SACRAMENTO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2019 SCHEDULE OF PERCENTAGES APPLIED TO HISTORICAL COSTS IN ESTIMATING VALUE OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT

Similar documents
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2017 SCHEDULE OF PERCENTAGES APPLIED TO HISTORICAL COSTS IN ESTIMATING VALUE OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT

SACRAMENTO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2018 SCHEDULE OF PERCENTAGES APPLIED TO HISTORICAL COSTS IN ESTIMATING VALUE OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE LOUISIANA ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION OIL & GAS COMMITTEE TO THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION FOR TAX YEAR 2018

INITIAL REPORTS RELATING TO ACCOUNTING SEPARATION OF TELSTRA

Monthly Indicators - 6.4% + 8.0% - 5.3% Market Overview New Listings Pending Sales. Closed Sales. Days on Market Until Sale. Median Sales Price

Controls and Control Charting

SEASONAL PRICES for TENNESSEE FEEDER CATTLE and COWS

Economy-wide (general equilibrium) analysis of Philippines mitigation potential

The Quality of Life of the People in Norway

The Future of Retailing in Canada to 2018

The Future of Retailing in Norway to 2018

The Future of Retailing in the Philippines to 2018

Trade Growth - Fundamental Driver of Port Operations and Development Strategies

Manufacturers continue capacity expansion as technology orders grow

Big Changes, Unknown Impacts

Monthly Indicators - 5.2% % % Activity Overview New Listings Pending Sales. Closed Sales. Days on Market Until Sale. Median Sales Price

NATURAL RESOURCE ACCOUNTING: MINERAL ACCOUNTS FOR SOUTH AFRICA

2015 Economic Forecast & Industry Outlook. Robert A. Kleinhenz, Ph.D. Chief Economist, Kyser Center for Economic Research, LAEDC October 8, 2014

Fiscal Impact of SunTrust Park and The Battery Atlanta on Cobb County Executive Summary Sept. 18, 2018

Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth: Are They Mutually Exclusive Goals? Tuesday, May 1, 2012; 2:30 PM - 3:45 PM

Investing in Real Estate. The smart choice for today s investor

Northwest Economic Research Center College of Urban and Public Affairs Forecast Breakfast Economic Outlook

SINGAPORE edevelopment LIMITED (Incorporated in Singapore) (Company Registration No W)

Handicap Differential = (Adjusted Gross Score - USGA Course Rating) x 113 / USGA Slope Rating

Spring 2016 Alaska Salmon Industry Analysis

Telling Canada s story in numbers Elizabeth Richards Analytical Studies Branch April 20, 2017

Charlotte Region Monthly Indicators

Reliability. Introduction, 163 Quantifying Reliability, 163. Finding the Probability of Functioning When Activated, 163

Multifamily Market Survey

Analysis of recent swim performances at the 2013 FINA World Championship: Counsilman Center, Dept. Kinesiology, Indiana University

GUIDELINES FOR HVI TESTING

Indiana Electricity Projections: The 2018 Forecast Update

Introduction to Topics in Macroeconomics 2

Monthly Indicators % + 8.2% % Market Overview New Listings Pending Sales. Closed Sales. Days on Market Until Sale. Median Sales Price

2014 Economic Indicators, Trends & Observations. 51 South Main Street Janesville, WI P F RockCountyAlliance.

Monthly Indicators + 3.2% + 8.6% + 7.7%

Iowa Farmland Market Update: What s Ahead?

Economic & Financial Market Outlook

Your Texas Economy. Current through: Tuesday, Nov 20, 2018

ALABAMA HUNTING SURVEY

Iowa Farmland Market Update: What s Ahead?

