sunday through Saturday).” Additionally, KRS 337.285 mandates overtime pay be paid at one and one-half times the hourly wage rate for all hours worked in excess of forty hours in a single week. Based upon these provisions, the firefighters argued the parties intended the overtime calculation to be based on a forty-hour work week instead of a fifty-six hour week and the circuit court agreed with their position.

      . As a result of legislation and contract provisions, firefighters receive five types of pay in addition to their hourly wage. These "additional pay elements” are state (or educational) incentive pay; longevity pay; salary supplement; "July bonus;” and clothing allowance. The City excluded all additional pay elements from its calculation of overtime pay which was based on a fifty-six hour work week. Hasken held all additional pay elements, except the clothing allowance, must be included in the overtime pay formula and figured on a forty-hour work week.

      .No liquidated damages or attorneys’ fees have been requested in the breach of contract action which is the sole focus of this particular appeal. These items pertain only to the statutory wage violation and are not part of this appeal.

      . Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 59.05.

      . CR 54.02.

      . This is a reference to the circuit court opinion which granted partial summary judgment to the firefighters on the wage and hour violation, (footnote added).

      . Because this issue was mentioned, but not fully briefed by the parties prior to oral argument, the Court ordered supplemental briefs on the limited issues of whether the City could assert sovereign immunity for the first time on appeal; and if it could, how its assertion impacted the trial court’s award of pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees to the firefighters.

      . We recognize the City’s claim of sovereign immunity is currently being addressed by the Jefferson Circuit Court as it determines the appropriate damages to be awarded on the statutory wage and hour violation on remand from another panel of this Court.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: VANMETER, Judge:

license: Public Domain

text:
    NURSES’ REGISTRY AND HOME HEALTH CORPORATION, (Nurses’ Registry), Appellant, v. GENTIVA CERTIFIED HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, d/b/a Gentiva Health Services; Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Office of Certificate of Need; and Janie Miller, Secretary for Health and Family Services, in her Official Capacity, Appellees.
    No. 2009-CA-001175-MR.
    Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
    Aug. 27, 2010.
    Ordered Published Oct. 29, 2010.

      Lisa English Hinkle, Luke Alan Wing-field, Lexington, KY, for appellant.
    Mathew R. Klein, Jr., Mark D. Guilfoyle, Reneé L. Alsip, Crestview Hills, KY, for appellee.
    Before ACREE, VANMETER, and WINE, Judges.
   OPINION

VANMETER, Judge:

Nurses’ Registry and Home Health Corporation (Nurses’ Registry) appeals from an opinion and order of the Franklin Circuit Court reversing the decision of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, Division of Administrative Hearings (Cabinet) remanding the case to the Cabinet. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Gentiva Certified Healthcare Corporation (Gentiva) is a home health service provider that submitted a certificate of need application to the Cabinet seeking to establish a health service in Boyle, Gar-rard, Lincoln and Mercer counties. At the time Gentiva submitted its application, it held certificates of need to provide health services in sixteen counties, including Boyle, Garrard, Lincoln, and Mercer counties. Gentiva’s parent office is located in Lexington, Kentucky; however, it also operates a branch office in Danville, Kentucky that has been in operation for over 12 years, serving Boyle, Garrard, Lincoln, and Mercer counties. Seeking to provide the Danville office with the resources to operate independently from the Lexington office, Gentiva filed a certificate of need application with the Cabinet to request a separate license for the Danville office to serve Boyle, Garrard, Lincoln, and Mercer counties.

After Gentiva submitted its application, Nurses’ Registry informed the Cabinet it was an affected party, requested a public hearing on the submitted application and formally challenged the application. Prior to the hearing, Nurses’ Registry filed a motion for summary judgment alleging the certificate of need application was not in compliance with the 2007-2009 State Health Plan for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (State Health Plan). Gentiva filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The Cabinet granted Nurses’ Registry’s motion for summary judgment and denied Gentiva’s certificate of need application. The Cabinet held Gentiva’s application to be inconsistent with the State Health Plan, which requires a showing of an additional 250 patients in the particular county of license who are in need of health services before a license is issued to establish a health service provider. Gentiva appealed the Cabinet’s decision to the Franklin Circuit Court and Nurses’ Registry moved to intervene in the appeal, which the Circuit Court granted.

The Franklin Circuit Court reversed the decision of the Cabinet, held Gentiva’s certificate of need application to be consistent with the State Health Plan, and remanded the case to the Cabinet. This appeal followed.

When reviewing the circuit court’s ruling on an agency’s decision, an appellate court stands in the shoes of the circuit court and reviews the agency’s decision for arbitrariness. Martin County Home Health Care v. Cabinet for Health and Family Serv’s, 214 S.W.3d 324, 326 (Ky.App.2007) (citations omitted). Questions of statutory interpretation are matters of law and are reviewed de novo. Id.

Nurses’ Registry argues the Franklin Circuit Court erred by reversing the Cabinet’s decision. We disagree.

KRS 216B details the licensure and regulation of health facilities. In doing so, it requires any person who seeks to establish a health facility, to first obtain a certificate of need. KRS 216B.061(l)(a). A “certificate of need” is defined as “authorization by the [Cabinet for Health and Family Services] to acquire, to establish, to offer, to substantially change the bed capacity, or to substantially change a health service as covered by this chapter[.]” KRS 216B.015(8). One of the purposes of requiring health providers to acquire a certificate of need via the Cabinet is “that the proliferation of unnecessary healthcare facilities, health services, and major medical equipment results in costly duplication and underuse of such facilities, services, and equipment; and that such proliferation increases the cost of quality health care within the Commonwealth.” KRS 216B.010.

