Property Tax Freeze Considerations December 11, 2006

Transcription

1 John G. Morgan Comptroller STATE OF TENNESSEE COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY DIVISION OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS James K. Polk State Office Building 505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1400 Nashville, Tennessee Phone (615) Fax (615) Tom Fleming, CAE Assistant to the Comptroller for Assessments (615) David Sherrill, CAE Director (615) Introduction Property Tax Freeze Considerations In November 2006, Tennessee voters approved an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution authorizing a property tax freeze for elderly homeowners. This amendment to Article II, Section 28 of the Tennessee Constitution gives the General Assembly the authority by general law to authorize counties and municipalities to implement a local option property tax freeze for taxpayers 65 years of age or older. This document prepared by the Division of Property Assessments sets forth issues for consideration relative to the property tax freeze. On a number of issues, alternatives are provided for discussion purposes. While some issues may be appropriate for determination in state law, others may be appropriate for determination at the administrative level. Guidance from the Attorney General may be desirable relative to some of these issues. Contents Provisions of the Amendment 1 Issues for Consideration 2 Administration 2 Qualification 2 Timing Issues 4 Policy Issues 4 Technical Issues 6 Miscellaneous Issues 6 Legal Issues 7 Appendix A Tax Freeze Amendment 9 B - Tennessee Constitution, Article II, Section C - Existing Statutory Provisions (T.C.A ) 12 D - Tax Freeze Examples 13 E - Impact Projections per $0.01 Increase on Tax Rate 14 Provisions of the Amendment A. The amendment freezes the amount of property taxes on the principal place of residence for taxpayers 65 years of age or older. B. The tax freeze is local option for counties and municipalities by ordinance or resolution. 1

2 Property Tax Freeze Considerations C. Taxes are frozen as of the date of adoption by the local government; the tax year in which the taxpayer turns 65 years old; or, the tax year in which a taxpayer age 65 or over purchases their residence. D. Legislation would be necessary to implement the tax freeze, but the Legislature is not required to do so. E. The Legislature must determine an annual income or wealth limit in order for persons to qualify. F. The frozen tax amount shall be adjusted proportionally with the value to reflect improvements to the property. Issues for Consideration Administration 1. Who should administer the property tax freeze? Alternatives: Local government (i.e., collecting officials); state government; or, a combined effort. Since the freeze is a local option affecting local tax revenues, local government could bear the entire administrative burden of implementing the program. The need for uniformity in how it is administered could lead to state involvement either through guidance, qualifying applicants, or some more comprehensive administrative function. 2. Who should maintain the frozen tax amounts for a jurisdiction? Alternatives: The collecting official; the Assessor; or, the state. The freeze applies to the tax amount itself, and the work of collecting officials is fundamentally tied to those amounts. The Assessor of Property would have some involvement with the tax freeze when improvements are made to the property or if only a portion of the property is used as the primary residence of the owner. The state could provide centralized storage and maintenance of those amounts, if administering of the tax freeze program. The state currently maintains a centralized assessment database and system for 89 counties as well as the system for administering the statewide Property Tax Relief program. Additional resources would be needed if the state were to maintain the tax freeze data. 3. In order to provide sufficient lead time to set up the administration of the tax freeze, what effective date should be placed on any relevant legislation? Alternatives: One alternative is that the effective date could be upon becoming law for purposes of local adoption, but January 1 following enactment for purposes of implementing the program. Another alternative could be October 1 following enactment. 4. What additional resources at the state and local level will be required to administer the property tax freeze? Note: Estimates of additional resources needed should include personnel, facilities, systems modifications or creation, and operating costs. The level of additional resources needed will depend upon the level of existing resources and processes that can be leveraged in the administration of the tax freeze. Qualification 5. What type of qualification limit should be set? Alternatives: An income limit; a wealth limit; or, both. The language of the amendment requires a limit of income or wealth (see subsection [c]), which could be construed as either or both. 2

3 Property Tax Freeze Considerations What income is included and whether the income from all owners is considered would need to be determined. Under the state s existing state Tax Relief Program, the incomes of all owners of the property are considered for eligibility under the $20,000 income limit. Social Security incomes of persons age 65 and over can be verified through the Social Security Administration. For 2007, the maximum annual Social Security benefit for a person retiring at full retirement age (65 years, 10 months) that paid in the maximum amount to Social Security since age 21 is $25,392. If a wealth limit were to be used, its components would need to be defined also. These could include resources such as real estate, bank accounts, insurance policies having cash value, investments and vehicles. The ability to verify that applicants qualify under whatever limit or limits are established would be of paramount importance in administering the tax freeze and could be a labor-intensive process requiring significant resources. 6. Could the income or wealth limit vary by county, or must it be a single limit statewide? Alternatives: A single statewide limit set by the Legislature; a maximum limit set by the Legislature with authority for local governments to set a lower limit; limits set by each county under authority granted by the Legislature; or, local limits tied to a recognized source (such as maximum Social Security income or median income published by HUD or the Census Bureau). The language of the amendment says an amount, which could be interpreted to require a single limit. 7. If an income limit is used, should the amount correspond to the income limit for the existing state Tax Relief Program? Alternatives: Set an income limit that mirrors the existing state Tax Relief Program; or, set a separate limit. Mirroring the Tax Relief income limit for the most part would simplify administration in the application, ownership verification and income verification processes. The result would be that the taxpayers qualifying for the freeze would be the same as those qualifying for Tax Relief. If the tax freeze were to be available to a broader group of taxpayers than Tax Relief recipients, a separate limit would be necessary. Income verification would then become a greater task requiring more resources. 8. Can taxpayers qualify for both Tax Relief and the tax freeze? Note: There appears to be no prohibition against applying for both programs. 9. How would ownership of the property be verified? Note: The state Tax Relief Program verifies ownership of the property by using property assessment data as well as deeds Should taxpayers be required to apply for the tax freeze? Note: The age and the income or wealth of the taxpayer would not be known without an application. 11. Should participants be required to apply annually? Alternatives: Annual application; one-time application; or, application on some other periodic basis. 12. Should annual re-verification of eligibility for taxpayers already in the tax freeze program be made, and should it be made before tax bills are produced? Alternatives: Annually re-verify the eligibility of participants before tax bills are produced; verify the first year only; or, apply the freeze and re-verify after the fact (necessitating recapture of tax savings for persons that no longer qualify). If income is the qualifying factor, then it would seem reasonable to require taxpayers to certify their level of income annually at the time they pay their property taxes. 3

