FPMC Agenda 08/31/202208/31/2022
16.A
COLLIER COUNTY
Advisory Boards
Item Number: 16.A
Item Summary: Floodplain Management Planning Committee - August 2, 2022
Meeting Date: 08/31/2022
Prepared by:
Title: — Building Plan Review & Inspections
Name: Christopher Mason
08/02/2022 2:50 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Deputy Department Head - GMD — Growth Management Department
Name: James C French
08/02/2022 2:50 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Communications, Government, and Public Affairs Michael Brownlee PAM Review Completed
Advisory Boards Michael Cox Meeting Pending 08/31/2022 12:00 AM
Packet Pg. 193
16.A.1
Collier County Government
Communications, Government & Public Affairs
3299 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 102
Naples, Florida 34112-5746
July 20, 2022
zl�
colliergov.net
twitter.com/CollierPIO
facebook.com/CollierGov
youtube.com/CollierGov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Notice of Public Meeting
Collier County Floodplain Management Planning Committee
Collier County, Florida
August 2, 2022
9:00 a.m.
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Floodplain Management Planning Committee will meet on
Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Conference Room 609/610 of the Growth Management Department
building, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr, Naples, Florida.
About the public meeting:
Two or more members of the Board of County Commissioners and the Development Services Advisory
Committee may be present and may participate at the meeting. The subject matter of this meeting may be an
item for discussion and action at a future Board of County Commissioners meeting or Development Services
Advisory Committee meeting
All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak. All registered public speakers will be limited
to three minutes unless changed by the chairman.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying
activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or
quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department.
Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or other reasonable
accommodations in order to participate in this proceeding, should contact the Collier County Facilities
Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail E., Suite 101, Naples, Florida 34112, or (239) 252-8380,
as soon as possible, but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event. Such reasonable accommodations
will be provided at no cost to the individual.
For more information, call Christopher Mason at (239) 252-2932.
Packet Pg. 194
(ZZOZ `Z;sn6nd- aa;;lu wOO 6uluueld;uOwOBeuelN uieldpool=l : Lti6ZZ) ul u61S ZZOZ-Z-8 :;uauayoe;;d
..I
M
_
,
V
CL
^�
w
v
v
�-
W
u
.Q
iA
y
�
W
1
ti
za
LO
0)
IL
CD
a
L -o
� � Y
E E N
3 O U
C •�-
(D L 0
c 0 C
0 v C
E o
3c r o
o > E
M 0.s
M 00
E a, }
` c
0
m -0
m E 0 M
L
L Qi M 0
O L C
LL 3 O pl
C IA
C C ++ pl
3 E >
L
t4 O ,0 C
C C C O
O L u
E -03 L r
O LonY
u >. pp Op
C C
O. T pu7
U
i C C U
r Op m
3 � E
C C 3
U ` L f0
O >L
L O � •
o. to M 0
L
L- m u O.
b3
-0
c -0 ,: c
:o a v o
L y 3 to
to 0'M
m
L 0
3 U Q-
O C 3
>.o0c
A V
m r
c u !u O
u C O
0 u Q C
0
• 3 �n O
y a
w 'v o
* H m u >
v
Yv2�
O '0 0 N
m 0 m u M
W Y W _
3
m E w 0
w E O u
0 r O aJ
CU
CC�
AG
W
-W
.E
E
O
u
ba
.F
cu
cu
tw
C
YL
O
z°
(ZZOZ `Z;sn6nd- as;;luauao3 6uluueld;uOwOBeuew uleldpool=l : Lti6ZZ) ul u61S ZZOZ-Z-8 :4uewLj3e4;y
N
N
O
N
N
}.
N
dA
c�
.a
N
O1
I—
W.
P
�
I
j
�-+
O
r-41
L
�
`
V
V
G1
CL
m
v
'lu
•E
ui
v
1�
Z
co
r
a1
d
r•+
d
Y
C(A
m L
H
L 'a
� � Y
E E d
C O u
t �
C O C
O L O
t G1
O..a fl
vi E O
CA C t O
a s m E
to a - �O
= C
E (AY
c
3 a v
M :�
ro- CA-O
m E L
a N Y O
O L C
ti = O
j C 'LA
C C a+ a1
m M 3
3 E >
to o 0 c
c c ==
O u
E o LmA r
u > W 00
a = c c
C T 3 y
u u
C u
to
_ m E to
w a, O
-a C Gl
o
a a a u
L
O C
N m u O.
ate+ > Y
Op -0 �
O
L w VI
to y a' +O,
i W1 M
= u H O
O c
> O O C
U V 'fC
m
O u p
Ou O
u O. C
m 3
_ Ln o
v °• > -
r �'v O
* m u >
iF N H C
* t 4A >
H C N C f6
> O La O= fA
'a C 'a u >
m O O y ++
N L 7
m E O
w E O u
IMA O t a Gl
y C N t
a .m m "
s a L v Y
U �' 3
(ZZOZ `Z;sn6nV - oell! woo 6uiuueld IUBWO6euelN uieldpool_A : L176ZZ) ul u6iS ZZOZ-Z-8 :;uewt43ejjv
..
R
O
O
w
cu
u
C
L
O
U
I
41
E
m
Q.
w
C
C
w
E
w
a0
m
C
fC
3
O
V
ti
CA
r
t�
a
r
m
L
c
v
to
'-
a
v
m
E
E v
O u
t ,�
O
C
O
O
. C
s
v C
a.0
fl
E O
V
vi
C L
O
Gl
N a+
++
�O
o >
E
c0
a t
O
E
v�f O
LJ T
C
f6
O1
O f,
C
O
3
� v
�'
m
- .0
o
IH
6
m
E VI
f0
(6 it
O
O
ti
L C
3 O
`►-
> C
+, O
a0+
'in
3 E
to
O O
.r-
C
3
C
C C
O =
.0
u
E
3
t
O
+�
u
T tw
OD
a
T 3
y
u
C
u
3
Ef6
H
w..