Specifically, KRS 216B.040(2)(a)2.a. requires the Cabinet “[t]o establish criteria for issuance and denial of certificates of need[,]” particularly that “[e]ach proposal approved by the cabinet shall be consistent with the state health plan[.]” The Cabinet found Gentiva’s application to be inconsistent with the State Health Plan under the criteria which states, “[a]n application to establish a home health service shall be consistent with [the State Health Plan] if there is a projected need for at least two hundred-fifty (250) additional patients needing home health care services in the county for which the application is made[.]” The State Health Plan defines establishing “a home health service” as establishing “a parent home health agency or a subunit as defined by Medicare in a county where the applicant is not currently licensed to sene.” (emphasis added).

The Cabinet determined that since the license held by Gentiva’s Lexington office covering Boyle, Garrard, Lincoln, and Mercer counties would be surrendered if the application was approved for the Dan-ville office, Gentiva cannot be said to be “currently licensed” under the language of the State Health Plan. Therefore, if Genti-va is not “currently licensed” under the definition of the State Health Plan, their actions amounted to establishing a new health facility. Accordingly, the Cabinet concluded that since Gentiva was establishing a new health facility, there must be a projected need of an additional 250 patients seeking home health services in each four counties. As this was not the case, the Cabinet held Gentiva’s application to be inconsistent with the State Health Plan and granted Nurses’ Registry’s motion for summary judgment.

However, the Franklin Circuit Court concluded Gentiva was not establishing a home health facility, and was therefore not required to comply with the showing of 250 additional patients under the State Health Plan. The court reasoned that Gentiva, rather than adding to the total number of home health agencies serving those four counties, was seeking to license a home health agency currently in operation as two separate offices. The court held that since Gentiva’s application only sought to separate their existing license and no actual change in health services or location of where health services are provided, the application was consistent with the State Health Plan. The purpose of KRS 216B.010, the court noted, was to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary home health providers under the theory that an abundance of providers increases the cost of health care within the Commonwealth, and costly duplication and underuse of such facilities. Since Gentiva’s certificate of need application would not create any additional home health providers, the court held the license to be consistent with the State Health Plan.

Nurses’ Registry directs us to St. Luke Hospitals, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 186 S.W.3d 746 (Ky.App.2005), in which this court affirmed the Cabinet’s decision to deny St. Luke’s certificate of need application that sought to establish a freestanding, separately licensed ambulatory surgical center on the campus of its Florence, Kentucky-based hospital. St. Luke’s argued since the new facility would contain two operating rooms and two operating rooms on the same campus would be closed, the application did not seek to create additional surgery capacity and therefore the State Health Plan criteria did not apply. Both the Cabinet and circuit court held that St. Luke was establishing a health facility, and must obtain a certificate of.need that is consistent with the State Health Plan.

However, St. Luke is distinguishable from the case at bar. St. Luke was building and operating a newly established ambulatory surgical center that had yet to be in operation prior to seeking the certificate of need. Here, Gentiva’s Danville office has been in operation for over 12 years and already serves Boyle, Garrard, Lincoln and Mercer counties. Furthermore, the issue on appeal in St. Luke was the agency’s departure from past precedent by denying the certificate of need. In this case, the issue is whether Gentiva is establishing a home health facility under the definition of the State Health Plan.

Since the State Health Plan defines establishing a home health facility as “establishing ... a subunit as defined by Medicare in a county where the applicant is not currently licensed to serve,” a logical conclusion would be that the State Health Plan does not consider the establishment of a subunit in a county where the applicant is currently licensed to serve as establishing a home health agency. We find the reasoning of the Franklin Circuit Court to be sound and hold Gentiva was currently licensed to service the counties of Boyle, Garrard, Lincoln and Mercer, and therefore was not seeking to establish a home health agency as defined by the State Health Plan. Therefore, Gentiva is not required to show an additional 250 patients in each county in need of health services. Though, as the Cabinet reasoned, Genti-va’s Lexington office would surrender its certificate of need covering Boyle, Gar-rard, Lincoln, and Mercer counties if the Danville office’s application were to be approved, we find no authority or precedent to conclude this means Gentiva is not currently licensed to serve those counties, and any such interpretation seems counterin-tuitive to the plain reading of the State Health Plan.

The opinion and order of the Franklin Circuit Court is affirmed.

ALL CONCUR.

      . Kentucky Revised Statutes.


author: ALOKAHUJA, Judge.

text:
    STATE of Missouri, ex rel. AQUILA, INC., et al., Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF the STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    Nos. WD 70788, WD 70798.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    April 20, 2010.
    Sustained and Cause Ordered Transferred Aug. 31, 2010.
    Case Retransferred Dec. 22, 2010.
    Court of Appeals Opinion Readopted Jan. 4, 2011.