4 Property Tax Freeze Considerations Under the state s current Tax Relief program, applicants already on the program receive a voucher when they receive their tax bill. The voucher is then presented to the collecting official before the deadline date along with payment of any balance due. A tax freeze voucher could be generated in a similar manner. Timing Issues 13. Provisions in the amendment regarding the year the freeze is adopted locally specify that the frozen amount is the amount of tax imposed at the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted (emphasis added; see subsection [a][1]). Which year s taxes would become the frozen amount in the year the freeze is adopted? Alternatives: The frozen amount could be the tax most recently levied, which would be the previous year s amount if the current year rate had not been set, or the current year s amount if the rate had already been set at the time the resolution or ordinance was adopted. Or, it could be the current year s taxes regardless of whether the rate had been set at the time the freeze was adopted locally, depending upon the interpretation of the word imposed. Merriam-Webster Online defines imposed, in part, as to establish or apply by authority <impose a tax>. This question is not an issue with persons becoming age 65 or purchasing a residence after the program begins, as the amendment provides that in those cases the frozen amount shall be the amount of tax imposed in the tax year such event occurs (i.e., the current year s taxes). 14. Must the taxpayer own the property on January 1 to qualify for the tax freeze for that tax year? Alternatives: The frozen amount can be the amount of tax on the property for the tax year in which the property is purchased (see subsection [a][3] of the amendment). Options are that the taxpayer can qualify if they own the property for any portion of the year; or, that they must own the property on January 1 in order to qualify for that year. There could be a distinction between when the owner qualifies and what year s taxes become the frozen amount. Owners may qualify for the current state Tax Relief Program if they owned the property for any portion of the year. Policy Issues 15. How should adjustments to the base frozen tax amount be calculated for improvements to the property? Alternatives: Adjust the base amount by the percentage of increase in the value; or, calculate the current taxes on the amount of increased value and add it to the original frozen amount. The first alternative would adjust the frozen amount to reflect improvements on the same basis as the residence originally frozen. The second alternative would adjust the frozen amount to reflect the current taxes on the amount of value increase in the property. See the Tax Freeze Examples section in Appendix D for sample calculations of each alternative. The language of the amendment provides that, when improvements are made to the property, the frozen amount shall be increased proportionally with the value of the property (emphasis added). Merriam-Webster Online defines proportional, in part, as having the same or a constant ratio. Note: In cases where improvements to the property are made in a reappraisal year, the property values before and after the improvements are made would have to be compared on the same basis of value (i.e., both being pre-reappraisal values or both being post-reappraisal values). 16. How much of the property tax is frozen? 4

5 Property Tax Freeze Considerations Alternatives: Freeze the taxes on the portion of the property used as the principal place of residence ; or, freeze the entire tax amount. In cases where the taxpayer owns and resides on property having a use beyond residential (such as farm/greenbelt property or commercial property), provisions to freeze the taxes only on the portion of the property specifically used for residential purposes may be appropriate. A definition of residence, such as the house plus the amount of land that is used for residential purposes, would clarify the intent. 17. Does the tax freeze apply to use value on greenbelt properties? Alternatives: Apply the freeze only to market value; or, apply the freeze to use value. The answer to this question is dependent upon the answer to the question immediately above. If the amount frozen only applies to the residential portion of a greenbelt property, the frozen amount would apply only to the taxes on the house plus the amount of land used for residential purposes. On greenbelt properties, both of these are appraised at market value. The remaining land used for greenbelt purposes is appraised at use value. The use value under greenbelt is not for a residential purpose, but rather agricultural, forest or open space use. If the entire tax amount is frozen, a determination regarding whether to freeze taxes at an amount based on use value would still need to be made. If frozen taxes based on use value were allowed, policy would need to be established as to whether the frozen amount would be adjusted if the property ceases to qualify for greenbelt. 18. Would the tax freeze affect rollback taxes on greenbelt property that ceases to qualify for greenbelt? Note: The answer to this question is dependent upon the two issues immediately above. If the tax freeze does not apply to use value, it would not affect rollback taxes. 19. If the calculated taxes are less than the frozen amount, should the taxpayer pay the lesser calculated amount? Alternatives: Pay the lesser amount; or, pay the frozen amount. 20. Should the frozen base tax amount remain the same if the calculated taxes for a given year are less than the base amount (once frozen, always frozen)? Alternatives: Keep the original frozen amount for future use and pay the lesser amount; or, reset the frozen amount to the new lesser amount. 21. When an existing tax freeze participant purchases a new home, is a new frozen amount established for the new residence and the freeze on the old residence removed? Note: This would appear to be the case under the provisions of the amendment dealing with the purchase of a home by a taxpayer age 65 or over. 22. How should the frozen amount be adjusted if the structure is destroyed and then another structure is built in its place? Note: This could be handled in the same manner as an improvement to the property (see item #15). 23. How would existing improvements not previously assessed be handled? Alternatives: Apply the same process as property with improvements made; set the frozen amount at what the taxes would have been if it were assessed at the time the freeze was established; or, require as a preventive measure that applicants verify or certify that the Assessor s property characteristic data is accurate at the time of application. The approach could depend upon whether it is the entire residence or an addition to the property that was previously missed. 5