Modeling Exponential Growth and Decay

Economic Impact of the Michigan Equine Industry, 2006

Quality Assurance Charting for QC Data

Amendment 80 Non-AFA Trawl Gear Catcher/Processor

Briefing Paper #1. An Overview of Regional Demand and Mode Share

Integrating Safety into the Transportation Decision Making Process

Economic Impact of Hunting Expenditures on Southern U.S

Photo: Skot Weidemann

Web.com Completes Acquisition of Yodle Deal strengthens Web.com s portfolio of products that help small businesses compete and succeed online

Administration Report Fiscal Year 2011/2012

Administration Report Fiscal Year 2010/2011

Europe June Craig Menear. Chairman, CEO & President. Diane Dayhoff. Vice President, Investor Relations

SOAH DOCKET NO PUC DOCKET NO.

CHAPTER 2 Modeling Distributions of Data

The Outlook for Real Estate and Residential Construction. Patrick M. Barkey, Director Bureau of Business and Economic Research University of Montana

Technical Report. 5th Round Robin Test for Multi-Capillary Ventilation Calibration Standards (2016/2017)

PHILADELPHIA HOUSE PRICE INDICES

Appendix G Coastal Demographic and Economic Trends Additional Figures

THE GLASS CEILING OF SPORTS

CFEC Permit Holdings, Harvests, and Estimated Gross Earnings by Resident Type in the Bristol Bay Salmon Gillnet Fisheries

The Partnership for Building Reuse

Global economy s strong momentum intact despite elevated level of uncertainty. Canada headed for another year of solid growth

Prince William Sound Aquaculture Corporation Economic Impact Update for 2010

Chapter 2: Modeling Distributions of Data

Mexico Stands to Benefit From. With Relative Ease. Jesus Cañas Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Laredo, Texas May 2014

Land Use Change on Non-Federal Land in Oregon and Washington

taking the long view

Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No.

Texas Economic Outlook: Recovery in 2010 Keith Phillips Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas San Antonio Office

colorado.edu/business/brd

PHILADELPHIA HOUSE PRICE INDICES

Philadelphia Housing s Recovery Becomes More Equitable in Q3 Sales surge citywide; house value appreciation strongest in low-priced neighborhoods.

SPECIAL DIVIDEND OF MUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC.

Agenda Item Summary BACKGROUND. Attachment 1

RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE MARKET ANALYSIS AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY

THE IMPACT OF RECREATIONAL CRABBING ON NORTH CAROLINA S CRAB POPULATION

Analyzer Specifications Technical Bulletin

Inland Empire International Trade Economic Forecast

Temporal reliability of willingness to pay from the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife- Associated Recreation

The Economic Impact of Kentucky s Equine Industry. Dr. C. Jill Stowe Department of Agricultural Economics University of Kentucky

College/high school median annual earnings gap,

The Houston Economy Jesse Thompson Regional Business Economist The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Houston Branch January 2017

Business Cycles. Chris Edmond NYU Stern. Spring 2007

THE FUTURE OF SALES TAX REVENUE

Introduction. Seafood HACCP Alliance Training Course 8-1

Statistical Method Certification, Coal Combustion Residuals Landfill, Reid Gardner Generating Station

Appendix H Recreation and Tourism (Chapter 8) Contents. List of Tables

M. TECH. (Computer Science, Information Technology)

Connecting Sacramento: A Trip-Making and Accessibility Study

SACO RIVER AND CAMP ELLIS BEACH SACO, MAINE SECTION 111 SHORE DAMAGE MITIGATION PROJECT APPENDIX F ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

SPECIAL SPECIFICATION 7581 Performance Based Vegetation Management

The Impact of TennCare: A Survey of Recipients 2006

California s North Coast Fishing Communities Historical Perspective and Recent Trends

Analyzing the technical performance of trotting and training firms using data envelopment analysis

The Economy: A View from the (Atlanta) Fed (Staff)

The Bruce Mansfield Station, Units 1, 2 and 3

Observing and managing economic and social change

The Economic Impact of Golf In South Carolina

Validation of Measurements from a ZephIR Lidar

Transcription:

VALUE OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT Each depreciation percentage listed below is the result of multiplying an equipment index factor by a percent good factor. When the depreciation percentage is applied to the historical cost, it concurrently trends the historical cost to an estimate of replacement cost new and depreciates it to arrive at an estimate of present value. Any deviation from this table for unusual functional or economic obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). LIFE ** 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 15 17 20 YEAR A C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C10 C12 C15 C17 C20 YEAR 2018 54 75 80 84 87 89 91 93 95 96 97 2018 2017 39 54 63 71 76 80 85 89 93 95 97 2017 2016 24 34 47 56 64 69 77 84 89 92 94 2016 2015 15 18 31 41 50 57 68 75 83 87 91 2015 2014 10 11 18 29 39 47 59 68 78 82 88 2014 2013 6 11 11 18 28 37 51 62 72 78 84 2013 2012 4 11 12 20 27 43 55 66 73 81 2012 2011 2 11 13 20 35 48 63 69 78 2011 2010 2 11 12 15 29 41 58 66 76 2010 2009 12 12 22 35 52 60 70 2009 2008 12 18 30 46 55 67 2008 2007 13 24 41 52 65 2007 2006 13 20 37 49 63 2006 2005 13 16 33 45 60 2005 2004 14 30 43 58 2004 2003 14 26 38 54 2003 2002 22 33 49 2002 2001 20 29 45 2001 2000 15 24 41 2000 1999 15 22 37 1999 1998 18 32 1998 1997 15 28 1997 1996 15 25 1996 1995 23 1995 1994 22 1994 1993 18 1993 1992 17 1992 1989 1989 1988 1988 1987 1987 ** PERSONAL COMPUTER EQUIPMENT - Special study of computer resale values

VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT Each depreciation percentage listed below is the result of multiplying an equipment index factor by a percent good factor. When the depreciation percentage is applied to the historical cost, it concurrently trends the historical cost to an estimate of replacement cost new and depreciates it to arrive at an estimate of present value. Any deviation from this table for unusual functional or economic obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). LIFE 10 12 15 17 20 YEAR I10 I12 I15 I17 I20 YEAR 2018 91 93 95 96 97 2018 2017 84 89 92 94 96 2017 2016 77 83 88 91 93 2016 2015 67 75 82 86 90 2015 2014 58 68 77 82 87 2014 2013 50 61 72 77 83 2013 2012 42 54 66 72 80 2012 2011 34 47 62 68 77 2011 2010 28 40 56 64 74 2010 2009 21 34 51 59 69 2009 2008 17 28 44 53 64 2008 2007 13 24 40 51 63 2007 2006 11 19 35 46 59 2006 2005 11 15 31 43 56 2005 2004 13 27 39 53 2004 2003 12 24 35 50 2003 2002 20 29 44 2002 2001 18 26 41 2001 2000 14 22 37 2000 1999 12 19 33 1999 1998 17 29 1998 1997 14 25 1997 1996 12 23 1996 1995 20 1995 1994 19 1994 1993 16 1993 1992 13 1992 1989 1989 1988 1988 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985 1984 1984 1983 1983 1982 1982 1981 1981 1980 1980

NON-PRODUCTION COMPUTER EQUIPMENT Each depreciation percentage listed below was developed by analyzing resale values of personal computers, peripherals and LAN Equipment as compared to list price less discount. No estimates of economic lives are stated or implied, since the tables were derived by analyzing market data rather than price indexes and economic life patterns. The value factors are intended to be applied directly to historical costs for NON-PRODUCTION computers. Non-production computers are designed for general business purposes and do not include computers embedded in machinery nor does it include equipment or computers specifically designed for use in any other application directly related to manufacturing. Any deviation from this table for unusual functional or economic obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). PERSONAL COMPUTERS LOCAL AREA NETWORK EQUIPMENT (PLUS MAINFRAME COMPUTERS) YEAR A A1 YEAR 2018 54 73 2018 2017 39 47 2017 2016 24 30 2016 2015 15 19 2015 2014 10 12 2014 2013 6 8 2013 2012 4 5 2012 2011 2 3 2011 2010 2 2 2010 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998

VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT Each depreciation percentage listed below is the result of multiplying an equipment index factor by a percent good factor. When the depreciation percentage is applied to the historical cost, it concurrently trends the historical cost to an estimate of replacement cost new and depreciates it to arrive at an estimate of present value. Any deviation from this table for unusual functional or economic obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). AGRICULTURAL AGRICULTURAL MOBILE EQUIPMENT HARVESTERS T1 T2 T3 V1 V2 V3 YEAR NEW USED AVG NEW USED AVG YEAR 2018 78 92 85 74 90 82 2018 2017 71 84 78 65 80 72 2017 2016 66 77 72 59 71 65 2016 2015 60 71 66 52 62 57 2015 2014 54 64 59 45 55 50 2014 2013 50 60 56 41 49 45 2013 2012 45 54 50 36 43 40 2012 2011 42 50 46 32 39 35 2011 2010 38 45 42 28 34 32 2010 2009 35 41 38 24 30 28 2009 2008 32 38 36 23 27 25 2008 2007 31 38 35 21 26 24 2007 2006 30 36 34 19 23 22 2006 2005 29 34 32 21 2005 2004 28 32 31 19 2004 2003 26 30 29 20 2003 2002 28 2002 2001 25 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1989 1989 1988 1988 1987 1987

VALUE OF MOBILE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Each depreciation percentage listed below is the result of multiplying an equipment index factor by a percent good factor. When the depreciation percentage is applied to the historical cost, it concurrently trends the historical cost to an estimate of replacement cost new and depreciates it to arrive at an estimate of present value. Any deviation from this table for unusual functional or economic obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). CONSTRUCTION MOBILE EQUIPMENT W1 W2 W3 YEAR NEW USED AVG YEAR 2018 74 91 83 2018 2017 66 81 74 2017 2016 60 74 67 2016 2015 56 69 63 2015 2014 52 63 58 2014 2013 49 60 55 2013 2012 45 56 50 2012 2011 42 52 48 2011 2010 40 49 45 2010 2009 36 44 40 2009 2008 33 40 37 2008 2007 32 39 35 2007 2006 30 36 34 2006 2005 29 35 33 2005 2004 28 35 32 2004 2003 27 33 30 2003 2002 23 29 26 2002 2001 19 25 22 2001 2000 18 19 19 2000 1999 16 16 16 1999 1998 14 1998 1989 1989 1988 1988 1987 1987 1986 1986

VALUE OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT Each depreciation percentage listed below is the result of multiplying an equipment index factor by a percent good factor. When the depreciation percentage is applied to the historical cost, it concurrently trends the historical cost to an estimate of replacement cost new and depreciates it to arrive at an estimate of present value. Any deviation from this table for unusual functional or economic obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). LIFE Commercial Commercial Commercial Industrial Industrial Industrial 25 30 40 40 25 30 YEAR C25 C30 C40 I40 I25 I30 YEAR 2018 98 98 99 99 98 98 2018 2017 99 100 102 101 98 99 2017 2016 99 101 103 102 98 100 2016 2015 95 99 102 101 95 98 2015 2014 93 97 101 100 92 96 2014 2013 91 95 100 100 90 94 2013 2012 88 94 100 99 87 93 2012 2011 87 94 102 100 86 92 2011 2010 86 94 102 100 84 92 2010 2009 83 91 101 99 81 89 2009 2008 81 91 103 98 78 87 2008 2007 81 92 104 100 78 89 2007 2006 81 92 108 102 76 87 2006 2005 78 93 109 103 74 88 2005 2004 80 95 114 103 72 86 2004 2003 78 94 116 106 71 86 2003 2002 75 92 115 103 67 83 2002 2001 69 89 114 103 62 80 2001 2000 65 85 112 101 58 76 2000 1999 62 83 111 99 55 74 1999 1998 57 79 108 97 51 70 1998 1997 53 75 106 95 47 67 1997 1996 49 71 104 94 44 64 1996 1995 47 69 105 94 42 62 1995 1994 43 66 105 94 39 60 1994 1993 41 65 104 93 36 58 1993 1992 38 61 103 91 34 54 1992 1991 35 58 101 89 31 52 1991 1990 32 54 99 89 29 49 1990 1989 30 52 98 89 27 47 1989 1988 29 51 99 89 26 45 1988 1987 25 49 99 89 23 44 1987 1986 23 47 95 85 21 43 1986 1985 20 44 94 85 17 39 1985 1984 40 89 81 16 36 1984 1983 39 89 81 35 1983 1982 36 85 76 32 1982 1981 33 86 78 30 1981 1980 33 90 82 30 1980 1979 28 92 86 25 1979