      Stuart W. Conrad, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellants, AG Processing Inc. and Sedalia Industrial Energy User’s Association.
    Christina Lynn Baker, Jefferson City, MO, for Appellant, Office of Public Counsel.
    Kevin Allen Thompson, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent, Public Service Commission of the State of Missouri.
    John Bruce Coffman, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent, AARP.
    Karl Zobrist, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent, Aquila, Inc.
    Before: LISA WHITE HARDWICK, P.J., and JAMES M. SMART, JR. and ALOK AHUJA, JJ.
   ALOKAHUJA, Judge.

This appeal challenges a Report and Order of the Missouri Public Service Commission, as well as two subsequent Tariff Compliance Orders, issued in a rate case initiated by Aquila, Inc. AG Processing and Sedalia Industrial Energy Users Association (“Industrial Intervenors”) appeal from the circuit court’s affirmance of the two Tariff Compliance Orders, which found certain later-filed tariff sheets to be compliant with the Commission’s Report and Order. The Office of Public Counsel separately appeals the circuit court’s affir-mance of the Report and Order, which approved a general rate increase for Aquila. We consolidated the appeals. Finding no error, we now affirm.

Factual Background

Aquila initiated this case by filing tariff sheets seeking to implement a general rate increase which totaled approximately $119 million. Numerous parties intervened, including the Industrial Intervenors. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the Commission issued a Report and Order authorizing Aquila to increase its rates, but by only approximately $59 million. The Commission’s decision ordered Aquila to file revised tariff sheets in compliance with the Report and Order. Public Counsel and the Industrial Intervenors filed timely applications for rehearing of the Report and Order.

Aquila filed revised tariff sheets which the Commission, acting through a Regulatory Law Judge, ultimately approved. Public Counsel and the Industrial Interve-nors filed timely applications for rehearing of the Regulatory Law Judge’s two Tariff Compliance Orders. The Commission denied all applications for rehearing.

Public Counsel and the Industrial Inter-venors then filed petitions for writs of review with the circuit court, which were consolidated. The circuit court affirmed the Commission’s Report and Order “and all other orders issued” in the case. These appeals followed.

Standard of Review

Section 386.510 provides for review of Commission orders by a circuit court “for the purpose of having the reasonableness or lawfulness of the original order or decision or the order or decision on rehearing inquired into or determined.” See also, State ex rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 120 S.W.3d 732, 734 (Mo. banc 2003). An order’s lawfulness is assessed by determining whether statutory authority exists for its issuance; all legal issues are reviewed dé novo. Id. The reasonableness of an order “depends on whether it is supported by substantial and competent evidence on the whole record.” Id. at 735. All factual findings of the Commission are presumed correct, “and if substantial evidence supports either of two conflicting factual conclusions, ‘the Court is bound by the findings of the administrative tribunal.’ ” Id. (citations omitted).

Analysis

I.

The Industrial Intervenors challenge only the Commission’s Tariff Compliance Orders. They allege the orders are unlawful because: (1) the Commission’s authority to issue such orders cannot lawfully be delegated to a Regulatory Law Judge; and (2) even assuming the Commission could lawfully delegate the authority to issue tariff compliance orders, under § 386.240 such a delegation had to be “expressly authorized or approved,” and no such express authorization or approval occurred here.

A.

It is undisputed that the Tariff Compliance Orders at issue here were issued by a Regulatory Law Judge, and not by the members of the Commission themselves. Each Order reflects that the delegation of authority to the Regulatory Law Judge was “pursuant to Section 386.240, RSMo 2000,” which provides:

Powers of commission, how exercised The commission may authorize any person employed by it to do or perform any act, matter or thing which the commission is authorized by this chapter to do or perform; provided, that no order, rule or regulation of any person employed by the commission shall be binding on any public utility or any person unless expressly authorized or approved by the commission.

Notably, the scope of the functions which the Commission may delegate is not limited by § 386.240 in any way; instead, the statute authorizes the Commission to delegate the performance of “any act, matter or thing which the commission is authorized by this chapter to do or perform.” (Emphasis added.) We also note that § 386.240 expressly contemplates that the Commission’s delegatees may issue “order[s], rule[s] or regulation[s]” binding on public utilities and other persons (so long as those actions are properly authorized or approved).

The Industrial Intervenors argue that the issuance of Tariff Compliance Orders is non-delegable pursuant to the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. Philipp Transit Lines, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 552 S.W.2d 696 (Mo. banc 1977). Philipp Transit addressed whether the Commission “may decide a case by a report and order adopted by notational voting or whether the report and order must be acted upon at a public meeting of which notice has been given.” Id. at 697 (footnote omitted). The Court explained that in notational voting, “each commissioner, after consideration of the circulated order, indicates approval or dissent on a notational voting sheet which accompanies the report and order. If a commissioner is not in agreement, he has various options, including requesting a conference or preparing and filing a dissent.” Id. at 697 n. 1.

Philipp Transit involved the interpretation of § 386.130, which provides in part:

A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of any business, for the performance of any duty or for the exercise of any power of the commission, and may hold meetings of the commission at any time or place within the state. Any investigation, inquiry or hearing which the commission has power to undertake or to hold may be undertaken or held by or before any commissioner. All investigations, inquiries, hearings and decisions of a commissioner shall be and be deemed to be the investigations, inquiries, hearings and decisions of the commission, and every order and decision made by a commissioner, when approved and confirmed by the commission and ordered filed in its office, shall be and be deemed to be the order of the commission.