O—
m
E c
N
O
N N
> L
u
N
L
O C
m
O
a
,n
M
m u
a
as+
3
O
L
> Vi
41
O
�
y
00
G1
cr
� GJ
M
R3
3
u 0
'a
CL
O
>'
C
O O
3
C
++
w u
L
+'
m
C
,
u
O
u
d
O
Y
7
u a
a
F+
C
3
Ln
m
3 H
O
a �
m u
>
a
(A v
C
0
ys+
iny
w
>
C
O
`1 C
O p
R
v
m
E Y
C
Gl
E
O
H
t C
0
-
C
i
a
*
G1
1
L �%
�
16.A.3
Floodplain Management Planning Committee Quarterly Meeting
Tuesday, August 2, 2022
Collier County GMD Building — Room 609/610
AGENDA
1. Approval of previous meeting minutes from May 3, 2022
2. Collier County CRS Verification Cycle Visit 2022 Update
3. 2022-2023 Repetitive Loss Area Analysis
4. Coastal Study Map Revision Status
5. Collier County & Partner Jurisdiction 2022 Hurricane Exercise
6. ULI Climate Risk & Resilience Class Attendance
7. Mitigation Actions Update
8. Other Items/Committee Correspondence
Motion to Ajourn: Time Ajourned:Go
c
m
a�
Q
V
a
u_
r
c
m
E
r
a
Packet Pg. 198
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
Naples, Florida, May 3, 2022
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Floodplain Management Planning
Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on
this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management
Division Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
Chairman: Eric Johnson, CC Staff, LDC Planning Manager
Vice Chairman: William Lang
Kenneth Bills
Christa Carrera, City of Naples
Kelli DeFedericis, City of Marco Island
Duke Vasey
Lisa Koehler (excused)
Terry Smallwood, Everglades City (excused)
Stan Chrzanowski (excused)
William Miller
Deborah Curry, CC Staff (excused)
Linda Orlich
Ed Moulton (excused)
ALSO PRESENT: Chris Mason, Floodplain Coordinator
Derek Perry, CAO Staff
Packet Pg. 199
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. and a quorum of seven was established; an
eighth member joined later.
1. Approval of the agenda and previous meeting minutes from Nov. 18, 2021
Mr. Vasey moved to approve the agenda. Second by Vice Chairman Lang. Carried unanimously 7-0.
Mr. Vasey said Vice Chairman Lang brought to his attention that Mr. Lang's name wasn't listed as Vice
Chairman on the roster on the title page of the Nov. 18, 2021, minutes and asked if they should be
amended.
Chairman Johnson noted that the minutes were correct and that he'd been elected Vice Chairman later
in that meeting, which was reflected in the minutes. Today's minutes will reflect that he is Vice
Chairman.
Mr. Bills moved to approve the minutes of the Nov. 18, 2021, meeting, as presented. Second by Ms.
Carrera. Carried unanimously 7-0.
[Ms. DeFedericis joined the meeting at 9: 07 a.m.]
2. Floodplain Management Ordinance 2022-07 Update
Mr. Mason said that dating back to January 2021, all Florida communities were tasked with updating
their Floodplain Management Ordinances to adopt new provisions. We've spoken about this before in
the FMPC. This involved removing the previous 36-inch elevation requirement for pre -FIRM mobile
home parks and we had some new constraints on the siting of accessory structures. I'm sure the City of
Naples has gone through this process. Marco Island doesn't have accessory structures, right?
Ms. DeFedericis said Marco Island doesn't have accessory structures.
Mr. Mason said we can discuss that afterward. The Board of County Commissioners accepted and
adopted our update to the Floodplain Management Ordinance, 2022-07, on March 8th and that keeps us
all in line with ISO and FEMA for CRS purposes.
In pre -FIRM mobile home parks, you used to be able to bring in mobile homes and site them only 36
inches above grade, rather than having to site them 1 foot above Base -Flood Elevation. For example, if
you were in Goodland, at the Drop Anchor Mobile -Home Park and the ground elevation was 4, but the
Base Flood Elevation was 9, you'd only have to elevate to 7, whereas if you had Base Flood Elevation
plus 1, you would have had to go to 10, so that has been struck through. That is an old provision that
dated back to 1976 in the Code of Federal Regulations and that is now gone. It may pose some
challenges for residents in pre -FIRM mobile home parks, but they're going to have to elevate to Base -
Flood Elevation plus 1.
With the accessory structures, there are multi layers to that. We now have a variance process for certain
accessory structures. It's on our Floodplain Management website.
[Showing PowerPoint Presentation]
2
Packet Pg. 200
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
Ms. DeFedericis said Marco Island does have that in its ordinance, but we're looking to remove it. We
inadvertently have it because we have the non -conversion agreement, which we think addresses their
concern with turning non -habitable to habitable. So, because we don't allow accessory structures, that
intensive a code is not really necessary for Marco.
Mr. Mason said here we can have a matrix. For people who want to site or place an accessory structure
on their property, they now have a multistep process they have to go through and this also goes back to
1976, with the code of Federal Regulations 44 CFR. Apparently, in that document it was speaking
toward siting accessory structures. When people wanted to wet floodproof or put things below base -
flood elevation using flood vents, they were required to get a variance. However, out of 22,000
communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance program, nobody ever enforced that. So,
FEMA produced a document in 2020 that said that must stop and here are your options.
The State Floodplain Management Office worked with all the communities here and worked with the
federal government to come up with an easier approach to this, and this is the result of that. So, if
someone has a structure that is less than 600 square feet, they can place it below Base Flood Elevation,
if they would like, and they would have to put in flood vents. One caveat is that we're not going to
require an Elevation Certificate for those anymore because the Elevation Certificate is there just to
verify that the structure is meeting certain height standards, so if you're wet floodproofing or using flood
vents, why would an Elevation Certificate be necessary? You would have to produce the actual flood -
vent product guide so we can put it in the permit file. But you will no longer be required to provide an
Elevation Certificate.
With structures between 600 and 1,200 square feet, if they would like to use flood vents, wet -flood proof
it and put it below Base Flood Elevation, they have to get what's called an Administrative Variance,
which is written into our Floodplain Ordinance. It's a document, not a full-blown variance process, such
as a conditional use, variance board or a hearing examiner. It's something that would be locally signed
off by myself. To date, we have not run into one yet. We have a document ready to go, but no one has
wanted to wet floodproof.
There are a lot of times people don't want to put flood vents in structures that are larger than 600 square
a�
o,
feet. They would like it to be high or they'd like it to be above, or at least, Base -Flood Elevation. They
N
don't feel like putting flood vents in, which could be expensive. Plus, you're punching holes in your
o
structure and people don't want to do that.
M
Mr. Bills asked if they accept any responsibility for any damage that may occur.
Mr. Mason said it depends. Sometimes, when you get a structure 600 square feet and above, they may
be insuring those. I think when you're getting structures that are 600 square feet or less, they're usually
6-
not insuring them. But something up to 1,200 square feet, that's a sizable structure, so it's very possible.
G.
Mr. Bills asked whether specifically, with flood insurance, would they be eligible to file a claim if they
E
had flood insurance, if they were below?
a
Mr. Mason said they would, if it was properly vented.
Vice Chairman Lang said what they'll usually do is, if it's an appurtenant structure, there are some
options there. There are times where, this doesn't usually occur — I'm just talking worst case scenario
3
Packet Pg. 201
May 3, 2022
— they will put the flood openings in and block the flood openings they don't want because they don't
want bugs to get in there in the off-season. To answer your question, let's say that it's not properly
vented and it floods and they were able to get a flood policy for that particular structure, many times
what will occur is when the adjuster comes out to look at the flooding damage and write up the estimate,
they will observe that, they will note it in their report and usually what has historically occurred is the
insurer will say, `OK, you're out of compliance.' They won't explicitly state that, they will say this is
what you were rated at, this is what you truly need to be rated at based on our observations, pay us the
difference and then we'll fulfill the claim. Sometimes that difference is several thousand dollars.