6 Property Tax Freeze Considerations 24. If a qualifying participant ceases to qualify in one year, then subsequently re-qualifies, is a new frozen amount established? Alternatives: Establish a new frozen tax amount; or, restore the original frozen amount (assuming the residence has not changed). 25. What should be the ending year of the freeze when the qualifying owner sells the property, dies or otherwise ceases to qualify? Alternatives: The year the change occurs; or, the year following the year the change occurs. 26. Would a special school district separately determine whether to implement a tax freeze for special school district taxes? Alternatives: SSD determine whether to implement the freeze; or, freeze SSD taxes if county taxes are frozen, as they typically appear on the same tax notice. Technical Issues 27. What computer systems (state and local) would need to be modified and/or developed in order to implement a tax freeze? Note: The degree to which systems must be modified or developed depends upon the level of existing resources and processes that can be leveraged in the administration of the tax freeze. 28. Would an adjustment for frozen taxes be needed in the calculation of the Certified Tax Rate in a revaluation year? Would legislation be necessary to modify the calculation? Note: The Certified Tax Rate is established to generate the same revenue for existing property as in the year before revaluation. The tax freeze would affect the amount of taxes generated by a specific tax rate, and therefore could warrant an adjustment to the calculation. Miscellaneous Issues 29. Is it only necessary to adopt the local resolution or ordinance for the tax freeze one time? Note: There is no Constitutional authority to rescind the ordinance or resolution once it is adopted. This may need to be clarified in the enabling legislation. 30. If frozen taxes become delinquent, do penalty and interest apply just as with any other taxes? Note: Under the current property tax system in Tennessee, penalty and interest are applied to all property taxes when they become delinquent. 31. Must the taxes be paid by the delinquency date in order to benefit from the freeze? Note: Under the state Tax Relief Program, a taxpayer has until 35 days after the delinquency date to pay their taxes and still be eligible. 32. Does the freeze affect the current state Tax Relief Program? Note: Constitutional provisions regarding the state Tax Relief Program were unchanged by the amendment; therefore, the program remains intact. 33. Would contiguous property purchased and combined with the original property be included in the freeze? Note: This situation could be handled as an improvement to the property if the parcels were combined and there was a single purpose as the primary residence of the taxpayer. 6

7 Property Tax Freeze Considerations 34. Would the owner of a mobile home located on another person s land be eligible for the tax freeze if they met the age and the income or wealth qualifications? Note: State law provides that mobile homes are assessed to the owner of the land where situated. Under the state Tax Relief Program, owners of mobile homes are eligible for relief. 35. How would a denial of eligibility or the amount of frozen taxes be appealed? Alternatives: Go directly to court, as there is no provision for administrative appeal in the amendment; or, establish an appeal mechanism by statute or rule. 36. How would the impact of the tax freeze be tracked each year? Alternatives: Determine and store both the calculated taxes and frozen taxes for every participant for comparison purposes; provide for reporting from local government to the state; provide the ability to calculate the impact upon demand; or, all of the above. This would necessitate additional personnel time and systems resources. 37. Would a prorated value be used to establish a frozen tax amount? Alternatives: Establish the initial frozen amount based on the prorated value, then treat the full value the following year as an improvement to the property; establish the frozen amount in the proration year as what the taxes would be on the full value; or, wait to establish the frozen amount until the year the property is appraised at full value. Note: T.C.A provides that assessments on structures moved, demolished, destroyed, substantially damaged or newly completed between January 1 and September 1 shall be prorated for the portion of the year the structure is present and whole. 38. Is T.C.A now in effect with the passage of the Constitutional amendment? Note: This statute was previously deemed unconstitutional. See Appendix C for a copy of this statute. Legal Issues The following are legal issues where it may be desirable to seek guidance from the Attoney General. A. Whether the legislature has the discretion to establish a combination of income and wealth limits for a taxpayer to qualify for the property tax freeze. It is assumed that since the actual language of the amendment reads income or wealth limit, a strict interpretation would seem to mandate one limit or the other, but not both or some combination of both. B. Whether the legislature has the discretion to vary the income or wealth limit by county, or must it be a single limit statewide; and, whether the legislature can grant authority to local governments to set their own limit. It is assumed that since the language of the amendment reads an amount to be determined (amount being singular) that there must be a single limit statewide. C. Whether the legislature has the discretion to define upon what tax year the frozen amount is to be based for qualified taxpayers that are sixty-five (65) years of age at the time a county or city adopts the tax freeze. The answer to this issue appears to depend upon the interpretation of the phrase amount of tax not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed at the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted. It is assumed that such amount would be the prior year s taxes if the current year tax rate has yet to be set. However, another interpretation would be to use the current year s taxes even though the rate may not be set until later in the tax year. 7