In Philipp Transit, the Commission argued that nothing on the face of the statute required that commissioners assemble as a group to adopt orders, or prohibited notational voting. The Court rejected this argument, noting that Missouri “borrowed” the language of § 386.130 from a substantially identical New York statute, and that at the time of the Missouri legislature’s action, New York courts had interpreted the borrowed statute in People v. Whitridge, 144 A.D. 486, 129 N.Y.S. 295 (N.Y.App.Div.1911), aff'd, 204 N.Y. 646, 97 N.E. 1112 (1912). Whitridge had held:

The body is not composed of five individuals authorized to act independently, for the act provides that “there shall be a Public Service Commission for each district.”
And, while individual commissioners may hold “investigations, inquiries and hearings,” the final act must he that of the commission as a body at a meeting attended by a quorum, and it is only for the violation of an order of the commission as such a body that a penalty can be imposed. In order that there should have been a valid order, it was necessary that it should appear that it had been adopted by the commission, acting at least by a majority, and at a stated meeting, or a meeting properly called and of which all the commissioners had been notified and had had an opportunity to be present.

Philipp Transit, 552 S.W.2d at 700 (emphasis added, citations omitted) (quoting Whitridge, 129 N.Y.S. at 298).

Industrial Intervenors seize on Philipp Transit’s statement that “the final act must be that of the commission as a body at a meeting attended by a quorum.” According to Industrial Intervenors, this statement requires that § 386.240 be interpreted to allow delegation only of the authority to resolve interlocutory matters, not the substantive issues which will finally terminate a contested ratemaking proceeding.

We are unpersuaded. Neither Philipp Transit, nor the Whitridge decision on which it heavily relied, involved § 386.240 or any similar statute which expressly authorized the Commission to delegate the performance of “any act, matter or thing which the commission is authorized by this chapter to do or perform.” Instead, Phi-lipp Transit addressed the procedures applicable where the Commission itself acts, as a body, not when the Commission acts through delegatees as expressly permitted by § 386.240. Reading the quoted language from Philipp Transit as a gloss on § 386.240 would render the delegation statute a complete nullity, because under the literal language of Philipp Transit, no “valid” order enforceable against regulated entities — of any sort — can be issued except by action of “the commission [as a body], acting at least by a majority, and at a stated meeting.” We will not read Phi-lipp Transit’s interpretation of another statutory provision (§ 386.130) to completely eliminate the delegation authority plainly granted by § 386.240.

We also note that, even if Philipp Transit required the Commission, as a body, to perform “the final act” in ratemaking proceedings like the present one, that requirement was satisfied here. The Regulatory Law Judge’s issuance of the Tariff Compli-anee Orders was not the end of this proceeding. Instead, this proceeding was concluded by the Commission’s rejection of Industrial Intervenors’ and Public Counsel’s applications for rehearing (which were filed as a precondition to judicial review under § 386.500). This was the final substantive action taken in this proceeding; Industrial Intervenors make no argument that that action was taken in violation of their interpretation of Philipp Transit.

Although § 386.240 contains no express substantive limitation on the “act[s], matter[s] or thing[s]” on which the Commission may delegate authority, we emphasize the limited scope of the purportedly unlawful delegations here. In this case, the Commission issued a seventy-two-page Report and Order resolving the parties’ significant disputes arising out of Aquila’s initial tariff filings. The Regulatory Law Judge merely issued orders subsequent to the Report and Order, which determined whether specific revised tariff filings proposed by Aquila in fact complied with the mandates and substantive standards adopted by the Commission in its Report and Order. While Industrial Intervenors argue that the Commission’s Reports and Orders frequently leave significant substantive issues for resolution in connection with the filing of compliance tariffs, and while that may well be true as a general proposition, they identify no significant substantive issue left undecided by the Commission’s Report and Order in this case which they contend the Regulatory Law Judge instead resolved. Nor do the Industrial Intervenors identify any aspect of the Regulatory Law Judge’s decisions on Aquila’s compliance tariffs which, in Industrial Intervenors’ estimation, departed from or modified the rulings made by the Commission itself in its Report and Order.

Without more specific identification of particular (and particularly significant) substantive issues the Regulatory Law Judge decided in the Commission’s stead, we reject Industrial Intervenors’ claim that the act of issuing Tariff Compliance Orders is, per se, a non-delegable task which must in all instances be performed by the Commission. In doing so, we do not foreclose the possibility that, in a future case, the Commission’s delegation of particular issues to a Regulatory Law Judge may be found to be unlawful.

B.

Industrial Intervenors argue in the alternative that, even if the approval of Aquila’s compliance tariffs was properly delegable, no effective delegation in fact occurred here. We once again disagree.

Section 386.240 provides that, before any “order, rule or regulation” issued by a Commission delegatee can bind a utility or other person, it must be “expressly authorized or approved by the commission.” The statute does not specify when such authorization or approval must occur; in particular, the statute does not require that authorization or approval occur before the act, matter or thing is performed. The statutory reference to “authoriz[ation] or approv[al]” suggests that the Commission’s action may occur after the fact. While “authorize” may generally contemplate prospective empowerment to act, “approve” is defined broadly enough to include after-the-fact endorsement. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 88 (4th ed.2006) (“[t]o consent to officially or formally, confirm or sanction”); Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary of the English Language 106 (1993) (“to judge and find commendable or acceptable”; “to express often formally agreement with and support of or commendation of as meeting a standard”); see also Newport v. Hedges, 358 S.W.2d 441, 447 (Mo.App.1962).