Usually, this is more applicable when you have an enclosure and a home below the living area and they
make it into a grandmother suite. I've had plenty of people after Hurricane Irma come to us and say,
`Hey, why is my claim being denied? Why is this happening, what's going on? I ask them what did you
have there? For instance, they tell me their mother-in-law lives in there. Well, then it's limited coverage
below living areas. Your insurer is telling you now that they're treating it as living area and they're
going to adjust your premium and you haven't paid that premium because that's not what the agreement
was. So, there are some controls there, but most people who have structures that are 600 square feet or
less, they don't usually want to insure them. Usually, it's a lender that does and it's a part of the
collateral. Unfortunately, sometimes they're getting stuck with this structure. They're forced to pay
flood insurance, and it's not really at a coverage level that's worth the premium. So, in the deductible, as
Chris stated before, 600 feet to 1,200 square feet. They're probably doing something in that structure
where they're willing to elevate it to compliance, anyway, whether it's a studio or they're going to
install AC, something like that.
Mr. Mason said they did the analysis a few months ago because of DSAC. We had a very small amount
of buildings that exceeded 600 square feet that chose to wet floodproof. When we talk about structures
°o
that are 1,200 square feet or larger, I think we had three total in over 2,700 total permits for accessory
LL
structures in a three-year period, and I can guarantee you those three that were wet floodproof was
because somebody messed up. At the end, they said they were going to elevate to a certain level, and
N
then it came back at the final Elevation Certificate and it was not at BFE. It was below BFE and they
had to go in there and punch holes in it and put vents in it as a process to get the permit approved.
c
2
Mr. Vasey said the whole issue really is that accessory structures were not designed to be lived in, have
Co
services, water, bathrooms or anything. They're just basically, we just put feed in them or a tractor in
c
them to keep them out of the weather. They're not anchored down. In a high wind, they end up in the
M
neighbor's backyard, and that's where the insurance claim comes in, where that structure actually left
Lh
the owners property and damaged other property. So, what you have here is that the County doesn't
2
have an ordinance. We tried to get one about 25 years ago that would anchor at least the building to
c
some part of the ground surface. It wasn't very popular with the building community. In fact,
floodproofing is a swear word if you talk to the builders. They don't want to do it at all simply because it
a
adds too much cost to what they're doing. And if you can't stick a tent structure straight on the backyard
Em
surface of it, nobody's interested.
a�
E
Ms. DeFedericis said both are going to be rated on the ground for flood insurance, anyway, so whether
they have flood vents or not, it's going to be a higher flood insurance if they do rate it, so they're going
a
to want to elevate it because it's a substantial difference.
4
Packet Pg. 202
May 3, 2022
Ms. Orlich said that when we got our insurance, I always ask about those out -structures because it's
automatically written into the insurance policy that you can't not insure for out -structures, even though
you don't have any out -structures. So, they charge you for it whether you have it or not.
Vice Chairman Lang asked if she was referring to a homeowner's policy.
Ms. Orlich said she was.
Vice Chairman Lang said the only work -around here is that there is a provision that if your accessory
structure, or what they call "appurtenant structure detached from the primary," is in the same flood zone
as your residence, and you're both in the Special Flood -Hazard Area, there is a provision where you can
apply 20% of the primary policy to the accessory structure. It was kind of a work -around because you
didn't need elevation data to provide for the flood policy, so that's where, historically, it would become
a problem for the taxpayer. But it was very helpful a long time ago with lenders that were making
homeowners get flood insurance for those little structures and the coverage wasn't worth the squeeze.
Mr. Mason said that lastly, with structure sizes that are 1,200 square feet or more and they want a wet
floodproof it, i.e. below Base -Flood Elevation, it has to go before the Hearing Examiner. Nobody wants
to do that. We have what's called a Non -Conversion Agreement because we do sometimes have people
who have structures like these that are used for storage or parking. They want to change them into some
type of living space. The next thing you know, they've put in a bathroom. So, prior to issuing these
permits, we have what's called a Non -Conversion Agreement if they are not going to meet Base -Flood
Elevation Plus 1, they have to sign a document and have it recorded at the Clerk's Office and it goes
with the permit and states that they will not convert it to living space because if you have something
that's not Base Flood Elevation Plus 1, it will therefore be non -compliant.
Ms. Carrera asked whether you have to meet ASCE 24, regardless.
Mr. Mason said not to his knowledge. They can be cited below BFE. N
Ms. Carrera asked what's requiring the variance.
a�
a,
in
Mr. Mason said it was State driven. The State Flood Management Office provided three different
o
options to pick from and we took option B. This was a process designed by the State Floodplain
M
Management Office. This is what we accepted and adopted into our Ordinance.
LO
U)
a�
Vice Chairman Lang said this goes back to the Feds. So now the state of Florida, in this state model
w
=
ordinance, has said, `OK, we've got to be in compliance with the Feds. Here are your options. With our
state model ordinance, you're either in compliance with the state model ordinance or you're not, so they
au
gave these options.
Ms. DeFedericis asked if there really is compliance with this Ordinance or is it a recommendation? I
think that might be where there's confusion. When we talked to Rebecca, it was recommendations, not
"You have to do this." And that's why Marco Island made the executive decision that the Non-
a
Conversion Agreement meets the requirements — because they're worried about them turning habitable,
so that's why they're wanting to enforce those. That's what we understood.
Ms. Carrera said we don't even allow that size. Up to 600 is the max.
5
Packet Pg. 203
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
Vice Chairman Lang said we have too many accessory structures in the County.
Mr. Mason said this was our best option. Even if it was a recommendation, we have too many
accessory structures in the County. And the writing is on the wall. You know what recommendations
are. They're eventually the standard.
Chairman Johnson asked if the Non -Conversion Agreement that's made available to the public on the
County's website is on County letterhead.
Mr. Mason said it was.
Ms. DeFedericis asked if the County did 30, 60 or 90 points.
Mr. Mason said the County did just the 30 points.
Ms. DeFedericis said if we're allowed to access the property, if there's an open permit, so it's not
annually, we have to go check it. But they're giving us the 60 points because we're saying we can access
it if there's an active permit. Where before with an active permit, you can't just go downstairs and look
at it. You have to check the area. So that's how we were able to get 30 more points.
3. Collier County CRS Verification Cycle Visit 2022 Update
Mr. Mason said we're currently in the midst of our three-year cycle visit. We just finished our 2018
cycle visit in April 2020. It took two years, and they came back to us last year and asked us to get ready
to do another in 202 1. 1 said there's no way because we just finished less than six months ago, so they
bumped it to 2022 and we have a cycle visit on June 16. Christa, with the City of Naples, has a cycle
visit on June 14. I'm the one managing the whole file because we are maxed out with building permits
and Elevation Certificate reviews, so this is 100% my responsibility. We're about 60% done. We've
already submitted the 300 Series Documentation. I'll probably be submitting the 400 Series
Documentation this Friday, and then we're going to finish up with the 500 and 600 Series
Documentation.