8 Property Tax Freeze Considerations D. Whether the passage of Constitutional Amendment #2 on November 7, 2006, essentially makes Tenn. Code Ann , originally enacted in 1979, operative in that counties or cities can now adopt a property tax freeze based on Tenn. Code Ann E. Whether the legislature would have to enact any new or special legislation to permit Special School Districts to freeze taxes by ordinance, or are the words counties and municipalities defined broad enough to encompass Special School Districts. F. Whether a county or city can later rescind a resolution or ordinance that previously adopted the tax freeze. 8

9 APPENDIX A 2006 Tax Freeze Amendment Property Tax Freeze Considerations Article II, Section 28 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee has been amended by inserting the following language immediately after the fourth paragraph: By general law, the Legislature may authorize the following program of tax relief: (a) The legislative body of any county or municipality may provide by resolution or ordinance that: (1) Any taxpayer who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older and who owns residential property as the taxpayer's principal place of residence shall pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed at the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted; (2) Any taxpayer who reaches the age of sixty-five (65) after the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted, who owns residential property as the taxpayer's principal place of residence shall thereafter pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed in the tax year in which such taxpayer reaches age sixty-five (65); and (3) Any taxpayer who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older who purchases residential property as the taxpayer's principal place of residence after the taxpayer's sixty-fifth birthday shall pay taxes in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax imposed on such property in the tax year in which such property is purchased. (b) Whenever the full market value of such property is increased as a result of improvements to such property after the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted, then the assessed value of such property shall be adjusted to include such increased value and the taxes shall also be increased proportionally with the value. (c) Any taxpayer or taxpayers who own residential property as their principal place of residence whose total or combined annual income, or wealth exceeds an amount to be determined by the general assembly shall not be eligible to receive the tax relief provided in subsection (a) or (b). 9

10 APPENDIX B Property Tax Freeze Considerations Tennessee Constitution, Article II, Section 28 (Prior to 2006 Amendment) Sec. 28. Taxable property Valuation Rates In accordance with the following provisions, all property real, personal or mixed shall be subject to taxation, but the Legislature may except such as may be held by the State, by Counties, Cities or Towns, and used exclusively for public or corporation purposes, and such as may be held and used for purposes purely religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational, and shall except the direct product of the soil in the hands of the producer, and his immediate vendee, and the entire amount of money deposited in an individual's personal or family checking or savings accounts. For purposes of taxation, property shall be classified into three classes, to wit: Real Property, Tangible Personal Property and Intangible Personal Property. Real Property shall be classified into four (4) subclassifications and assessed as follows: (a) Public Utility Property, to be assessed at fifty-five (55%) percent of its value; (b) Industrial and Commercial Property, to be assessed at forty (40%) percent of its value; (c) Residential Property, to be assessed at twenty-five (25%) percent of its value, provided that residential property containing two (2) or more rental units is hereby defined as industrial and commercial property; and (d) Farm Property, to be assessed at twenty-five (25%) percent of its value. House trailers, mobile homes, and all other similar movable structures used for commercial, industrial, or residential purposes shall be assessed as Real Property as an improvement to the land where located. The Legislature shall provide, in such manner as it deems appropriate, tax relief to elderly low-income taxpayers through payments by the State to reimburse all or part of the taxes paid by such persons on owner-occupied residential property, but such reimbursement shall not be an obligation imposed, directly or indirectly, upon Counties, Cities, or Towns. The Legislature may provide tax relief to home owners totally and permanently disabled, irrespective of age, as provided herein for the elderly. Tangible Personal Property shall be classified into three (3) subclassifications and assessed as follows: (a) Public Utility Property, to be assessed at fifty-five (55%) percent of its value; (b) Industrial and Commercial Property, to be assessed at thirty (30%) percent of its value; and (c) All other Tangible Personal Property, to be assessed at five (5%) percent of its value; provided, however, that the Legislature shall exempt Seven Thousand Five Hundred ($7,500) Dollars worth of 10

11 Property Tax Freeze Considerations such Tangible Personal Property which shall cover personal household goods and furnishings, wearing apparel and other such tangible property in the hands of a taxpayer. The Legislature shall have power to classify Intangible Personal Property into subclassifications and to establish a ratio of assessment to value in each class or subclass, and shall provide fair and equitable methods of apportionment of the value of same to this State for purposes of taxation. Banks, Insurance Companies, Loan and Investment Companies, Savings and Loan Associations, and all similar financial institutions, shall be assessed and taxed in such manner as the Legislature shall direct; provided that for the year 1973, or until such time as the Legislature may provide otherwise, the ratio of assessment to value of property presently taxed shall remain the same as provided by law for the year 1972; provided further that the taxes imposed upon such financial institutions, and paid by them, shall be in lieu of all taxes on the redeemable or cash value of all of their outstanding shares of capital stock, policies of insurance, customer savings and checking accounts, certificates of deposit, and certificates of investment, by whatever name called, including other intangible corporate property of such financial institutions. The ratio of assessment to value of property in each class or subclass shall be equal and uniform throughout the State, the value and definition of property in each class or subclass to be ascertained in such manner as the Legislature shall direct. Each respective taxing authority shall apply the same tax rate to all property within its jurisdiction. The Legislature shall have power to tax merchants, peddlers, and privileges, in such manner as they may from time to time direct, and the Legislature may levy a gross receipts tax on merchants and businesses in lieu of ad valorem taxes on the inventories of merchandise held by such merchants and businesses for sale or exchange. The portion of a Merchant's Capital used in the purpose of merchandise sold by him to nonresidents and sent beyond the State, shall not be taxed at a rate higher than the ad valorem tax on property. The Legislature shall have power to levy a tax upon incomes derived from stocks and bonds that are not taxed ad valorem. This amendment shall take effect on the first day of January, [As Amended; Adopted in Convention September 14, 1971; Approved at election August 3, 1972; Amendment approved at election, November 2, 1982.] 11