Thus, even if this Court agreed with Industrial Intervenors that the Regulatory Law Judge lacked appropriate prior authorization to issue the Tariff Compliance Orders, the orders are nevertheless sustainable if the Commission approved them after their issuance.

Here, we conclude that the Commission effectively ratified the Tariff Compliance Orders when it denied the Industrial In-tervenors’ applications for rehearing of those Orders. In support of their Rehearing Applications, the Industrial Interve-nors made the same delegation arguments they make before this Court, as well as whatever other challenges to the orders they deemed appropriate. In its Order Denying Applications for Rehearing, the Commission specifically referenced the issuance of the Tariff Compliance Orders (which it characterized as having been issued by “the Commission”), and the filing of applications for rehearing of those orders. The Commission denied the rehearing applications, and instead left the Tariff Compliance Orders in place.

The Commission’s denial of the rehearing applications, and its express reference to the earlier issuance of those orders, ratified and “expressly ... approved” the actions of the Regulatory Law Judge. We emphasize the breadth of the Commission’s power to rehear an issue whenever in its judgment reconsideration is appropriate. Under § 386.500.1, “the commission shall grant and hold [a] rehearing, if in its judgment sufficient reason therefore be made to appear.” Section 386.500.4 provides further that, “[i]f, after a rehearing and a consideration of the facts, ... the commission shall be of the opinion that the original order or decision or any part thereof is in any respect unjust or unwarranted, or should be changed, the commission may abrogate, change or modify the same.” This Court has held that whether “[t]o grant or not grant a rehearing and permit further testimony ... is within the sound discretion of that legislative agency, to say the least.” State ex rel. Anderson Motor Serv. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 234 Mo.App. 470, 134 S.W.2d 1069, 1081 (1939). The Commission’s refusal to exercise its plenary, discretionary ability to review and reconsider the Tariff Compliance Orders, an action taken with full knowledge of the orders’ issuance, was sufficient approval of the orders to satisfy § 386.240’s requirements.

II.

For its part, Public Counsel challenges only a single aspect of the Commission’s Report and Order: its decision to allow rate-base treatment for unamortized deferred expenses related to capital-improvement projects at Aquila’s Sibley Generating Facility, which had been the subject of earlier accounting authority orders (“AAOs”). Public Counsel argues that this decision is not supported by competent and substantial evidence, is arbitrary and capricious, and results in rates that are not just and reasonable, because the Commission: (1) failed to make sufficient findings of fact to support its decision; (2) incorrectly found that the deferred balances are capital costs even though the evidence shows that the deferred balances are expenses; and (3) failed to explain why it treated the deferred balances in this case differently than it treated similar balances in another recent case.

We begin with some brief (and necessarily general) background. A regulated utility’s rates are established prospectively in periodic ratemaking proceedings, based on the utility’s revenues and expenses during an earlier “test year.” When a utility incurs extraordinary expenses (such as the construction of major capital improvements) outside of a “test year,” those extraordinary expenses will not be reflected in rates (because the rates were established to allow the utility to recoup its ordinary expenses, as reflected in the “test year”). An accounting authority order or “AAO” permits a utility to capture those extraordinary expenses for (potential) recovery in the forward-looking rates to be established at a future rate case (even though the extraordinary expenses may occur outside the “test year” utilized in that future rate case). As we explained in Missouri Gas Energy v. Public Service Commission, 978 S.W.2d 434 (Mo.App. W.D.1998), when a utility incurs extraordinary expenses associated with the acquisition or construction of a new, productive asset,

[t]he temporary problem created is the accounting treatment of the new asset until a new rate, after a hearing and subsequent order by PSC, goes into effect. The Commission has the regulatory authority to grant a form of relief to the utility in the form of an accounting technique, an Accounting Authority Order, (hereinafter called an “AAO”) which allows the utility to defer and capitalize certain expenses until the time it flies its next rate case. The AAO technique protects the utility from earnings shortfalls and softens the blow which results from extraordinary construction programs. However, AAOs are not a guarantee of an ultimate recovery of a certain amount by the utility.

Id. at 436.

Here, the Commission in fact issued AAOs permitting Aquila to capitalize certain of the expenses associated with the Sibley capital-improvement project. In rate cases subsequent to the incurrence of those costs, including the Report and Order at issue here, the Commission has permitted Aquila to recover the deferred expenses subject to the AAOs in its rates, using a twenty-year amortization schedule. Public Counsel does not dispute in this appeal the Commission’s issuance of the AAOs (without which Aquila would have lost any ability to recover the Sibley-relat-ed costs through rates), or the Commission’s decision to permit Aquila to recover those deferred costs in rates (piecemeal over a twenty-year amortization period). Instead, Public Counsel only challenges the Commission’s decision to permit Aquila to include the unamortized portion of those deferrals in its rate base, on which it earns a rate of return. In other words, Public Counsel does not challenge the return of the Sibley-related costs to Aquila, over a twenty-year period, through rates; instead, it challenges the Commission’s decision to allow Aquila an investment return on the Sibley-related costs, while it is awaiting the recovery of those costs during their twenty-year amortization.

A.

Public Counsel first attacks the adequacy of the Commission’s findings of fact.

