The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent has correctly billed Petitioner in the amount of $5,070.51 for additional electricity consumed between January of 1983 and September 30, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's meter #5C50349 was installed at 11145 N.W. 3rd Street, Miami, Florida, in February of 1969. Petitioner connected electrical service at that address on March 18, 1977, when he, his wife, and his daughter moved into a mobile home located at that address. They continued to reside there until approximately January 31, 1987. Petitioner was the customer of record during that time period and benefitted from the use of electricity at that address. On September 30, 1986, Kevin Burke, a meter man employed by Respondent, inspected meter #5C50349 at Petitioner's residence. His physical inspection revealed that there were drag marks on the meter disc and that the disc had been lowered. Drag marks and a lowered disc indicate that energy consumption is not being accurately registered on the meter. In addition, the customer's air conditioner was on, but the disc was not rotating. It was clear to Burke that the customer's meter had been physically altered. He replaced the tampered meter with a new meter on that same date. He carefully positioned the tampered meter in a foam-bottom meter can container and transported it to Respondent's storage room for safekeeping. The physical alterations to the meter were not, and could not have been, caused by improper handling by Burke. On November 18, 1986, Petitioner's tampered meter was tested by Respondent's employee Emory Curry. He performed a physical inspection of the meter which revealed that the inner canopy seal had possibly been glued back together, the bearings had been tampered with, the disc had been lowered, and drag marks appeared on the bottom of the disc. Curry then performed a watt-hour test. The full load portion of the test registered only 41.4%, and the light load registered 0. Each test should have resulted in a reading of 100%, plus or minus 2%. The mathematical weighted average for Petitioner's meter was 33.1%. This means that only 33.1% of the electricity actually used in the Taboada household was being recorded on the meter. In effect, Petitioner was not being charged for 66.9% of the energy being consumed at the household. Respondent verifies the accuracy of its watt-hour test weekly in accordance with industry standards. The watt-hour test has been sanctioned by the Florida Public Service Commission. A veri-board test was also performed on the meter. The results of that test were 20 over 8. This means that Petitioner's meter was only registering 8 kw when 20 kw was placed on the meter. The meter should have registered 20 kw. Using the weighted average registration of 33.1% from the meter test card, Respondent backbilled Petitioner's account for the 66.9% of the energy consumed that the meter was not registering. The as-billed amount was subtracted from the computer-generated rebilled amount to determine the amount to backbill. The rebilled amount was determined by a computer program which takes into account the varying franchise fees, fuel adjustment rates, taxes, and other rates in effect for each month of the rebilled period. Based upon that computer program, Respondent backbilled Petitioner for an additional 61,379 kilowatt hours consumed. Respondent's methodology for calculating rebillings is a reasonable estimate for determining the amount of energy consumed where there has been meter tampering. Petitioner's account was backbilled $5,070.51 from January, 1983, to September 30, 1986, the date on which the new meter was set. The January, 1983, date was selected because Respondent had not retained Petitioner's billing records prior to January, 1983. Since Respondent's investigation did not determine whether Petitioner physically altered the meter or whether it was altered by someone else, Respondent treated Petitioner's account as an inherited diversion. Accordingly, Respondent seeks no relief from Petitioner other than payment for the estimated electrical usage. A comparison of Petitioner's bills after the new meter was set on September 30, 1986, with past bills shows that Petitioner's electric consumption almost doubled. Since electrical usage varies throughout the year, a comparison is done by comparing the same month for consecutive years. For example, January bills are compared to January bills, and February bills are compared to other February bills. A valid comparison cannot be done by comparing November to December and December to January. In response to Petitioner's complaint that his tampered meter had been accurate but the new replacement meter was running fast, Respondent removed the replacement meter, replacing it with yet another. The replacement meter was then tested by Respondent and was determined to be 100% accurate. Although Petitioner had some gas appliances, the electrical appliances which existed in his mobile home were capable of consuming the kilowatt hours per month which were rebilled by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent has correctly backbilled Petitioner in the amount of $5,070.51 for additional electricity consumed between January of 1983 and September 30, 1986. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposals labeled introduction and evidence #3 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposal labeled evidence #1 has been rejected as not being supported by any evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposal labeled evidence #2 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument. Petitioner's proposal labeled evidence #4 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-19 and 22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 20 and 21 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 23 and 24 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Arturo Taboada 981 S.W. 137th Court Miami, Florida 33184 Steve Feldman, Esquire Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102-9100 Robert V. Elias, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building - Room 226 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0863
