SACRAMENTO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 2018 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 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 2017 54 75 80 84 87 89 91 93 95 96 97 2017 2016 39 54 63 70 75 79 84 89 92 94 96 2016 2015 24 33 45 54 61 66 74 81 86 89 91 2015 2014 15 18 30 40 48 56 66 73 80 84 89 2014 2013 10 11 18 28 38 46 58 67 77 81 86 2013 2012 6 11 11 18 28 36 50 60 71 76 83 2012 2011 4 11 12 19 27 42 54 66 72 80 2011 2010 2 11 13 20 35 48 63 69 78 2010 2009 2 11 11 14 28 40 56 63 73 2009 2008 11 11 22 34 51 59 70 2008 2007 11 18 30 46 55 67 2007 2006 14 25 42 53 66 2006 2005 13 21 37 49 63 2005 2004 13 17 35 47 62 2004 2003 14 30 43 58 2003 2002 14 26 37 53 2002 2001 22 32 48 2001 2000 19 28 44 2000 1999 15 24 40 1999 1998 15 21 36 1998 1997 18 32 1997 1996 15 28 1996 1995 15 25 1995 1994 22 1994 1993 21 1993 1992 18 1992 1991 17 1991 1988 1988 1987 1987 1986 1986 ** 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 2017 91 93 95 96 97 2017 2016 83 87 90 92 94 2016 2015 74 81 86 89 91 2015 2014 66 73 80 84 89 2014 2013 57 67 76 80 85 2013 2012 49 60 70 76 82 2012 2011 41 53 65 71 78 2011 2010 34 47 61 68 76 2010 2009 27 39 55 62 72 2009 2008 21 33 50 57 67 2008 2007 17 29 45 54 66 2007 2006 13 24 40 51 63 2006 2005 11 19 35 46 59 2005 2004 11 15 31 43 56 2004 2003 13 27 39 53 2003 2002 12 23 34 48 2002 2001 20 29 43 2001 2000 17 25 40 2000 1999 13 21 36 1999 1998 12 19 32 1998 1997 16 28 1997 1996 14 25 1996 1995 12 22 1995 1994 20 1994 1993 19 1993 1992 16 1992 1991 13 1991 1988 1988 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985 1984 1984 1983 1983 1982 1982 1981 1981 1980 1980 1979 1979

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 2017 54 73 2017 2016 39 47 2016 2015 24 30 2015 2014 15 19 2014 2013 10 12 2013 2012 6 8 2012 2011 4 5 2011 2010 2 3 2010 2009 2 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

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 2017 78 92 85 74 90 82 2017 2016 71 83 77 65 79 72 2016 2015 65 77 71 58 70 64 2015 2014 60 70 65 52 62 57 2014 2013 55 65 60 45 56 50 2013 2012 50 59 55 40 49 45 2012 2011 45 54 50 36 43 40 2011 2010 42 50 47 32 39 36 2010 2009 38 45 42 28 34 32 2009 2008 35 42 39 25 30 28 2008 2007 33 39 37 23 28 26 2007 2006 32 38 36 22 27 24 2006 2005 30 36 34 20 23 22 2005 2004 30 36 33 22 2004 2003 28 32 31 20 2003 2002 26 30 29 20 2002 2001 28 2001 2000 25 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997 1988 1988 1987 1987 1986 1986

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 2017 74 91 83 2017 2016 67 82 75 2016 2015 61 75 68 2015 2014 57 70 64 2014 2013 54 65 60 2013 2012 51 63 57 2012 2011 47 58 53 2011 2010 44 54 49 2010 2009 41 50 45 2009 2008 37 45 42 2008 2007 34 42 38 2007 2006 33 40 37 2006 2005 31 38 35 2005 2004 31 38 35 2004 2003 29 36 33 2003 2002 28 34 31 2002 2001 24 30 27 2001 2000 19 25 22 2000 1999 18 20 20 1999 1998 17 17 17 1998 1997 14 1997 1988 1988 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985

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 2017 98 98 99 99 98 98 2017 2016 98 99 101 99 96 97 2016 2015 95 97 99 99 95 97 2015 2014 93 96 99 99 93 96 2014 2013 91 96 99 98 90 95 2013 2012 89 93 99 98 88 92 2012 2011 87 93 99 98 86 91 2011 2010 87 94 102 99 85 92 2010 2009 83 91 99 97 82 89 2009 2008 82 90 100 97 79 87 2008 2007 81 91 103 100 79 89 2007 2006 82 93 105 100 78 89 2006 2005 81 93 108 102 76 87 2005 2004 81 97 113 103 74 88 2004 2003 80 95 114 104 73 87 2003 2002 76 92 114 103 69 83 2002 2001 73 90 112 101 66 81 2001 2000 67 86 111 100 61 78 2000 1999 64 83 110 98 57 74 1999 1998 60 80 107 96 54 72 1998 1997 56 77 105 95 50 69 1997 1996 52 73 104 93 47 66 1996 1995 48 70 102 92 43 63 1995 1994 46 69 104 94 42 62 1994 1993 43 66 104 93 38 59 1993 1992 41 64 103 92 36 57 1992 1991 38 60 101 90 33 53 1991 1990 35 58 100 89 31 51 1990 1989 32 54 98 89 29 48 1989 1988 30 53 100 90 27 47 1988 1987 29 51 100 90 26 46 1987 1986 25 48 98 88 23 43 1986 1985 24 46 93 84 21 42 1985 1984 20 43 92 84 18 39 1984 1983 40 89 80 16 36 1983 1982 39 88 80 35 1982 1981 36 86 78 33 1981 1980 35 91 84 32 1980 1979 35 94 88 32 1979 1978 30 97 91 27 1978