Section 386.420.2 requires the commission to “make a report in writing in respect thereto, which shall state the conclusions of the commission, together with its decision, order or requirement in the premises.” This requires the commission to avoid making findings of fact that are completely conclusory. Section 386.420 does not define what constitutes adequate findings of fact, but Missouri courts have filled this gap by applying § 536.090, RSMo 2000, from the state’s administrative procedures statutes. The General Assembly declared in § 536.090 that the statute applies to “[ejvery decision and order in a contested case,” and the statute says:
Every decision and order in a contested case shall be in writing, and except in default cases or cases disposed of by stipulation, consent order or agreed settlement, the decision, including orders refusing licenses, shall include or be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. The findings of fact shall be stated separately from the conclusions of law and shall include a concise statement of the findings on which the agency bases its order.
Whether or not the commission made adequate findings of fact is an issue of law for our independent judgment. We use a flexible standard: The findings of fact must be sufficiently definite and certain or specific under the circumstances of the particular case to enable the court to review the decision intelligently and ascertain if the facts afford a reasonable basis for the order without resorting to the evidence. Findings are inadequate if they cause us to speculate as to which part of the evidence the commission believed.

State ex rel. Pub. Counsel v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 274 S.W.3d 569, 576-77 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (other citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

We have no difficulty understanding the basis for the Commission’s decision to allow rate-base treatment of the unamor-tized deferred expenses at issue here. We note that, in the Commission’s Report and Order, there are only two sentences under the heading “Findings of Fact” which address this issue; however, there are additional findings of fact (although not denominated as such) in the Commission’s preceding discussion. Those findings include the following:

• The Sibley Rebuild and the Western Coal Conversion projects “were undertaken to extend the useful life of the Sibley Generating Station by 20 years and to comply with the Federal Clean Air Act,” and thereby “avoided building a new generation plant at substantially higher costs,” and allowed the Sibley unit to burn low-sulfur coal to meet environmental requirements.
• Aquila chose to conduct work on these projects only in off-peak periods to avoid the need to purchase power in peak-demand periods. Although this approach provided substantial savings for Aquila’s customers, it caused recovery problems for Aquila because it took several years to complete the projects.
• Two witnesses (Williams and Kolte) testified that the public policy reasons supporting the decision to grant the AAOs in this case are still applicable today and justify extending rate-base treatment to the unamortized costs.
• “Mr. Williams further testified that allowing a continuation of construction accounting of major capital projects by an AAO and including those construction costs in rate base provides an incentive for the utility to commit significant capital investment on a timely basis.”
• The “Commission agrees with Mr. Williams and Mr. Kolte that the public policy analysis upon which the Commission based its decision to initially authorize the Sibley AAOs is still sound.”

We find that the Commission’s Report and Order on this issue contained factual findings that were sufficiently definite, certain and specific to enable this court to review the decision intelligently and ascertain if the facts afford a reasonable basis for the order without resorting to the evidence.

The Commission’s discussion went on to observe that, in two prior decisions, “the Commission concluded these expenses were extraordinary in nature and justified the special [AAO] accounting treatment”; the Report and Order goes on to state that, in each of the earlier cases, “the Commission allowed the amortization of the expense over a 20 year period, plus the inclusion of the amortized amount in rate base.” Public Counsel argues that this last statement is “just plain wrong.” Public Counsel also contends that the Commission had no basis for making this statement, and that “the Commission’s misunderstanding of this history appears to be a very significant factor in the Commission’s ultimate decision to allow rate base treatment.”

We agree with Public Counsel that the portion of the transcript cited by the Report and Order as support for the final quoted statement, that two prior decisions had afforded these costs rate-base treatment, is not actually supportive. As the Commission pointed out in its brief, however, the substance of the statement is accurate. In the first decision, the Commission plainly afforded rate-base treatment to these costs, rejecting arguments of Staff and Public Counsel against such treatment:

The final matter to be addressed on this issue involved the length of time over which these deferred rates should be amortized and whether the unamor-tized portion of these costs should be reflected in rate base. Staff/Public Counsel contend that, if these costs are to be reflected in rates, they should be amortized over 20 years, the extended life of the Sibley Generating Station with the unamortized costs not reflected in rate base....
... Company contends that the unam-ortized portion of these costs should be included in rate base in order that Company may be compensated for the value of the money for the time occurring between the spending of the funds and their ultimate recovery.
The Commission determines that these costs should be amortized over 20 years which is the approximate extended life of the plant. The Commission finds that this approach matches the payments of the costs by the ratepayers for the rebuilding with their enjoyment of its benefits. The Commission further determines that the unamortized costs should be reflected in rate base. This is the usual practice when capital costs are amortized. [].

In a later decision, the Commission approved the terms of a nonunanimous stipulation regarding Sibley-related costs incurred subsequent to the earlier rate case; like the earlier order, the stipulation approved by the Commission provided that those costs would “ ‘be reflected in rate base and amortized over a twenty-year period.’ ”

In deciding to afford rate-base treatment to the deferred expenses at issue here, the Commission was entitled to rely on the fact that it had previously granted rate-base treatment to these costs. While it would have been preferable for the Report and Order to cite specifically to the Commission’s former decisions where this rate-base treatment was authorized, we will not convict the Commission of error where the factual statement it made, and on which it relied in reaching its decision, is in fact correct.

B.