12 APPENDIX C Existing Statutory Provisions for Property Tax Freeze T.C.A Property Tax Freeze Considerations Note: This statute was previously deemed unconstitutional Aged persons; maximum tax (a) The legislative body of any county or municipality may provide by resolution that: (1) Any taxpayer who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older and who owns residential property as the taxpayer's principal place of residence shall pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed in the 1979 tax year; (2) Any taxpayer who reaches the age of sixty-five (65) after May 31, 1979, who owns residential property as the taxpayer's principal place of residence shall thereafter pay taxes on such property in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax on such property imposed in the tax year in which such taxpayer reaches age sixty-five (65); and (3) Any taxpayer who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older who purchases residential property as the taxpayer's principal place of residence after the taxpayer's sixty-fifth birthday shall pay taxes in an amount not to exceed the maximum amount of tax imposed on such property in the tax year in which such property is purchased. (b) Whenever the full market value of such property is increased as a result of improvements to such property after May 31, 1979, then the assessed value of such property shall be adjusted to include such increased value and the taxes shall also be increased proportionally with the value. (c) Any taxpayer or taxpayers who own residential property as their principal place of residence whose total or combined annual income is in excess of twelve thousand dollars ($12,000) shall not be eligible to receive the tax relief provided in subsection (a) or (b). 12

13 Property Tax Freeze Considerations Basic Example APPENDIX D TAX FREEZE EXAMPLES Assessment Rate Calculated Taxes Frozen Taxes Year 1 $50,000 $2.00 $1, $1, Year 2 (rate increase) $50,000 $2.50 $1, $1, Examples with Improvements to Property Constitutional amendment language regarding improvements to property: (b) Whenever the full market value of such property is increased as a result of improvements to such property after the time the ordinance or resolution is adopted, then the assessed value of such property shall be adjusted to include such increased value and the taxes shall also be increased proportionally* with the value. (*see note below) Adjustment Method 1 - Add Current Tax on Improvements (Adjust frozen amount to reflect current taxes on the amount of value increase in the property) Assessment Rate Calculated Taxes Frozen Taxes Year 1 $50,000 $2.00 $1,000 $1,000 Year 2 (same rate) Original value $50,000 $2.00 $1,000 $1,000 New value $10,000 $2.00 $200 $200 Totals $60,000 $1,200 $1,200 Year 2 (rate increase) Original value $50,000 $2.50 $1,250 $1,000 New value $10,000 $2.50 $250 $250 Totals $60,000 $1,500 $1,250 Adjustment Method 2 - Apply Percentage Adjustment (Adjust frozen amount to reflect improvements on the same basis as the residence originally frozen) Assessment % Change in Value Rate Calculated Taxes Frozen Taxes Year 1 $50,000 $2.00 $1,000 $1,000 Year 2 (same rate) $60,000 20% $2.00 $1,200 $1,200 Year 2 (rate increase) $60,000 20% $2.50 $1,500 $1,200 *Note: Definition from Merriam-Webster Online: proportional Function: adjective 1 a : corresponding in size, degree, or intensity b : having the same or a constant ratio (emphasis added) 2 : regulated or determined in size or degree with reference to proportions 13