They have a set of activities that are numbered between 300 and 400 and 500 and 600, and it's
everything from outreach to Emergency Management, so we provide all our documentation. What we
receive from ISO is a 14-page document detailing everything I have to provide. I started working on this
last summer, so that gives you an idea of all the steps we have to take, all the documentation. I recently
helped another community that I used to work for navigate through this process up in North Florida.
They are a Class 8. They only had five pages, compared with our 14 pages, and we're a Class 5, so it's a
year-round thing. Our largest issue that we get all of our points over is our open space in the Special
Flood -Hazard Area. That's where we get a lot of credit. I've produced up to about 60 maps at this point
for that and I'll be producing about 20 more for the rest of the activities. I do a lot of this work at home
because I have ArcGIS at home, so it's a bit easier to do it outside of the regular work day.
Does anybody have any questions or do Marco and Naples have any comments on how your process is
going?
6
Packet Pg. 204
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
Ms. DeFedericis said she submitted in February and just got her EC score back, a 98. She would have
gotten a 100, but didn't replace two she knew that had errors, one she forgot machinery and one she
forgot a diagram. She had the surveyors correct them, but she didn't exchange them or she would have
gotten a 100.
Mr. Vasey asked if the ISO is the same as the CRS.
Mr. Mason said yes, that's what we call the auditing firm that's the liaison between the community and
FEMA. Collier County is a 5, Marco Island is a 6 and Naples is a 5. We always talk about CRS and
that's why this Advisory Board exists, because with CRS requirements for the Class 5 ranking, we have
over 70,000 insurance policies in Collier County. Of that, 60,000 policies are enforced. That means that
they're required to carry them. The 10,000 others are going to be low -risk or what used to be called a
preferred -risk policy, and that equates to those people getting a 25% discount for the policies in force.
That equates to about $8.3 million in savings that stays in the community.
That's one of the reasons we're on a three-year schedule. There's a lot of scrutiny because we're in the
top 10% of communities in savings overall against the 2,100 CRS communities nationwide. They assign
an ISO person to us from Portland, Oregon, who's a heavy hitter, no nonsense, to come down here and
go through our documents. What will happen is on June 16, this person will come down and we'll sit in
my office for most of the day, then we'll take some field trips out to go look at mitigated structures that
were repetitive losses, things like that. She may have some questions about some of that and say, "Let's
drive down to this location and see what was done here with this structure," or "I want to go see if this
place that Conservation Collier has is truly open space," things of that nature.
Chairman Johnson asked approximately how much money a resident saves.
Mr. Mason said that on average, it equates to about $189 in savings per policy.
Chairman Johnson asked if he knew the total number for all policies.
Mr. Mason said there's a total of 60,000 policies in force, so that $189 is going to be for those 60,000
policies. For people who have what we would call the preferred -risk policy, if I'm in an X-Zone and I'm
not in a high -risk flood zone, I don't get a discount on purchasing insurance because I'm already getting
such a reduced rate.
Ms. Carrera said that in the City of Naples we have 14,000 policies and our residents save an average
of $290 per policy, so on an annual savings, we're at about $4.1 million and we're in one of the top
percentages, even though we're small community.
Vice Chairman Lang said he just did the math for Collier. It's about $11.3 million.
Ms. DeFedericis said that with Marco Island, she's been trying to get the status since October because
they're telling us that because we're a Class 6 community and we hold the piece of the top 10% for the
discount that we're still at a three-year verification cycle. I finally got the information from them and
what Sherry Harper has provided is that there are 1,506 communities in the CRS program, and Marco is
No. 28 nationwide, with $3 million in savings, so you are probably No. 1. If we're No. 28 with only $3
million, I can only imagine what place nationwide you are.
as
c
in
N
N
O
N
M
LO
U)
as
c
IL
c
aD
E
a
7
Packet Pg. 205
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
4.
Mr. Mason said we got our EC score back. We submitted 1,200 Elevation Certificates for review and
those Elevation Certificates are for just residential and commercial structures, areas not reserved for
storage, parking or access. They're going to be something somebody is working in or living in. We
submitted 1,200 Elevation Certificates. They take a sample of 200 Elevation Certificates out of that
because they're not going to review all 1,200 and we scored 100%.
Chairman Johnson said congratulations. That's great.
Mr. Mason said that was for all new construction. We accepted about 53 LOMCs last year. He just set
up a process to pull up all the Elevation Certificates on a quarterly basis and staff can QC them. Then I
can QC the already QC'd ones. This is first time we've ever scored 100%.
Chairman Johnson said he asks these questions of Chris because it's important for the public to know
that participation in the CRS program is a benefit and is profitable to homeowners and property owners.
A discussion ensued and the following points were made:
• There has been continuity in all three floodplain managers in Collier County, Naples, and Marco
Island.
• Participation CRS program is a benefit to homeowners and property owners.
• The money typically goes back into the community, millions of dollars.
• Naples and Collier worked their way up to Class 5 since 1992 and both started as Class 7.
• The CRS program began in 1991.
• Is it possible to calculate how much each community has saved since the beginning?
• A select number of homeowners and property owners have been paid at least $2,000 over a 10-year
period and just getting that number from FEMA took six months.
Floodplain Management Section Development Review Totals: QT4 2021 & QT1 2022
Mr. Mason said we use a quarter -system here. We base it on our CRS recertification date, so Q4 of
2021 is really 2021, and 2022 basically goes from December, January, February, and March is when we =
submit all of our Elevation Certificates on an annual basis. Up until about two weeks ago, between CO
December and mid -April, we reviewed 1,220 Elevation Certificates and those were approved. That's N
for new construction of residential and commercial, an addition to a structure, an accessory structure, a
N
generator. It could be numerous things.
We have two people working on Elevation Certificates full-time and that includes under construction,
Elevation Certificates and finished construction. It's a task keeping up with all that paperwork and
S
making sure it all gets corrected so we can submit it correctly.
c�
a
Mr. Vasey asked if they were inputted into the community tracking system and explained what it was,
a project that involved a forever document.
a
E
Mr. Mason said he understood what he meant about tracking PUDs to make sure their development
s
o
agreements are met in the monitoring process, but said this work is not factored into that. a
Packet Pg. 206
May 3, 2022
16.A.4
5. Coastal Study Map Revision Status
Mr. Mason said FEMA produces what's called a Letter of Final Determination when a flood map is
updated and we currently have two updates going on. We have our coastal revision and a riverine
revision. The coastal revision has been going on now for the last four years. I've just searched the
Letters of Final Determination, which is public information that FEMA puts out, and those letters have
been scheduled out until September 29. Collier County's Coastal Preliminary Flood Map is not on that
list. I have a feeling that one of the reasons is because there were a number of appeals. Some private
communities appealed their Base -Flood Elevation terminations on this new map. They didn't agree
with them, so they employed private engineering firms. The City of Marco Island has an appeal.