In its second point, Public Counsel argues that the Commission incorrectly found that the deferred balances are capital costs even though the evidence shows that the deferred balances are expenses. The basis for this argument is that the Commission made several statements to the effect that the deferred costs included in the Sibley AAOs represent major capital additions to plant in service and should be treated the same way as other capital costs for these projects, and afforded rate-base treatment. Public Counsel argues that the Commission’s use of the adjective “capital” to describe these costs demonstrates that it “did not understand what the issue was about.”

We disagree. The Commission plainly understood the nature of the expenses comprising the unamortized balances at issue, as demonstrated by its statement that “[pjublic counsel appears to object to the AAOs on the basis that their balances include property taxes, carrying costs and depreciation expense related to the originally deferred amounts.” When the Commission stated that the deferred costs should be treated “the same way as other capital costs for these projects,” we believe that it was referring to the fact that, by specifying that Aquila would recover those costs over a twenty-year amortization period, it had required Aquila to “capitalize” those costs in an accounting sense. “Capitalize” is defined as “[t]o include (expenditures) in business accounts as assets instead of expenses.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 276 (4th ed.2006); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 238 (9th ed. 2009) (“To treat (a cost) as a capital expenditure rather than an ordinary and necessary expense.”).

Moreover, the Commission’s decision to afford rate-base treatment to unamortized deferred expenses — expenses which even Public Counsel acknowledges Aquila is entitled to recover — simply recognizes the proposition that when an investor’s recoupment on his investment is delayed, compensation for the delayed recovery may be appropriate. In a case holding that prejudgment interest is available in cases of inverse takings, our Supreme Court has recognized that “the time value of money” is a “basic economic concept.” Akers v. City of Oak Grove, 246 S.W.3d 916, 921 (Mo. banc 2008). Our Supreme Court has long recognized that affording a utility’s investors a reasonable return on their investments is among the Public Service Commission Act’s fundamental purposes. According to the Court, the Act was designed:

to require the general public not only to pay rates which will keep public utility plants in proper repair for effective public service, but further to insure to the investors a reasonable return upon funds invested. The police power of the state demands as much. We can never have efficient service, unless there is a reasonable guaranty of fair returns for capital invested.

State ex rel. Washington Univ. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 308 Mo. 328, 272 S.W. 971, 973 (1925).

While we do not hold that the Commission was required to permit this rate-base treatment, we believe that allowing recovery of a rate of return on expenses which are properly recoverable, during the delay in recovery of those expenses due to a Commission-imposed twenty-year amortization period, is a reasonable exercise of the Commission’s ratemaking authority.

C.

Finally, Public Counsel argues that the Commission’s decision is arbitrary and capricious because it conflicts with In re Missouri Gas Energy’s Tariff Sheets De signed to Increase Rates for Gas Service in the Company’s Missouri Service Area, 7 Mo. P.S.C.3d 394 (Aug. 21, 1998) (“MGE ”), and the Commission offered no explanation for its departure from MGE’s holding.

There are several flaws in this argument. First, as Public Counsel itself acknowledges, the PSC is not bound by stare decisis based on prior administrative decisions, so long as its current decision is not otherwise unreasonable or unlawful. See, e.g., State ex rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 120 S.W.3d 732, 736 (Mo. banc 2003) (“an administrative agency is not bound by stare decisis ”); State ex rel. Mo. Gas Energy v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 186 S.W.3d 376, 390 (Mo.App. W.D.2005). In addition, Public Counsel ignores that, even if the Commission’s allowance of rate-base treatment here were inconsistent with MGE, as we have explained above the Commission’s current decision is consistent with two prior decisions involving the very same costs at issue here. The Commission could hardly be faulted for failing to follow a decision involving a different utility, and a different set of facts, where its decision adheres to earlier rulings involving precisely the same factual scenario.

MGE is, in any event, distinguishable. There, in disallowing rate-base treatment of certain unamortized deferred costs, the Commission emphasized that it was allowing MGE to amortize the deferred costs at issue over a ten-, rather than twenty-, year period, and that in exchange for this shorter cost-recovery period MGE would be denied rate-base treatment of the unamor-tized portion of those costs: “[gjiven that the Company will recover the amortized amount of the SLRP deferral ... in ten years, instead of the previous 20 years’ amortization period, it is proper for the ratepayers and shareholders to share the effect of regulatory lag by allowing the Company to earn a return of the SLRP deferred balance but not a return on the SLRP deferred balance.” 7 Mo. P.S.C.3d at 408. Here, Aquila was given no similarly abbreviated amortization period.

Conclusion

Because the Commission’s Report and Order and Tariff Compliance Orders were lawful and reasonable, we affirm.

All concur.

      . Aquila later changed its name to KCP & L Greater Missouri Operations Company; however, all parties use the name "Aquila” in their briefs, and we follow suit (both to refer to the entity as it presently exists, and to refer to predecessor entities).

      . As the caption reflects, Aquila also filed a petition for review in the circuit court, and its suit was designated as the lead case when the multiple review proceedings were consolidated. Aquila does not raise any challenges to the Commission’s rulings in this Court.

      .Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as updated through the 2009 Cumulative Supplement.

      . We note that in State ex rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 311 S.W.3d. 361 (Mo.App. W.D.2010), this Court reversed on retroactive ratemaking grounds a later Commission order which approved tariff sheets submitted by Aquila which sought to adjust its rates based, in part, on fuel cost increases occurring prior to the effective date of the Tariff Compliance Orders challenged here.