14 Page 14 CORRECTED VERSION - APPENDIX E - Property Tax Freeze Impact Projections Per $0.01 Increase on Property Tax Rate Property Tax Freeze Corrected Version February 13, Total Owner 2006 % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Single Occupied % Owner Assessment Over Up Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 2006 Family Households Occupied for Residence to $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 County City SSD Tax Rate Households 65 or Over 65 or Over Properties Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income * ANDERSON $ ,611 6, % $710,846, % 55.0% 67.7% 77.0% 83.6% $6,608 $9,931 $12,224 $13,903 $15,094 * ANDERSON CLINTON $ % $88,188, % 55.0% 67.7% 77.0% 83.6% $820 $1,232 $1,516 $1,725 $1,873 * ANDERSON LAKE CITY $ % $7,054, % 55.0% 67.7% 77.0% 83.6% $66 $99 $121 $138 $150 * ANDERSON NORRIS $ % $22,660, % 55.0% 67.7% 77.0% 83.6% $211 $317 $390 $443 $481 * ANDERSON OAK RIDGE $ % $261,446, % 55.0% 67.7% 77.0% 83.6% $2,431 $3,652 $4,496 $5,113 $5,552 * ANDERSON OLIVER SPGS $ % $18,211, % 55.0% 67.7% 77.0% 83.6% $169 $254 $313 $356 $387 BEDFORD $ ,847 2, % $430,103, % 60.1% 74.5% 83.4% 88.7% $4,072 $5,297 $6,566 $7,350 $7,817 BEDFORD BELL BUCKLE $ % $3,815, % 60.1% 74.5% 83.4% 88.7% $36 $47 $58 $65 $69 BEDFORD NORMANDY $ % $1,076, % 60.1% 74.5% 83.4% 88.7% $10 $13 $16 $18 $20 BEDFORD SHELBYVILLE $ % $126,126, % 60.1% 74.5% 83.4% 88.7% $1,194 $1,553 $1,925 $2,155 $2,292 BEDFORD WARTRACE $ % $5,334, % 60.1% 74.5% 83.4% 88.7% $51 $66 $81 $91 $97 BENTON $ ,582 1, % $117,004, % 71.9% 85.8% 91.3% 94.6% $1,689 $2,326 $2,776 $2,954 $3,060 BENTON BIG SANDY $ % $2,542, % 71.9% 85.8% 91.3% 94.6% $37 $51 $60 $64 $66 BENTON CAMDEN $ % $23,361, % 71.9% 85.8% 91.3% 94.6% $337 $464 $554 $590 $611 BLEDSOE $ , % $95,515, % 74.8% 84.0% 88.5% 93.9% $1,116 $1,338 $1,503 $1,583 $1,680 BLEDSOE PIKEVILLE $ % $9,319, % 74.8% 84.0% 88.5% 93.9% $109 $131 $147 $154 $164 BLOUNT $ ,899 8, % $1,657,676, % 58.3% 71.3% 80.4% 85.9% $14,680 $21,503 $26,298 $29,654 $31,683 BLOUNT ALCOA $ % $93,954, % 58.3% 71.3% 80.4% 85.9% $832 $1,219 $1,491 $1,681 $1,796 BLOUNT MARYVILLE $ % $341,139, % 58.3% 71.3% 80.4% 85.9% $3,021 $4,425 $5,412 $6,103 $6,520 * BRADLEY $ ,992 5, % $876,294, % 62.7% 73.0% 81.8% 86.9% $7,933 $10,494 $12,218 $13,691 $14,545 * BRADLEY CHARLESTON $ % $4,620, % 62.7% 73.0% 81.8% 86.9% $42 $55 $64 $72 $77 * BRADLEY CLEVELAND $ % $323,213, % 62.7% 73.0% 81.8% 86.9% $2,926 $3,871 $4,507 $5,050 $5,365 * BRADLEY FIRE DISTRICT $ % $272,832, % 62.7% 73.0% 81.8% 86.9% $2,470 $3,267 $3,804 $4,263 $4,528 * BRADLEY FIRE DISTRICT 2 $ % $275,577, % 62.7% 73.0% 81.8% 86.9% $2,495 $3,300 $3,842 $4,306 $4,574 * CAMPBELL $ ,587 3, % $324,646, % 75.5% 86.4% 91.0% 94.0% $4,299 $5,684 $6,505 $6,851 $7,077 * CAMPBELL JELLICO $ % $9,927, % 75.5% 86.4% 91.0% 94.0% $131 $174 $199 $210 $216 * CAMPBELL LAFOLLETTE $ % $34,667, % 75.5% 86.4% 91.0% 94.0% $459 $607 $695 $732 $756 * CAMPBELL LAKE CITY $ % $211, % 75.5% 86.4% 91.0% 94.0% $3 $4 $4 $4 $5 * CANNON $ ,704 1, % $104,686, % 64.6% 80.3% 86.9% 89.9% $1,190 $1,522 $1,892 $2,048 $2,118 * CANNON WOODBURY $ % $15,171, % 64.6% 80.3% 86.9% 89.9% $172 $221 $274 $297 $307 CARROLL $ ,193 2, % $173,022, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $2,301 $3,208 $3,700 $4,004 $4,165 CARROLL BRUCETON $ % $6,965, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $93 $129 $149 $161 $168 CARROLL HOLLOW ROCK $ % $3,664, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $49 $68 $78 $85 $88 CARROLL HUNTINGDON $ % $28,202, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $375 $523 $603 $653 $679 CARROLL MCKENZIE $ % $26,535, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $353 $492 $568 $614 $639 CARROLL MCLEMORESVILLE $ % $1,873, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $25 $35 $40 $43 $45 CARROLL TREZEVANT $ % $4,089, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $54 $76 $87 $95 $98 CARROLL HR-BR SSD $ % $20,210, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $269 $375 $432 $468 $487 CARROLL HGDN SSD $ % $50,490, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $672 $936 $1,080 $1,168 $1,215 CARROLL MCKENZIE SSD $ % $45,569, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $606 $845 $975 $1,055 $1,097 CARROLL S CARROLL SSD $ % $15,047, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $200 $279 $322 $348 $362 CARROLL W CARROLL SSD $ % $41,704, % 69.7% 80.4% 87.0% 90.5% $555 $773 $892 $965 $1,004 CARTER $ ,807 4, % $457,001, % 72.9% 83.4% 89.9% 92.9% $6,081 $8,002 $9,155 $9,868 $10,198 CARTER ELIZABETHTON $ % $105,834, % 72.9% 83.4% 89.9% 92.9% $1,408 $1,853 $2,120 $2,285 $2,362 CARTER JOHNSON CITY $ % $9,016, % 72.9% 83.4% 89.9% 92.9% $120 $158 $181 $195 $201 * - Denotes estimate corrected from original version dated.

