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

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

SACRAMENTO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2019 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 2016 54 75 80 84 86 88 91 93 95 96 96 2016 2015 39 52 61 68 73 77 82 86 89 91 93 2015 2014 24 31 44 53 60 65 73 78 84 86 89 2014 2013 15 17 30 40 48 55 65 72 80 84 87 2013 2012 10 10 18 28 37 44 57 66 74 79 83 2012 2011 6 10 11 18 27 36 49 59 70 76 81 2011 2010 4 11 12 20 27 43 53 66 73 80 2010 2009 2 11 13 19 33 45 59 67 75 2009 2008 2 11 11 14 28 40 56 63 72 2008 2007 11 12 22 35 51 60 70 2007 2006 12 17 29 47 57 69 2006 2005 14 25 43 53 66 2005 2004 13 21 39 51 66 2004 2003 13 17 35 46 61 2003 2002 14 30 41 56 2002 2001 14 24 35 52 2001 2000 21 31 47 2000 1999 17 26 42 1999 1998 15 23 38 1998 1997 15 19 34 1997 1996 18 31 1996 1995 15 27 1995 1994 15 25 1994 1993 23 1993 1992 20 1992 1991 18 1991 1990 16 1990 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985 ** 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 2016 91 93 95 96 96 2016 2015 83 87 90 92 94 2015 2014 74 79 85 87 90 2014 2013 66 73 80 84 88 2013 2012 57 67 75 80 84 2012 2011 49 59 70 76 81 2011 2010 42 53 66 72 79 2010 2009 33 45 59 67 75 2009 2008 27 39 55 62 71 2008 2007 22 34 50 59 70 2007 2006 16 28 45 55 66 2006 2005 13 24 41 50 64 2005 2004 11 20 36 47 61 2004 2003 11 15 32 42 56 2003 2002 13 27 37 52 2002 2001 12 22 32 48 2001 2000 20 29 43 2000 1999 16 24 38 1999 1998 13 21 34 1998 1997 12 17 31 1997 1996 16 29 1996 1995 14 25 1995 1994 12 23 1994 1993 20 1993 1992 18 1992 1991 16 1991 1990 13 1990 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985 1984 1984 1983 1983 1982 1982 1981 1981 1980 1980 1979 1979 1978 1978

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 2016 54 73 2016 2015 39 47 2015 2014 24 30 2014 2013 15 19 2013 2012 10 12 2012 2011 6 8 2011 2010 4 5 2010 2009 2 3 2009 2008 2 2 2008 2007 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1996 1996

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 2016 78 92 85 74 90 82 2016 2015 71 83 77 65 79 72 2015 2014 65 76 71 58 70 64 2014 2013 60 71 66 52 62 57 2013 2012 54 64 59 45 55 50 2012 2011 50 60 56 41 49 45 2011 2010 46 55 51 36 44 41 2010 2009 43 50 47 32 39 36 2009 2008 39 46 43 29 35 32 2008 2007 36 44 40 25 31 29 2007 2006 34 40 38 24 29 26 2006 2005 32 38 36 22 27 24 2005 2004 31 38 35 20 24 23 2004 2003 31 36 33 22 2003 2002 28 32 31 20 2002 2001 26 30 29 20 2001 2000 28 2000 1999 25 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1996 1996 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985

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 2016 74 91 83 2016 2015 67 82 75 2015 2014 61 75 68 2014 2013 57 71 64 2013 2012 55 66 61 2012 2011 52 64 59 2011 2010 48 59 54 2010 2009 44 54 49 2009 2008 41 51 46 2008 2007 38 46 43 2007 2006 35 43 39 2006 2005 34 42 38 2005 2004 33 40 37 2004 2003 31 39 36 2003 2002 29 36 33 2002 2001 28 34 31 2001 2000 24 29 26 2000 1999 19 25 22 1999 1998 18 20 20 1998 1997 17 17 17 1997 1996 14 1996 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985 1984 1984

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 2016 98 98 99 99 98 98 2016 2015 95 96 98 99 96 97 2015 2014 92 94 97 98 93 95 2014 2013 92 94 97 98 93 95 2013 2012 90 93 97 98 90 94 2012 2011 88 92 98 98 88 92 2011 2010 88 94 100 99 87 93 2010 2009 84 91 97 97 84 91 2009 2008 83 90 99 97 82 88 2008 2007 83 91 101 100 82 90 2007 2006 82 92 104 100 79 88 2006 2005 81 93 106 102 78 89 2005 2004 83 95 111 103 77 88 2004 2003 81 95 112 104 76 88 2003 2002 79 93 113 103 72 85 2002 2001 73 90 110 101 67 83 2001 2000 70 87 108 99 64 79 2000 1999 67 84 109 98 60 76 1999 1998 62 81 106 96 57 74 1998 1997 57 77 104 95 52 71 1997 1996 54 75 103 94 49 68 1996 1995 50 71 101 92 46 65 1995 1994 48 70 101 93 44 64 1994 1993 45 68 103 93 41 61 1993 1992 41 64 102 92 37 58 1992 1991 38 61 100 91 35 56 1991 1990 36 60 99 90 33 54 1990 1989 33 56 97 90 30 51 1989 1988 31 55 99 90 28 50 1988 1987 31 53 99 90 28 49 1987 1986 27 49 95 87 25 44 1986 1985 25 45 94 86 23 41 1985 1984 21 44 90 83 19 40 1984 1983 19 41 90 83 18 38 1983 1982 38 86 79 16 35 1982 1981 37 88 81 35 1981 1980 38 91 85 36 1980 1979 37 94 90 35 1979 1978 34 97 93 32 1978 1977 31 99 96 30 1977