      . The text of § 386.130 has apparently remained unchanged since its enactment in 1913 through the present.

      . We note that Industrial Intervenors also argue generally that the Commission’s failure to itself issue the Tariff Compliance Orders permitted the Commission to evade the requirements of the Open Meetings Law, §§ 610.010-610.035. Industrial Intervenors do not argue that the Regulatory Law Judge's actions themselves violated the Open Meetings Law. Moreover, as Aquila notes, this issue was not raised by Industrial Intervenors in their Applications for Rehearing of the Tariff Compliance Orders, and the issue is accordingly waived. § 386.500.2 (party seeking judicial review “shall not in any court urge or rely on any ground not so set forth in its application for rehearing”); State ex rel. Mo. Gas Energy v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 186 S.W.3d 376, 389 (Mo.App. W.D.2005). We accordingly do not áddress the issue further.

      . See American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 121 (4th ed.2006) (defining “authorize” to mean "[t]o grant- authority or power to,” or "[t]o give permission for”); Webster's Third New Int’l Dictionary of the English Language 146 (1993) (“authorize”- defined as "to endow with authority or effective legal power, warrant, or right”).

      . Later decisions have noted the subsequent history, and precedential status, of Anderson Motor:

      After decision by the Kansas City Court of Appeals, the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Missouri, which adopted the majority opinion of the Kansas City Court of Appeals in toto, without republishing it. State ex rel. Anderson Motor Service Co. v. Public Service Commission, 348 Mo. 613, 154 S.W.2d 777, 780 (1941). Thus, when we refer to the Anderson opinion appearing in volume 134, South Western Reporter, Second Series, we are citing an opinion ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court of Missouri.

        Woodard v. Dir. of Revenue, 876 S.W.2d 810, 813 (Mo.App. S.D.1994).

      . Given our disposition we need not address the Commission’s and Aquila’s arguments that the Commission "expressly authorized” the Regulatory Law Judge to approve the Tariff Compliance Orders in the regulation appearing at 4 CSR 240-2.120(1).

      . Notably, Public Counsel does not argue that affording rate-base treatment to these deferred expenses is unauthorized by law.

      . For other cases discussing the AAO mechanism, see, e.g., State ex rel. Office of Pub. Counsel v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 301 S.W.3d 556, 567-68, 569-70 (Mo.App. W.D.2009); State ex rel. Mo. Gas Energy v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 210 S.W.3d 330, 335-36 (Mo.App. W.D.2006).

      . Public Counsel characterizes the Commission’s discussion as being simply a “history of the Sibley AAOs,” and a summarization of the parties’ testimony on the issue. We disagree. In the cited findings the Commission found that Aquila had conferred a benefit on ratepayers by incurring the costs at issue, and chose to adopt the (identified) rationale offered by two witnesses as to why rate-base treatment of these unamortized costs furthered the public interest. This discussion was not merely a report of the prior history of these costs and the evidence presented in this ratemaking proceeding.
      While a number of the findings we have described were not placed under the heading "Findings of Fact," they were "stated separately from the [Commission's] conclusions of law,” as required by § 536.090.

      . In the Matter of Missouri Public Service for Authority To File Tariffs Increasing Rates for Electric Service Provided to Customers in the Missouri Service Area of the Company, 30 Mo. P.S.C. (N.S.) 320, 341 (Oct. 5, 1990).

      . In the Matter of Missouri Public Service Proposed Tariffs To Increase Rates for Electric Service Provided to Customers in the Missouri Service Area of the Company, 2 Mo. P.S.C.3d 230, 234 (Feb. 25, 1994) (quoting nonunani-mous stipulation); id. at 237 (Commission approval of recovery of deferred costs on terms specified in stipulation).

      . Public Counsel argues that, unlike other deferred expenses for which the Commission has permitted rate-base treatment, the property taxes, carrying costs, and depreciation expenses at issue here are mere "bookkeeping entries,” "not actually dollars of investment capital funded by Aquila.” We note, however, that Public Counsel does not challenge the PSC’s issuance of the AAOs which allowed Aquila to defer these costs for consideration in a subsequent rate case, or the PSC’s establishment of a twenty-year amortization period over which Aquila would be permitted to recover these costs in rates. Given Public Counsel’s acknowledgment that the costs are in fact properly recoverable, and in light of the policy considerations which animated the Commission’s decision to afford these costs rate-base treatment, we do not believe the precise nature of the deferred costs at issue affects the propriety of the Commission’s decision.
      We also note that Public Counsel relies on the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission, 341 Mo. 920, 110 S.W.2d 749, 776-77 (1937), in support of its claim that rate-base treatment of Aquila’s unamortized, deferred Sibley-related costs was inappropriate. As reflected in its citation of Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. United States, 231 U.S. 423, 456, 34 S.Ct. 125, 58 L.Ed. 296 (1913), however, City of St. Louis apparently rejected only the utility’s contention "that such outlays as this should be capitalized and that consumers should pay a rate of return on them forever." 110 S.W.2d at 777 (emphasis added). Instead, the court held that the costs at issue "may be charged to operating expenses and amortized where necessary." Id. The court did not address whether unamor-tized costs could themselves be entitled to rate-base treatment until recouped in rates, and it certainly established no per se rule prohibiting rate-base treatment of such costs pending their recovery.