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes. At no time material hereto has Respondent been certified or licensed as an electrical contractor pursuant to Chapter 489, Part II, Florida Statutes. In September 1997, Respondent contracted with William and Carol Pike of McAlpin, Florida, for the installation of a room addition to the Pike's mobile home. The addition was not new, but had been used by a previous customer. The addition was to be connected to the main part of the house. The installation of the addition was completed in October 1997. The Pikes paid the full contract price of $8,636.00 to Respondent for the installation of the addition. The installation of the room addition required certain electrical work including: the addition had to be wired to the existing mobile home; electrical outlets and lights were wired into the addition; and a new outside light was added at the back door. The Pikes did not have any problems with the wiring of the room addition until April 6, 2001, when a power outage occurred in the area resulting in the Pike's losing electrical power. When the electricity was restored, the Pikes still had no electricity in the room addition. The Pikes contacted the local power company and upon checking, the Pikes were informed that the problem was inside their home. The morning after the power outage, the Pikes called Corbett's Mobile Home Center in an effort to get someone out to their home that day for the needed repairs. Robert Corbett was out of town and they were unable to reach anyone there who could come out to the Pike's home that day which was a Saturday. The Pike's then called Steve Frazier at Santa Fe Electrical Services, to check out the problem. Upon examination, Mr. Frazier found several problems with the electrical wiring under the house including open splices, wires spliced together, hot and ground wires reversed and no junction boxes on the wire junctions. Mr. Frazier recommended that the Pikes contact the original contractor to fix the problem and to leave the breaker off for their safety. The Pikes contacted Respondent and Respondent sent "Billy" to the Pike's residence on Tuesday, April 10, 2001. Billy was unable to correct the problem. The Pikes requested that Respondent send out the original permit with the repairmen. Respondent sent Billy and another person out to attempt to fix the problem but they were unsuccessful in doing so and did not bring any permit. The Pikes were not comfortable with what they perceived to be the level of competency of these employees of Respondent and they asked the men to leave. The Pikes then hired Steve Frazier to correct the wiring problems with the room addition. The electrical work performed by Frazier to correct the wiring problems included: re-wiring and running new wire to outlets; installation of several junction boxes; and repairing open splices in the walls and ceiling. Mr. Frazier obtained the appropriate permit, completed the work of rewiring and obtained a final inspection which was approved. The Pikes paid $855.00 to Santa Fe Electrical Services for this repair work. The Pikes filed a complaint with the Suwannee County Licensing Board. According to Pat Sura, a building inspector with the Suwannee County Building Department, the installation of the room addition is akin to the construction of an addition at a site and requires an electrical license and a permit. This differs from wiring a double-wide mobile home together, as that does not require a permit. The Department incurred investigative costs in the amount of $659.48 in this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, that an administrative penalty of $1,000.00 be imposed, and that Respondent pay Petitioner's costs of investigation in the amount of $659.48. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 2001.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was correctly billed for services by Respondent Florida Power & Light Company.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was the Respondent's customer of record at 2220 N. 57th Way, Hollywood, Florida (the subject premises) whose account number with Respondent was 72-12-201-01330-5. On September 21, 1987, Respondent's personnel conducted a "verify reading" procedure for the subject premises due to low consumption recorded during the regular September meter reading. The meter reader sent to verify the meter reading found that the meter in place at the subject premises was not the meter of record. The meter of record was Meter No. 5C81831. The meter found at the subject premises on September 21, 1987, was Meter No. 5C61037. Meter No. 5C61037 was last known by Respondent to have been installed at Petitioner's rental property at 5600 Farragut Street, Hollywood, Florida. Respondent's records reflect that Meter 5C61037 was replaced at that rental property in March or April of 1987, but its records do not reflect why it was replaced or who obtained possession of Meter 5C61037. On October 19, 1987, the meter of record, Meter No. 5C81831, was found back in place and operating at the subject premises. On October 19, 1987, Petitioner requested that he be placed in Respondent's "call ahead" program where Respondent would call Petitioner to arrange for a specific time for the meter reader to enter upon Petitioner's property for the purposes of reading the meter. On December 16, 1988, one of Respondent's meter readers found the meter at the subject premises to have been installed upside down. On January 26, 1989, Respondent removed the meter at the subject premises for meter testing and installed a new meter. On March 13, 1989, Respondent, Florida Power & Light Company billed Petitioner the sum of $3,170.14, of which $357.38 was for current diversion investigation charges and $2,812.76 was for unmetered and unauthorized use of electricity. The backbilling was based on unauthorized consumption between September 1987 to January 1989. The backbilling period began with the discovery of the meter switch on September 21, 1987, and ended with the installation of the new meter on January 26, 1989. Petitioners' kilowatt hour consumption history shows abnormally low consumption of electrical services during the backbilled period relative to other time periods. The investigation and Respondent's records establish that the subject premises received unauthorized, unmetered electrical energy through meter switching. Respondent calculated the amount of the backbilling by the average percentage of use method, pursuant to pertinent rules and guidelines adopted by the Florida Public Service Commission. The backbilling was appropriate because of the unauthorized use of electricity. The calculation of the amount of the backbilling was a reasonable estimate of the amount of the unauthorized electricity used. The amounts charged for the investigation were reasonable. Petitioner paid to Respondent the amount of the backbilling. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Rule 25-6.104, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: In the event of unauthorized or fraudulent use, or meter tampering, the utility may bill the customer on a reasonable estimate of the energy used. Section 3.3 of Respondent's approved tariff (second revised sheet no. 6.030) authorizes Respondent, in the event of unauthorized use, to bill the customer for all extra expenses, including expenses for clerical work, testing, and inspection. Respondent established in this proceeding that Petitioner obtained unauthorized electrical services by means of meter switching, that Respondent reasonably estimated the amount of those unauthorized electrical services so obtained through approved methodology, and that the amounts of the backbilling both as to electrical services and as to the costs of investigation were reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent correctly backbilled Petitioner the sum of $3,170.14 for investigative costs and for unauthorized use of electricity between September 21, 1987, and January 26, 1989, thereby rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the backbilling. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are incorporated in the preliminary statement. It is unnecessary to adopt these procedural matters as findings of fact. All other proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: K. Crandal McDougall, Esquire Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102-9100 Robert V. Elias, Esquire Public Service Commission Fletcher Building, Room 226 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0863 Mark Shoff 2220 North 57 Way Hollywood, Florida 33021 Steve Tribble, Director of Records and Recording Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street, Room 116 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Rob Vandiver, General Counsel Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street, Room 212 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent for alleged violations of Sections 489.127(1) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, is the sole owner of Expeditior’s Home Improvement Agency. Expeditor’s represents various contractors in the area and markets various home improvement products and services to a homeowner. Respondent is not licensed and has never been licensed to engage in construction or electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Nor did Petitioner’s business possess a certificate of authority to practice as a qualified business in contracting. In the past the company was paid by the homeowner for a construction project and would subsequently hire licensed contractors to do the work. However, that type of arrangement constituted contracting for which Respondent was not licensed. After a complaint for unlicensed contracting by Petitioner in November 2003, Respondent changed his manner of doing business in order to comply with the licensure statutes. Currently, Respondent solicits business for a contractor for which the contractor pays Respondent. The contractor is paid by the homeowner for the work the contractor performs. At about the same time, Respondent revised his forms and business cards to reflect the contractor who will be doing the work, and a disclosure statement stating that Expeditor’s is not a licensed contractor and is acting as a sales agent for the contractor listed in the contract. References to contracting activities were removed from the face of the contract. In December, 2003, Respondent through Expeditor’s employed Saleem Ahmad as an independent contractor/salesman for the company. Respondent had known Mr. Ahmad through a company, similar to Expeditor’s, that they had both been employed by. As a sales representative of Expeditor’s, Mr. Ahmad was given Expeditor’s form proposals/contracts and business cards. At the top of the contract forms were the words “Vinyl Siding, Security Replacements Windows, Sunrooms . . . New Home Construction.” At the bottom of the forms were the words, “Networking Qualified Licensed & Insured Contractors.” Similarly, Mr. Ahmad possessed a business card indicating Expeditor’s engaged in work that included vinyl siding, sunrooms, windows, roofing, fencing, and new home building. Mr. Simmons also had a similar business card. The forms and cards possessed by Mr. Ahmad were the forms that Expeditor’s current forms replaced. The evidence was not clear whether Mr. Ahmad had been given the new forms. Around February 9, 2004, Mr. Ahmad, acting as an apparent agent of Expeditor’s contracted with Mr. Clarence Gavin to, inter alia, replace two windows, install a kitchen counter top and cabinets, four ceiling fans, and remount a water heater. The contract price for the work was $19,875. Such work required a licensed contractor. The contract was written on an Expeditor’s proposal form and listed Calvin Hall as the Architect. The evidence was not clear whether Mr. Hall was an architect. However, the evidence did demonstrate that Mr. Hall was a licensed contractor and was the contractor against who Mr. Gavin was filing the complaint. Mr. Simmons never saw the contract Mr. Ahmad had written for the Gavin job. Likewise, he never saw any money Mr. Gavin may have paid for the job. Indeed, Mr. Simmons was unaware of the Gavin contract or job until the investigation in this matter. Apparently, Mr. Ahmad was defrauding Mr. Simmons and misusing old Expeditor’s business forms. However, the evidence was clear that Respondent did not intentionally engage in unlicensed contracting. Therefore, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 489.127 (1) (f) and 489.531 (1), Florida Statutes (2004), and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 C. Erica