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 2017 78 91 2017 2016 61 83 2016 2015 46 74 2015 2014 34 66 2014 2013 25 57 2013 2012 18 49 2012 2011 12 41 2011 2010 8 34 2010 2009 27 2009 2008 21 2008 2007 17 2007 2006 13 2006 2005 12 2005 2004 12 2004 2003 12 2003 2002 12 2002 2001 12 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997

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 2017 58 2017 2016 47 2016 2015 32 2015 2014 28 2014 2013 23 2013 2012 19 2012 2011 15 2011 2010 13 2010 2009 10 2009 2008 10 2008 2007 10 2007 2006 2006 2005 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997

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 2017 91 2017 2016 82 2016 2015 74 2015 2014 66 2014 2013 58 2013 2012 50 2012 2011 43 2011 2010 37 2010 2009 31 2009 2008 23 2008 2007 20 2007 2006 17 2006 2005 13 2005 2004 10 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997

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 2017 85 92 89 92 2017 2016 70 84 79 84 2016 2015 55 77 68 77 2015 2014 41 68 58 68 2014 2013 29 59 47 59 2013 2012 19 51 37 51 2012 2011 12 42 28 42 2011 2010 11 36 21 36 2010 2009 11 28 14 28 2009 2008 11 22 11 22 2008 2007 11 17 11 17 2007 2006 11 13 11 13 2006 2005 11 12 11 12 2005 2004 2004 2003 2003 2002 2002 2001 2001 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998 1997 1997

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 2017 68 2017 2016 47 2016 2015 31 2015 2014 19 2014 2013 11 2013 2012 6 2012 2011 2 2011 2010 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 1997 1997

2018 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 2017 75 80 84 87 89 91 93 95 96 97 2017 2016 52 61 68 73 77 82 86 89 91 93 2016 2015 32 44 53 60 65 73 79 84 87 89 2015 2014 17 29 39 47 54 64 71 78 82 86 2014 2013 10 17 27 36 44 55 64 73 77 82 2013 2012 10 10 17 26 34 47 57 67 72 78 2012 2011 11 18 25 39 50 61 67 74 2011 2010 10 12 18 31 43 56 62 70 2010 2009 10 13 25 36 50 57 66 2009 2008 10 19 30 45 52 61 2008 2007 15 25 39 47 57 2007 2006 11 20 34 43 53 2006 2005 10 16 29 38 49 2005 2004 10 12 25 34 45 2004 2003 10 21 30 41 2003 2002 10 18 26 37 2002 2001 15 22 33 2001 2000 13 19 30 2000 1999 10 16 27 1999 1998 10 14 24 1998 1997 12 21 1997 1996 10 18 1996 1995 10 16 1995 1994 14 1994 1993 13 1993 1992 11 1992 1991 10 1991 1990 10 1990 1988 1988 1987 1987 1986 1986 1985 1985 7/2/2018

2018 PROPOSITION 13 FACTORS SCHEDULE Year P13 2018 1.00000 100 2017 1.02000 102 2016 1.04040 104.04 2015 1.05626 105.626 2014 1.07736 107.736 2013 1.08225 108.225 2012 1.10389 110.389 2011 1.12596 112.596 2010 1.13443 113.443 2009 1.13174 113.174 2008 1.15437 115.437 2007 1.17745 117.745 2006 1.20099 120.099 2005 1.22500 122.5 2004 1.24950 124.95 2003 1.27282 127.282 2002 1.29827 129.827 2001 1.32423 132.423 2000 1.35071 135.071 1999 1.37772 137.772 1998 1.40324 140.324 1997 1.43130 143.13 1996 1.45992 145.992 1995 1.47612 147.612 1994 1.49368 149.368 1993 1.52355 152.355 1992 1.55402 155.402 1991 1.58510 158.51 1990 1.61680 161.68 1989 1.64913 164.913 1988 1.68211 168.211 1987 1.71575 171.575 1986 1.75006 175.006 1985 1.78506 178.506 1984 1.82076 182.076

2018 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