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 2016 78 91 2016 2015 61 83 2015 2014 46 74 2014 2013 34 66 2013 2012 25 57 2012 2011 18 49 2011 2010 12 42 2010 2009 8 33 2009 2008 27 2008 2007 22 2007 2006 16 2006 2005 13 2005 2004 13 2004 2003 13 2003 2002 13 2002 2001 13 2001 2000 13 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1996 1996

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 2016 58 2016 2015 47 2015 2014 32 2014 2013 28 2013 2012 23 2012 2011 19 2011 2010 15 2010 2009 13 2009 2008 10 2008 2007 10 2007 2006 10 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1996 1996

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 2016 91 2016 2015 82 2015 2014 74 2014 2013 66 2013 2012 58 2012 2011 50 2011 2010 43 2010 2009 37 2009 2008 31 2008 2007 23 2007 2006 20 2006 2005 17 2005 2004 13 2004 2003 10 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1996 1996

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 2016 85 92 89 92 2016 2015 70 84 79 84 2015 2014 55 76 68 76 2014 2013 41 68 58 68 2013 2012 29 59 47 59 2012 2011 19 51 37 51 2011 2010 12 43 28 43 2010 2009 11 36 21 36 2009 2008 11 28 14 28 2008 2007 11 23 12 23 2007 2006 11 17 12 17 2006 2005 11 13 12 13 2005 2004 11 12 12 12 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1996 1996

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 2016 68 2016 2015 47 2015 2014 31 2014 2013 19 2013 2012 11 2012 2011 6 2011 2010 2 2010 2009 2 2009 2008 2008 2007 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1996 1996

2017 SCHEDULE OF PERCENTAGES APPLIED TO CURRENT SELLING PRICE NEW IN ESTIMATING VALUE OF USED EQUIPMENT - LEASED 5.00% 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 2016 75 80 84 86 88 91 93 95 96 96 2016 2015 52 61 68 73 77 82 86 89 91 93 2015 2014 31 44 53 60 65 73 78 84 86 89 2014 2013 17 29 39 47 54 64 71 78 82 85 2013 2012 10 17 27 36 43 55 64 72 77 81 2012 2011 10 10 17 26 34 47 56 67 72 77 2011 2010 11 18 25 39 49 61 67 73 2010 2009 10 12 18 31 42 55 62 69 2009 2008 10 13 25 36 50 57 65 2008 2007 10 19 30 44 52 61 2007 2006 14 24 39 47 57 2006 2005 11 20 34 42 53 2005 2004 10 16 29 38 49 2004 2003 12 25 33 44 2003 2002 10 21 29 40 2002 2001 10 17 25 37 2001 2000 15 22 33 2000 1999 12 18 29 1999 1998 10 16 26 1998 1997 10 13 23 1997 1996 12 21 1996 1995 10 18 1995 1994 10 16 1994 1993 14 1993 1992 12 1992 1991 11 1991 1990 10 1990 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985 1984 1984 2/1/2017

2017 PROPOSITION 13 FACTORS SCHEDULE Year P13 2017 1.00000 100 2016 1.02000 102 2015 1.03555 103.555 2014 1.05624 105.624 2013 1.06103 106.103 2012 1.08225 108.225 2011 1.10389 110.389 2010 1.11220 111.22 2009 1.10956 110.956 2008 1.13175 113.175 2007 1.15438 115.438 2006 1.17746 117.746 2005 1.20100 120.1 2004 1.22502 122.502 2003 1.24789 124.789 2002 1.27284 127.284 2001 1.29829 129.829 2000 1.32425 132.425 1999 1.35073 135.073 1998 1.37575 137.575 1997 1.40326 140.326 1996 1.43132 143.132 1995 1.44720 144.72 1994 1.46442 146.442 1993 1.49370 149.37 1992 1.52357 152.357 1991 1.55404 155.404 1990 1.58512 158.512 1989 1.61682 161.682 1988 1.64915 164.915 1987 1.68213 168.213 1986 1.71577 171.577 1985 1.75008 175.008 1984 1.78508 178.508 1983 1.82078 182.078

2017 SPECIAL TABLES YEAR S0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 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 1985 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5 1984 100 90 80 75 50 25 20 15 10 5