White, Esquire 327 Office Plaza Drive, Suite 211 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Washington, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully tampered with the utility meter at his residence in order to avoid payment of utility charges. Whether Respondent damaged his utility meter as a result of the alleged tampering with his utility meter. Whether the actions of Respondent violated the provisions of Sections 943.1395(5),(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code by perpetration of an act which would constitute failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on August 31, 1971 and was issued certificate number GF-8215. In 1988, Respondent was charged in the County Court of Orange County, Florida with two misdemeanor offenses of willfully altering or tampering with a meter or other apparatus belonging to a utility and theft of utilities, in violation of subsections 812.01(2), Florida Statutes. On April 20, 1988, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offence of Theft of Utilities. The court withheld adjudication and placed Respondent on unsupervised probation for a term of one year with the condition that he remain at liberty without violating the law and he complete 50 hours of voluntary service. In addition, Respondent paid approximately $6,000 in restitution to OUC. The state announced a nolle prosequi of Count 1 of the Information. Respondent successfully completed his probationary period. On February 25, 1986, Robert Carney, OUC employee, was dispatched to Respondent's residence in response to Respondent's complaint of "flickering lights". He observed the lugs on the meter base of the electric utility meter, located on the outside screened porch, to be burned out. There was no plastic seal on the meter base at the time of his inspection, and the prongs on the meter looked worn but the meter was operating properly. He advised someone at the residence to call an electrician and left new lugs to be installed. No other services were performed at Respondent's home by OUC. On the same date, Respondent hired an electrical contractor who observed that the right hand jaw assembly was burned out. He replaced the entire jaw assembly and reinstalled the meter. On June 11, 1987, after receiving a complaint, Frank J. Scalletta, Investigator, Revenue Protection Unit, OUC, went to 326 Ventura Avenue, Orlando, the residence of Respondent. He observed the meter, OUC #5C14567, in an inverted position, with the padlock open and the seal intact but lying inside. An electrical meter installed upside down will run backwards and reduce the number of kilowatt hours of electricity that is recorded as being fed into a building, resulting in an incorrect reading. On June 11, 1987 electric meter #5C14567 was removed from the meter box at Respondent's residence. It was replaced with a new electrical meter reading zero, which had been tested on May 26, 1987 and shown to be 99.92% accurate. A seal was installed to the base to avoid tampering. Meter #5C14567 had "shiny blades" down to bare copper on all four blades, which is evidence of possible tampering. Test results on meter #5C14567 indicate that it was operating normally when removed from Respondent's home and that the worn prongs resulted from being pulled and inserted into the meter box from between 50 and 100 times. One of the prongs showed signs of heat damage. Respondent's consumption of electricity was monitored from the date of the installation of the replacement meter until the end of 1989. Comparisons of Respondent's consumption level from 1979 to July, 1987 showed a significant increase in Respondent's consumption of electricity after July 13, 1987. This increase in consumption has been maintained through December, 1989. The comparison indicates that for the month of October 1985 there was a negative (or minus) reading on the meter. Respondent lived alone at 326 Ventura Avenue, Orlando, Florida since 1979, except for a teenage son who resided with him for approximately two months during the year. During the period in question (February, 1986-July, 1987), he had done a substantial amount of overtime and worked a second job when no one was at home. During the summer of 1987, Respondent had surgery on a cyst and he used his hot tub extensively to facilitate the healing of his cyst, resulting in increased electrical consumption. Respondent denied tampering with the meter or knowingly receiving electricity without it being reported for payment. Respondent testified that he entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of theft of utilities because the court proceedings had taken six months up to that time and high media attention gave him great anxiety. In addition, legal fees had mounted to over $12,000 and had nearly depleted his savings. Respondent has been a law enforcement officer for over 25 years and has had no prior disciplinary problems. Respondent served for many years with the Winter Park Police Department, was promoted to the rank of Captain with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and presently serves as Chief of Police for the City of Eatonville, Florida. Several witnesses testified as to Respondent's good character and reputation for truth and honesty in the law enforcement community and the community at large.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following offense: Failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months, followed by a probationary period of one year, subject to the successful completion of such career development training and counseling as the Commission may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: Petitioner waived the filing of proposed findings of fact. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: Accepted: unnumbered paragraphs 1,2,3,4 (on page 1) The remainder of Respondent's proposed findings found on page two through four are accepted in part and rejected in part as: fact and argument intermixed; recitation of testimony of the witness; against the greater weight of the evidence; irrelevant evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Joseph Morrell, Esquire Woolfork, Morrell, and Williams, P.A. Post Office Box 540085 Orlando, FL 32854-0085 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