Ms. DeFedericis said Marco Island just submitted its response yesterday or last Thursday.
Mr. Mason said that FEMA's contractor, AECOM, came back in and has requested more
documentation on modeling for some of their storm and BFE modeling for these appeals. I constantly
get this question from contractors and development companies, "When is this map going to be
finalized?" I would say it's probably going to be early next year.
Mr. Vasey asked if the map would affect Coastal High -Hazard Areas.
Mr. Mason said that map is not going to take it as far as Coastal High -Hazard Areas. As far as the
Planning Department goes, this is a separate product. This update is going to concentrate on the U.S. 41
corridor westward going to the Gulf of Mexico, and about a mile in, until where it meets the riverine
model. I don't think it's going to be finalized for adoption until early 2023. It just depends. They're
finalizing, but when you have an appeal — and there have been a couple of areas appealed — when
communities or private areas are appealing this, they have to provide empirical data. They can't just
say, "We don't like the BFE." They have to provide empirical data to show that the modeling was
wrong and that the Base -Flood Elevation should be lower. That's really the genesis of these appeals,
the lowering of the BFE in certain areas.
Mr. Vasey asked whether climate change or sea level rise have been added to the new requirements.
Mr. Mason said they have not been factored into these studies. The flood -insurance study, which
drives the actual map, only uses historical storm data based on topographic data, so it's basically
putting those together to come out with a worst -case scenario. The FEMA product is a separate product
from the ACUNE tool or the NOAA's sea -level rise forecast models.
Ms. Carrera noted that is also doesn't include Hurricane Irma data.
Ms. DeFedericis said Marco Island provided new data. We argued that they're using old data. We said,
"Here is new data. Let's use these because it did lower our BFEs inland, but kept the coastal
consistent." That was our argument.
Mr. Mason said in the interior you were jumping 3 feet.
d
in
N
N
O
N
M
LO
N
a
u_
E
V
�a
w
a
9
Packet Pg. 207
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
Ms. DeFedericis said they reduced the coast from Zone VE to Coastal A and reduced the base floods
from 11 to 9, but increased the inland from 7 to 11, so gravity tells me some water is going to pile right
in the middle of the island and stay shallow.
Mr. Mason said for example, there's a private community that is appealing, Isles of Collier Preserve, a
large development at Rattlesnake Hammock Road and U.S. 41, the southeast corner that backs up to the
mangroves. They had three different BFEs in that community. They went from 6 to 7 to 8, and now
they're going from 8 to 9 to 10, so they're fighting. The developers are saying, "This is going to cost us
more money to elevate." It could potentially involve different methods of construction, whether you're
going to bring in more fill or require homes to be built on stem -wall foundation. It's going to require
some juggling to see what they do and we'll see if they're successful.
Vice Chairman Lang said that to put this in a strategic perspective, we have to have map meetings
with the public. Then we go into generally what's called a protest period that includes submitting
appeals and then, hopefully, we can get a finalized map in a certain period, in a reasonable amount of
time, which hasn't been the case in several years. We had our map meeting for the risk -map product
that Chris is referring to, Item No. 5, in March of 2020, I believe right before COVID.
Mr. Mason said the map was produced on December 31, 2019.
Vice Chairman Lang said I'm not making assumptions, I'm sure COVID had some impact on the map
reviews, as well, but we're just talking about the coastal product. Don't forget that we still have a
riverine physical map revision in place, too, so we may have a finalized coastal product, then turn
around and have a map meeting again for the riverine product, then go through the protest period, then
have appeals, and then have a finalized riverine product. There's a potential for that. I think that we,
collectively, on our wish list wanted the coastal and riverine to be combined at FEMA level, so we can
have one finalized map, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
Mr. Mason said probably what you'll see is that we have these two models, the coastal model and the
riverine model. The riverine is really not riverine, but that's what we call it because we don't really
have any true river system in Collier County to make a profile off of. When we talk about riverine,
that's going to be the interior of the County going to the Estates and outward to Immokalee, in areas
like that. We're in the final process of that. I'd probably estimate it will be 2024 for adoption of that
and then they're going to take both products and merge them together. We don't truly have a
channelized river, or something that you can actually build a true that shows a different elevation
change that you can draw a true profile off of. That's why it's very interesting that Collier County's
map is completely different from the 22,000 communities that participate in the NFIP. I'd probably say
20,000 communities actually have maps that are all based on riverine profiles. Collier County's is not
based on a riverine profile. We're based on what's called a water -surface grid and we're the only
community in the country that does that.
That's why surveyors call up and say, "Well, look, my house that I'm building is two miles away from
this Base -Flood Elevation contour. Why are you making me adhere to that Base -Flood Elevation
contour? Can I just interpolate?" It doesn't work that way because you have the mathematics behind the
map in this grid layer and on a regular flood profile, you can draw a linear line where you can
interpolate between different elevations. We have this grid layer that you don't have a linear profile to
allow interpolation. You would have this grid layer in, if you have a 10-foot contour here, you'll see
these grids in here that say 9.7, 9.8, 9.6, 9.7. It's all random, but it's all pushing to show water at the
d
_
aM
CO
N
N
O
N
M
Ln
N
a;
U
a
d
E
0
a
10
Packet Pg. 208
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
Base -Flood Elevation or higher. It's not linear. It's up and down and up and down and up and
down. So, if you draw a line, you can't interpolate on it.
Vice Chairman Lang asked: So you're saying that in the CFM program or the certification program
through ASFPM, they're not going to use Collier County for BFE interpolation test, correct?
Mr. Mason said they are not going to use Collier County if we're the only community that has a map
that looks like this out of 20,000 plus. Others have some riverine profile to draw and to build a profile
off of.
Mr. Vasey said there's a simpler answer. If you look at how long it took for the water mass to recede
about 3,800 years ago, you can find that we have ledges throughout the County, and they're basically
not like contour lines. They're where the water just kept lapping away until it finally receded. But we
also are known as a Special Flood Hazard Area, which is a designation that Lee County and the
counties around us don't have, specifically because of the way we do the mapping here.
Mr. Mason said that out of 2000 square miles of terrestrial land, when you remove the water
boundaries out of here, 1,958 square miles is in the high -risk Special Flood Hazard Area, over 97%.
There's no community nationwide that faces that. That's why we have such an active Floodplain
Management Program.
Chairman Johnson said it's good to get that information every quarter.
6. Floodplain Management Plan Update Status
Mr. Mason said our Floodplain Management Plan dates back to 2015. We were required to update it in
2020, per CRS rules, FEMA regulations. I've already spoken with ISO and ironed this out with them,
the CRS representatives. It makes no sense for us to update our plan at this time, until we have a new
flood map product. I've had many discussions with one of my colleagues, Howard Critchfield, and it
would not make sense to go back and use our data from 2012 and repeat the same Floodplain
Management Plan with updates.