15 Page 15 CORRECTED VERSION - APPENDIX E - Property Tax Freeze Impact Projections Per $0.01 Increase on Property Tax Rate Property Tax Freeze Corrected Version February 13, Total Owner 2006 % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Single Occupied % Owner Assessment Over Up Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 2006 Family Households Occupied for Residence to $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 County City SSD Tax Rate Households 65 or Over 65 or Over Properties Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income CARTER WATAUGA $ % $2,401, % 72.9% 83.4% 89.9% 92.9% $32 $42 $48 $52 $54 * CHEATHAM $ ,380 1, % $391,199, % 55.3% 72.7% 82.2% 90.5% $2,163 $3,107 $4,084 $4,618 $5,084 * CHEATHAM ASHLAND CITY $ % $31,540, % 55.3% 72.7% 82.2% 90.5% $174 $250 $329 $372 $410 * CHEATHAM KINGSTON SPGS $ % $37,460, % 55.3% 72.7% 82.2% 90.5% $207 $297 $391 $442 $487 * CHEATHAM KINGSTON SPGS RF $ % $45,924, % 55.3% 72.7% 82.2% 90.5% $254 $365 $479 $542 $597 * CHEATHAM PEGRAM FIRE DIST $ % $27,662, % 55.3% 72.7% 82.2% 90.5% $153 $220 $289 $327 $360 * CHEATHAM PEGRAM RF $ % $13,684, % 55.3% 72.7% 82.2% 90.5% $76 $109 $143 $162 $178 CHESTER $ , % $111,097, % 68.0% 77.2% 83.4% 86.8% $1,039 $1,435 $1,630 $1,760 $1,832 CHESTER HENDERSON $ % $30,326, % 68.0% 77.2% 83.4% 86.8% $283 $392 $445 $481 $500 CLAIBORNE $ ,120 2, % $231,123, % 72.0% 82.0% 88.9% 91.8% $2,735 $3,619 $4,122 $4,469 $4,615 CLAIBORNE CUMBERLAND GAP $ % -$8,326, % 72.0% 82.0% 88.9% 91.8% -$99 -$130 -$149 -$161 -$166 CLAY $ , % $53,531, % 75.0% 88.0% 93.0% 95.7% $798 $966 $1,134 $1,198 $1,233 CLAY CELINA $ % $7,277, % 75.0% 88.0% 93.0% 95.7% $108 $131 $154 $163 $168 COCKE $ ,733 2, % $269,959, % 71.4% 82.9% 87.3% 92.2% $3,140 $3,872 $4,496 $4,735 $5,000 COCKE NEWPORT $ % $40,087, % 71.4% 82.9% 87.3% 92.2% $466 $575 $668 $703 $743 COFFEE $ ,657 3, % $424,244, % 59.9% 73.4% 82.3% 87.2% $4,003 $5,616 $6,882 $7,716 $8,176 COFFEE MANCHESTER $ % $60,424, % 59.9% 73.4% 82.3% 87.2% $570 $800 $980 $1,099 $1,164 COFFEE TULLAHOMA $ % $151,821, % 59.9% 73.4% 82.3% 87.2% $1,433 $2,010 $2,463 $2,761 $2,926 CROCKETT $ ,336 1, % $92,232, % 70.8% 80.1% 86.3% 90.1% $1,094 $1,465 $1,657 $1,785 $1,864 CROCKETT ALAMO $ % $12,865, % 70.8% 80.1% 86.3% 90.1% $153 $204 $231 $249 $260 CROCKETT BELLS $ % $12,865, % 70.8% 80.1% 86.3% 90.1% $153 $204 $231 $249 $260 CROCKETT FRIENDSHIP $ % $2,598, % 70.8% 80.1% 86.3% 90.1% $31 $41 $47 $50 $53 CROCKETT MAURY CITY $ % $3,921, % 70.8% 80.1% 86.3% 90.1% $47 $62 $70 $76 $79 * CUMBERLAND $ ,058 5, % $558,637, % 55.6% 71.3% 81.1% 88.3% $6,609 $9,595 $12,304 $13,995 $15,237 * CUMBERLAND CROSSVILLE $ % $66,423, % 55.6% 71.3% 81.1% 88.3% $786 $1,141 $1,463 $1,664 $1,812 DAVIDSON $ ,453 31, % $7,553,550, % 52.8% 64.5% 73.3% 80.3% $58,402 $83,794 $102,362 $116,327 $127,436 DAVIDSON BELLE MEADE $ % $327,480, % 52.8% 64.5% 73.3% 80.3% $2,532 $3,633 $4,438 $5,043 $5,525 DAVIDSON GOODLETTSVILLE $ % $81,626, % 52.8% 64.5% 73.3% 80.3% $631 $906 $1,106 $1,257 $1,377 DAVIDSON NASHVILLE (URBAN) $ % $4,357,051, % 52.8% 64.5% 73.3% 80.3% $33,687 $48,334 $59,044 $67,100 $73,508 DAVIDSON RIDGETOP $ % $403, % 52.8% 64.5% 73.3% 80.3% $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 DECATUR $ ,680 1, % $89,594, % 74.8% 82.0% 89.2% 91.0% $1,384 $1,683 $1,845 $2,007 $2,047 DECATUR DECATURVILLE $ % $3,834, % 74.8% 82.0% 89.2% 91.0% $59 $72 $79 $86 $88 DECATUR PARSONS $ % $12,429, % 74.8% 82.0% 89.2% 91.0% $192 $233 $256 $278 $284 DECATUR SCOTTS HILL $ % $1,864, % 74.8% 82.0% 89.2% 91.0% $29 $35 $38 $42 $43 * DEKALB $ ,483 1, % $195,530, % 73.4% 84.1% 87.3% 90.5% $2,646 $3,343 $3,830 $3,976 $4,121 * DEKALB ALEXANDRIA $ % $5,857, % 73.4% 84.1% 87.3% 90.5% $79 $100 $115 $119 $123 * DEKALB LIBERTY $ % $2,420, % 73.4% 84.1% 87.3% 90.5% $33 $41 $47 $49 $51 * DEKALB SMITHVILLE $ % $27,629, % 73.4% 84.1% 87.3% 90.5% $374 $472 $541 $562 $582 DICKSON $ ,820 2, % $449,714, % 60.4% 74.7% 84.1% 89.4% $3,890 $5,316 $6,574 $7,402 $7,868 DICKSON BURNS $ % $12,099, % 60.4% 74.7% 84.1% 89.4% $105 $143 $177 $199 $212 DICKSON CHARLOTTE $ % $9,526, % 60.4% 74.7% 84.1% 89.4% $82 $113 $139 $157 $167 DICKSON DICKSON $ % $101,250, % 60.4% 74.7% 84.1% 89.4% $876 $1,197 $1,480 $1,666 $1,771 DICKSON VANLEER $ % $2,500, % 60.4% 74.7% 84.1% 89.4% $22 $30 $37 $41 $44 DICKSON WHITE BLUFF $ % $25,760, % 60.4% 74.7% 84.1% 89.4% $223 $304 $377 $424 $451 * DYER $ ,625 2, % $246,296, % 68.3% 82.1% 88.7% 92.2% $2,655 $3,467 $4,168 $4,503 $4,680 * - Denotes estimate corrected from original version dated.