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING EQUIPMENT Semi-conductor manufacturing equipment is used to build semiconductor devices. A semiconductor device (or chip) consists of multiple, highly inter-related mask layers. The depreciation factors listed below were developed through: -- The income approach, based upon studies of various income analyses. -- The cost approach, based upon the tracking of semiconductor equipment costs. -- Bureau of Economic Advisors' (BEA) price indexes of such equipment. -- Lengthy analyses of depreciation data and assessment appeals case histories These factors should be applied directly to historical costs. Any deviation from these factors designed to reflect unusual or extraordinary economic or functional obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT (A-1) FIXTURES (B-2) YEAR X X2 YEAR 2018 78 91 2018 2017 61 84 2017 2016 46 77 2016 2015 34 67 2015 2014 25 58 2014 2013 18 50 2013 2012 12 42 2012 2011 8 34 2011 2010 28 2010 2009 21 2009 2008 17 2008 2007 13 2007 2006 12 2006 2005 12 2005 2004 12 2004 2003 12 2003 2002 12 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998

DOCUMENT PROCESSOR Each depreciation percentage listed below was developed as a result of a market study analysis, performed by the State Board of Equalization, of new and used sales data of document processor equipment. No estimates of economic lives are stated or implied, since the tables were derived by analyzing market data rather than price indexes and economic life patterns. The value factors are intended to be applied directly to the cost of document processor equipment. Any deviation from these factors for unusual functional or economic obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). DOCUMENT PROCESSOR YEAR Y YEAR 2018 58 2018 2017 47 2017 2016 32 2016 2015 28 2015 2014 23 2014 2013 19 2013 2012 15 2012 2011 13 2011 2010 10 2010 2009 10 2009 2008 10 2008 2007 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998

OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PRESSES Each depreciation percentage listed below was developed as a result of a market study analysis, performed by the State Board of Equalization, of new and used sales data of offset lithographic printing presses. No estimates of economic lives are stated or implied, since the tables were derived by analyzing market data rather than price indexes and economic life patterns. The value factors are intended to be applied directly to the cost of offset lithographic printing presses. Any deviation from these factors for unusual functional or economic obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). OFFSET LITHOGRAPHIC PRINTING PRESSES YEAR Y1 YEAR 2018 91 2018 2017 82 2017 2016 74 2016 2015 66 2015 2014 58 2014 2013 50 2013 2012 43 2012 2011 37 2011 2010 31 2010 2009 23 2009 2008 20 2008 2007 17 2007 2006 13 2006 2005 10 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998

BIOPHARMACEUTICAL EQUIPMENT The depreciation factors below were adopted by the Board of Equalization to estimate the current fair market value of this highly specialized industry. These factors should be applied directly to historical costs. Any deviation from these factors designed to reflect unusual or extraordinary economic or functional obsolescence, etc., should be documented in compliance with Property Tax Rule 6 (F). General Laboratory Commercial Pilot Scale Fixtures Equipment & High Technology Manufacturing Manufacturing and Process Analytical Instrumentation Equipment Equipment Piping (A-1) (A-3) (A-4) (B-2) YEAR Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4 YEAR 2018 85 92 89 92 2018 2017 71 85 80 85 2017 2016 57 79 70 79 2016 2015 42 69 59 69 2015 2014 30 60 48 60 2014 2013 19 52 37 52 2013 2012 12 43 28 43 2012 2011 11 36 21 36 2011 2010 11 29 15 29 2010 2009 11 23 11 23 2009 2008 11 17 11 17 2008 2007 11 13 11 13 2007 2006 11 12 11 12 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998