I've petitioned ISO about this and explained that to them, and I think really what happens is once we get
this coastal map finalized and adopted, provided the BCC decides to adopt it, we will then work with
that data to update this Floodplain Management Plan. Obviously, there are many active players that
come into a Floodplain Management Plan. We are going to hire a consultant to do the vulnerability
analysis, like we did in 2014 based off of the Coastal Study. We can still use our Inland Study from
2012 because we don't think there's going to be a lot of radical changes there. Obviously, there are
going to be changes in this Coastal Study, so it's a matter of getting this data to move forward with that
Floodplain Management Plan update.
As soon as we get an adopted map, I'm going to reach out to the same company that was here in 2014,
Amec Foster Wheeler, now called Wooden Group. I'll reach out to David Stroud and, hopefully, we can
get the ball rolling on this in 2023 to get this Floodplain Management Plan updated and move forward
with this. But it's just crucial that we have updated data and the longer this process for this Coastal
Preliminary Map takes, the longer we're going to wait. I've been assured by ISO that our Floodplain
Management Plan is still valid, even though it wasn't updated two years ago.
N
N
O
N
N
a
a�
E
E
0
v
a�
_
a.
a�
E
d
a�
.E
a
0
0
U_
ti
M
N
N
as
_
P
U)
N
N
O
N
T
LO
0
°)
_
U
IL
2
U_
as
E
M
a
11
Packet Pg. 209
16.A.4
May 3, 2022
But there's obviously a reason. It doesn't make sense to spend money to have a reproduction on the
same data that has existed since 2014. Once we enter that phase through this committee is when we
would probably have some special meetings and have the participants, our partnering communities and
participants of this board, and anybody else attend these special meetings to start crafting this plan.
Mr. Vasey asked if they'd ever had a summary presented to the BCC.
Mr. Mason said not in his time, maybe prior to 2015. It had to be accepted by the Board of County
Commissioners back in 2015, when it was adopted.
Vice Chairman Lang said most or some of us can remember the management update process. At the
time that David Stroud came in, we did a kickoff meeting, a number of follow-up meetings and then we
did a workshop at Risk Management on the main campus. I don't know if anyone from this group
presented a summary to the BCC, but I know it went to the BCC for approval.
Mr. Vasey said that since we don't have resilience team or office, this is basically a resilience effort in
which you're looking at a climate -change issue and a sea -level rise issue. This is kind of a major thing
where the Federal government is unable to line its processes up with these various dates when reports
are supposed to be submitted. Isn't there a process to officially apply for a variance, or just have an
agreement with ISO that you don't have to submit it?
Mr. Mason said it's required. We're required as our commitment to the CRS program. We had to as a
participant, and as a Class 5 community, we have to draw up a Floodplain Management Plan. It's also
required based on our number of repetitive -loss properties.
Chairman Johnson asked how long the floodplain management plan is good for. Is there an expiration
on this? Is this something that we need to update every now and then?
Mr. Mason said that per CRS standards, it's supposed to be updated every five years. But with how
lengthy the mapping process is, it just doesn't make sense to go in and recreate the same data that we
already have because we don't have an updated map.
Chairman Johnson asked if an update would put us in jeopardy.
Mr. Mason said that's why he's ironed it out with ISO by explaining this to them.
Mr. Vasey asked what are we currently using?
Mr. Mason said 2018. If you're talking about the new map, it's 2015.
Mr. Vasey said that's eight years ago. Just basic erosion takes care of the land.
7. Mitigation Actions Update
Mr. Mason reported that:
Action 1.1. Prepare a schedule, an FMP, the Floodplain Management Plan progress report, each
year to recommend FMPC activity to the Board of County Commissioners: The executive
N
N
0
N
N
N
7
a�
a
a�
a�
E
E
0
U
c
a
c
a�
E
W
a�
c
c
a
0
0
LL
N
N
a�
c
in
N
N
O
N
T
Ln
0
as
0
c
U
a
c
a�
E
0
c�
r
a
12
Packet Pg. 210
May 3, 2022
summary and proposed mitigation actions were submitted to the BCC and they were accepted on
February 22, 2022.
Activity 1.2. Review the Land Development Code and Flood -Damage Prevention Ordinance: It's
no longer called the Flood -Damage Prevention Ordinance. It's called the Floodplain Management
Ordinance and it was accepted and adopted by the BCC on March 8, 2022.
Activity 4.1: Coordinate with local real estate boards to hold all educational meetings about flood
insurance: I recently did some outreach with the Coconut River Estates Civic Association one evening
We discussed FEMA's Risk Rating 2.0, in particular, the Preliminary Coastal Map Revision, the
Elevation Certificate basics and CRS. What's interesting to note is that with that location behind us
here, they currently have a Base Flood Elevation of 7 and 8. It's going up to 9 and they weren't really
happy when I told them that. It's because those homes are dated from 1985 and prior and they're all
below Base Flood Elevation, currently at 7. The Base Flood Elevation is projected to go to 9 in there, 2
feet due to the new map.
Mr. Bills asked if that means it will basically increase their insurance rate.
Mr. Mason said that was right. You have a kind of double impact there because you have their finished
floor being well below Base -Flood Elevation and you have a Risk Rating 2.0, which is a new insurance
product that FEMA has rolled out. It's not going to look so much at finished -floor elevation. It will, but
it's going to be a more environmentally -driven rating process, how close you are to water, how
susceptible to storm surge, things of that nature.
Activity 4.2 Preliminary Coastal Map Revision: We expect it's going to be late 2022, but I think it
will be early 2023.
Activity 4.3 Flood Materials at Local Libraries: We check each December. We go out and make sure
those materials are still in their location and we make sure that their card catalog online still reflects
that information.
Ms. DeFedericis offered to check the Marco Island library. She said she checks it every once in a
while.
Mr. Mason said that as far as outreach, our Floodplain Management Group, and the City of Naples also
will be participating in some outreach at the end of this month, with Gulfshore Insurance for Realtors.
We're going to cover everything from Letters of Map Revision, to 50% Rule and there will be some
things involving Risk Rating 2.0 that the insurance representatives will be addressing.
8. Other Items/Committee Correspondence
Chairman Johnson thanked everyone for their comments and reminded Committee members that if
they have any questions or comments to please send them to the staff liaison, not all Committee
members, due to the Sunshine Law. The next committee meeting is Aug. 2.
Ms. DeFedericis said she just learned what the CRS discount will be through the new Risk Rating 2.0.
Because we're Class 6 right now, if we do go to back to a Class 5, Class 5 is only going to be recognized
on the full -risk rating policies. The legacy policies will not see that Class 5 until they go to full -risk rate.
_
in
N
N
O
N
M
LO
Ln
U
a
_
as
E
a
13
Packet Pg. 211
May 3, 2022
But if we go back to Class 7, everybody will see that, regardless. So, a lot of our policies — because we
do have 6,000 policies on the island — they're all just going to remain a Class 6 until they get to their full
risk rating, which most of our policies are, $1,500, and to get up to that $6,500 is going to take them a
few years. I'm not even sure that when we go back to a Class 5 that they're even going to see that
discount at 25%. So, that's the Federal government.
Mr. Mason said that when you have communities such as Collier, Marco and the City of Naples that
score very well on insurance, they want to quash that. You're talking about a program that's $30 billion
in the red and they're giving these discounts. They're just not interested. Put it this way, they're going to
make you work for it.
Ms. DeFedericis said it's disappointing that the legacy policies that have been around forever aren't
going to see that discount.
Ms. Orlich said that hurricane season is coming and people will be attuned to risk during that time. That
might be a good opportunity for you to toot your own horn and let the community know through some
kind of news service how much money you're saving the community as a positive government doing a
proactive, good thing. We always hear negative news, but it sounds like you're doing a really good job
of saving taxpayers lots of money. Taxpayers don't know that unless we communicate that outside our
own little circle here.
Ms. DeFedericis said that annual newsletters are sent out by the City of Marco Island in utility
bills. That's how we get a lot of information out, and by keeping it at the library and keeping that
updated. We also do presentations to the Realtors. They are our No. 1 person to get that out to, but
having people make friends with their floodplain managers is sometimes not easy because word FEMA
is carried after the floodplain word in construction purposes. They don't like the requirements, but we do
a lot of outreach.
Vice Chairman Lang said that hesitancy specifically is with risk Rating 2.0. I think if any of us get in
front of a camera, we're going to inadvertently be asked about Risk Rating 2.0, and it is really hard to
comprehend right now.
Mr. Mason said Risk Rating 2.0 is an insurance product. We're here more on a regulation
standpoint. We know just enough about insurance to probably be a little bit dangerous, but it's really an
insurance agent's job.
Vice Chairman Lang said as Kelly stated, they're synonymous. Most of the time during a disaster
we're unfortunately referred to as FEMA, either in the field or here in the Building Department.
Mr. Bills said your good work was reflected recently in The Wall Street Journal, which looked at 300
top geographic areas across the country. The Naples -Marco Island-Immokalee metropolitan area was
rated No. 5 on a list of places to live, in terms of affordability.
Ms. Carrera said that in response to that, she just did a presentation about a year ago on the CRS
program because it was coming into question. We had a lot of questions regarding the Beach Club and
the open space that we were using, so I did a PowerPoint presentation that discussed the discounts and
how the community receives them and the policies that are in effect. I try to do that every couple of
years. Plus, people then understand that it's not really a one -person show. Putting it all together, there
d
in
N
N
O
N
M
LO
d
_
_
U
a
LL
_
a�
E
14
Packet Pg. 212
May 3, 2022
are many other departments involved. We have Emergency Management, Streets and Stormwater and
the Planning Department because you have to have comprehensive information.
Mr. Mason said it's the community ratings system because we rely on other departments for
information. We're the liaisons to these other folks and we don't always understand exactly what's in a
planning document for one purpose or another. We have to interpret that and put it forward. But to
Christa's point, it is the community rating system and sometimes people get tired of us leaning on them
for information, so I ask, "Hey, do you still want your 25% discount on your flood insurance? Help me
out here."
Ms. Carrera said it's a good program to put out. As a recommendation to the other communities,
maybe we should do a joint presentation with all the communities to our representatives at one of their
board meetings, whether it's BCC, Marco or Naples, just a 20- or 30-minute presentation, and let them
ask questions. It's such a huge program, yet there are only three faces behind it that they see, and a lot of
times the public just doesn't understand where all this is coming from. I have a lot of people coming to
me to ask about the beach or, especially, open space. That's a big topic right now for Naples.
Mr. Vasey moved to adjourn the meeting. Second by Ms. Orlich. Carried unanimously 8-0.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order
of the Chair at 10:12 a.m.
COLLIER COUNTY FLOODPLAI ANAGEMENT o
COM TEE °
U-
V I L� iI (k66 ✓� , i tl � 1
n
These minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on 0 Z 2-Z ; as presented �, or as 4
amended Un
N
N
O
N
T
U)
N
w
3
_
r-
15
Packet Pg. 213
6uluueld;uauaa6euew uieldpoold LV6ZZ) -ldNl=l SWO41 uol;Obr u014e61M OdW=l lOE :}u8wLj38}}d
� T-
Q N
Q
a
lie
a m
a
= N
Cc � O
O = O
O ca % N
O O
_ O O i
O E i y CDR
E O E
CC5 CC � CC0
M
E
a)
cn
�o
d U
'O L-
O .�
O o
LL U
V- !
N
0
O
a
fuluueld;uauaa6euelN uleldpool=l : LV6ZZ) -lVNld SWGII uoRob' u01le6WVq OdW=l lO£ :4uOwLl3el)v
N
E
O
O
4-0
ca
E
O
L aO-+ CV 'V V 0 C O
C O C ' O Vim,, +•+
LEE 4-0
cc ca CU= ca w N E
ca `� O O O O
+O.� 1OaA O�a) a•+CU O woO� E (n
+5 O C aN
LEE n
tVUo
Q>
� O � .N ; C� Ca C � •i N � .�
N
O ccno 'i O U_
■�
L O C O U) aO-+ w N 4-1 � O� w
i Q �'
�_ a.�i Ca Co
cc
cu
O aO-+ O O Q Ca E
LEE 'm O O
a..+ C
a� —
O c i a> n o
Il a o Cn c}n E w 5
1�A
O G Ca
> V }+ G�
a..+ O CQ
0/ ■ ' -
M
.. cc 4-0 p W Q
p (J O �ME
cn
Cc
LEE
Ucc NIMME
ta'Cc C�
LO
N
a
m
C)
m
a
6uluueld;uauaa6euew uieldpoold : LV6ZZ) -ldNl=l SWO41 uol;Obr u014e61M OdW=l lOE :4u8wLl3844d
Q N N
N a
L N
i
cc
a
LM occ
4-1 � a_j
ENO
+ NQ i O N
i N c q +� ca a)
O E o N •}—°
O N-n
T
a--+ _
i
a � a N ._
E
CO o
'— LIJ
z +=
•—
'- o
�, •_
o >� _-on
E W
O V LO to
cc
_O Occ LO
v Q� O
4-jccCc O O
M � � � •o � 'y N c
ca
C O 4-1
a•�
— +-+
Q U con • • • • Z
N
M
0
O
■ENEM
v
Q
6uluueld WOW86euew uieldpoold : LV6ZZ) -ldNl=l SWO41 u0140br u014e61M OdW=l lOE :}u8wLj38}}d
cc
O
0
cc
CD
0
"o
vA N c
0
�Q)
bA 0 rn
O N
iNI C O y O
OO CL) y =
O i CO3
E E
E vac
(L),- a)
aa))w
�+� O = c
CD Ec ,CDE
Caa) - OE
OCZ �
O
Wm' O m
.' O y
E Om aD (>
� i 0 0
N M-0UfC
t2
c_
t: a
0
Z +, E
o
"
O _ �
U
4-
O
O 4-
O Co
o
tea)
>
a)>,-,
=6 cu cc
O
_0E
> L
i'a)
uo
CCS i
cc O O
O_ O
O
i
m
N N
O
Cam
C
��
_.)