Set Top Box Each depreciation percentage listed below was developed as a result of a lifing study, performed by the California Assessor's Association Ad Hoc Valuation Committee, of set-top box equipment. No estimates of economic lives are stated or implied, since the tables were derived by analyzing market data rather than price indexes and economic life patterns. The value factors are intended to be applied directly to the cost of Set-top Boxes. Set-Top Boxes are information appliance devices that connect to television or other display devices with an external source of signal that displays on the television screen or display device. These are typically used in cable and satellite television. SET TOP BOX YEAR Y9 YEAR 2018 68 2018 2017 47 2017 2016 31 2016 2015 19 2015 2014 11 2014 2013 6 2013 2012 2 2012 2011 2 2011 2010 2010 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998

2019 SCHEDULE OF PERCENTAGES APPLIED TO CURRENT SELLING PRICE NEW IN ESTIMATING VALUE OF USED EQUIPMENT - LEASED 5.25% RATE OF RETURN LIFE 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 15 17 20 YEAR U4 U5 U6 U7 U8 U10 U12 U15 U17 U20 YEAR 2018 75 80 84 87 89 91 93 95 96 97 2018 2017 52 61 68 73 77 82 86 89 91 93 2017 2016 32 44 53 60 65 73 79 84 87 89 2016 2015 17 29 39 47 54 64 71 78 82 86 2015 2014 10 17 27 36 44 55 64 73 77 82 2014 2013 10 10 17 26 34 47 57 67 72 78 2013 2012 10 11 18 25 39 50 61 67 74 2012 2011 10 12 18 31 43 56 62 70 2011 2010 10 13 25 36 50 57 66 2010 2009 10 19 30 45 52 61 2009 2008 15 25 39 47 57 2008 2007 11 20 34 43 53 2007 2006 10 16 29 38 49 2006 2005 10 12 25 34 45 2005 2004 10 21 30 41 2004 2003 10 18 26 37 2003 2002 15 22 33 2002 2001 13 19 30 2001 2000 10 16 27 2000 1999 10 14 24 1999 1998 12 21 1998 1997 10 18 1997 1996 10 16 1996 1995 14 1995 1994 13 1994 1993 11 1993 1992 10 1992 1991 10 1991 1989 1989 1988 1988 1987 1987 1986 1986 1/29/2019

2019 PROPOSITION 13 FACTORS SCHEDULE Year P13 2019 1.00000 100 2018 1.02000 102 2017 1.04040 104.04 2016 1.06120 106.12 2015 1.07738 107.738 2014 1.09890 109.89 2013 1.10388 110.388 2012 1.12595 112.595 2011 1.14846 114.846 2010 1.15710 115.71 2009 1.15435 115.435 2008 1.17743 117.743 2007 1.20097 120.097 2006 1.22498 122.498 2005 1.24947 124.947 2004 1.27445 127.445 2003 1.29824 129.824 2002 1.32420 132.42 2001 1.35068 135.068 2000 1.37769 137.769 1999 1.40524 140.524 1998 1.43127 143.127 1997 1.45989 145.989 1996 1.48908 148.908 1995 1.50560 150.56 1994 1.52351 152.351 1993 1.55398 155.398 1992 1.58505 158.505 1991 1.61675 161.675 1990 1.64908 164.908 1989 1.68206 168.206 1988 1.71570 171.57 1987 1.75001 175.001 1986 1.78501 178.501 1985 1.82071 182.071

2019 SPECIAL TABLES YEAR S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 2017 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2016 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2015 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2014 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2013 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2012 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2011 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2010 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2009 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2008 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2007 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2006 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2005 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2004 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2003 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2002 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2001 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 2000 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1999 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1998 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1997 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1996 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1995 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1994 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1993 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1992 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1991 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1990 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1989 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1988 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1987 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1986 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5