-0
O
a..'
E'Q
U
O_c
U
O O O
N
a)
Eo��n
4- N
3c
00
m N CU
U
E 4
0
7F-u O
CLm W
cn
CD
bA
U
O a) O
O Q
Q
aI�:: a)
CaO.N
U i Cam
U
a) O ()cn
0 0
E
QO,
�p°e; 4-
Oa,NO
NCNnCD
�CD
c
a�
� a) CZ
O
U �'�
•O
OdQ
C)
O=Q
'in�ti
Q
E
�0�•N
E
O4- (n
��a)
O
c
'E.-
.aCOC
>•�C
O.0
coQ
�V
O Ca i•d
M N
062'�
i0
a a) v)
0'N
a
ca
C�
CD
E
cc
Q
CD
c�
op
H O
0
0
ti
CV
Cb
a
d
v
m
a
v
Q
6uluueld;uauaa6eueW uieldpoold : LV6ZZ) IVNIA SWO41 uol;Obr u014e61M OdWA lOE :}u8wLj38}}d
LO
N4 �
•N
1-4
■ ■
L
C � +-I
-0= ON00
L
� 4O Cn
cc
ONz���Ub�A
O N
O
UN cco=0-0�
�z op'� 0coU�
— O
E�a) CLcc u UNc>6yN
Immcc
Q.N O Cn a) a
cc=�
M
O
=
N
�aN'+' Ca > �
♦/�
v/
■—
Y
Cam)
cc =U fa cnJ O
0 =-- j C O O
0
OQOU'OQOCc cc
0^cn•V cc _CD
L
m
00a)=0c0n0a>+N
0=CD CD
O
A
BOO
U O_aN cc +.+ = = = U
N
�--�
a����a�
�,a)�E
cc
�C p�
cn S++ �•� �� ca
}�
L
O
�bq�caO�O�E
aPC
a70
a
�
�
Ocn�O—cn-00
a�oc'�o•-ono
cDEa
i
O
V
ate-+
C6
O
a
a..�
O
O
n
O
a-1
=
a..�
0 O
O
N
■P
C6-�--+
E
.. O
ate-+
!')
L4-0
C6
O
�cc
V N
GD
EIMEP Cc
zm
O
�
U
Ca
•
•
incn�
m cu S
>,aa
0
0 c6 -0
�NO
cu
a) = CU
i
C.3 W o
OG)0
4" G) a-
U'? i
G.> O
C) to O
UO�cu
ca-0_
cB5-,=Q
I` Q c6
N N N
OU>—
c
N4- 3::O
=E'0
ccL
cn O nA E
,ob o E
�caQo
� CUM
0
cc
CL
a_+
cc
O
E
c
Q
O .-_
0 �
c�
o�
H O
(D�
w n
0
U .0
Q
a� cn
N
O �
+� N
N �
C/) N
U �
N
O CL
i O
C
a) -0 cn
> O Q
OY O
O E 'OD
a_+ c n >
O E cu
Cam)
E CON
O�T..q
U C14 N
mE=
cc O
� 1)A LZA
N L'IA O
ca Y
v E�
0
00
N
a1
a
d
V
m
a
6uluueld;uauaa6eueW uieldpoold : LV6ZZ) IVNIA SWO41 uol;Obr u014e61M OdWA lOE :}u8wLl3e}}V
L
U
cc
L-
•O
O
ca
m
LEE
c
a
cc
O
LL
-
N
i
CY
C
c
O
LoLEE
i
i
Z
Q
N
O
Q
Q
Q
O
M_
W
CL
-_
cc
._u
i=
ca
cc
N
O
O
O
G
c
O
.�
V
v
U-
O
bOA
C13
O
O
d
LL
L
ca4-0
•E
�
4-0
—
O
Ii
U-
O
U
d
Ca
N
06
r-I
O
ca
cz
0
•
� N C
Q O O
c wLL U
CDCD
w -
-o c o
c = o C)
i E5
Q O �
4—Co •�
C)
O U Ca
O N O
E
cz .v 0
M LO
i N
O N c
N U
o ,E
a N O
O CO O J
_O N v
� � O
O N -0
O tp
U O }'
i m CB U
O Q
• Z Y i
O N O
U U
9
CCU = CD
O O
CD +� y
E
W N
W O
_ _N O
O c- U
C) Z .�
O
o � �
U C.)O
-0 � U
fB .0
Co
� O Q
cn� H
O
•O N
CD 0
E Q N
w N
co aM C-1
C6
� � O
= O
E
c
O CQ
2 E
I
N
6
a
d
m
a
Ca
O
ate-+
-j
O
;
cu
C.�
E
O
U
ca
O
cc
Q
cc
ccu
.cu
4-0
.cu
2
6uluueld;uauaa6euew uieldpoold : LV6ZZ) -ldNl=l SWO41 uol;Obr u014e61M OdW=l lOE :4u8wLj3844d
Kai
.i,
^
O
O
N
CIS
m
W
CN
O
-0
ca
a
+r
0
CL
Ca
N
a)
G�
CL
W
+r W
'^�
_o
a..'
-0
O
.N
0
N
>,
C6
N
O
O'
.N
4cc -�
0 cc
•�
o
—_
•�
MQ
CL
a)
�
N
N
•i
Q
=
a..'
•—
Ca
•�
LWL
CO.)
O
G
cc
p
O
V
C6
Q
E
�Co
>I.
a--+
CIS �
N
N
O
O
O ate..'
_
C6
�=
+.+ a)
CI =
Ca
O
O
>,
_
Ca
C6
O
LL
O N
a)
0-=
CZ
J
U
>,ca
C
c
U
p O
c
•`.)
Q J
.�
N
O
O
O
s= N
\=
a)
=
N
W
O
0-0
�'
O
CN
i
•�
U
CD N
1
E
W
CL).=
U
;
a
_O
•CD
a>
.O
> \
.a)
o
N
.O
a
O
a
�
U
O
O
O
N
cz c6
U
O
CD
x s=
CD
._
O
cc
�
O
�
U
LL
L L.
Z
E
O
N
O
2
CD
O
CD
CD� V)
to
..
cc
�'
a
c
CJ�
°'a
CD
CD
E
Qm
pcc
a cc
+
y O
C�
•
•
0
N
N
6
a
m
m
a