16 Page 16 CORRECTED VERSION - APPENDIX E - Property Tax Freeze Impact Projections Per $0.01 Increase on Property Tax Rate Property Tax Freeze Corrected Version February 13, Total Owner 2006 % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Single Occupied % Owner Assessment Over Up Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 2006 Family Households Occupied for Residence to $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 County City SSD Tax Rate Households 65 or Over 65 or Over Properties Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income * DYER DYERSBURG $ % $99,439, % 68.3% 82.1% 88.7% 92.2% $1,072 $1,400 $1,683 $1,818 $1,890 * DYER NEWBERN $ % $15,585, % 68.3% 82.1% 88.7% 92.2% $168 $219 $264 $285 $296 * DYER TRIMBLE $ % $2,657, % 68.3% 82.1% 88.7% 92.2% $29 $37 $45 $49 $50 FAYETTE $ ,839 1, % $446,353, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $3,906 $5,394 $6,450 $7,135 $7,722 FAYETTE GALLAWAY $ % $2,429, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $21 $29 $35 $39 $42 FAYETTE GRAND JUNCTION $ % $53, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $0 $1 $1 $1 $1 FAYETTE LAGRANGE $ % $2,859, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $25 $35 $41 $46 $49 FAYETTE MOSCOW $ % $3,396, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $30 $41 $49 $54 $59 FAYETTE OAKLAND $ % $68,573, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $600 $829 $991 $1,096 $1,186 FAYETTE PIPERTON $ % $22,878, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $200 $277 $331 $366 $396 FAYETTE ROSSVILLE $ % $5,670, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $50 $69 $82 $91 $98 FAYETTE SOMERVILLE $ % $19,665, % 59.8% 71.5% 79.1% 85.6% $172 $238 $284 $314 $340 FENTRESS $ ,292 1, % $106,914, % 79.5% 88.5% 92.8% 95.0% $1,543 $1,850 $2,060 $2,160 $2,211 FENTRESS JAMESTOWN $ % $5,721, % 79.5% 88.5% 92.8% 95.0% $83 $99 $110 $116 $118 FRANKLIN $ ,982 3, % $401,018, % 59.7% 72.2% 80.7% 86.5% $4,309 $6,095 $7,372 $8,239 $8,832 FRANKLIN COWAN $ % $9,505, % 59.7% 72.2% 80.7% 86.5% $102 $144 $175 $195 $209 FRANKLIN DECHERD $ % $12,193, % 59.7% 72.2% 80.7% 86.5% $131 $185 $224 $251 $269 FRANKLIN ESTILL SPRINGS $ % $21,539, % 59.7% 72.2% 80.7% 86.5% $231 $327 $396 $443 $474 FRANKLIN HUNTLAND $ % $5,600, % 59.7% 72.2% 80.7% 86.5% $60 $85 $103 $115 $123 FRANKLIN TULLAHOMA $ % $13,305, % 59.7% 72.2% 80.7% 86.5% $143 $202 $245 $273 $293 FRANKLIN WINCHESTER $ % $68,885, % 59.7% 72.2% 80.7% 86.5% $740 $1,047 $1,266 $1,415 $1,517 GIBSON $ ,396 4, % $326,068, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $4,215 $6,022 $6,912 $7,582 $7,853 GIBSON BRADFORD $ % $5,906, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $76 $109 $125 $137 $142 GIBSON DYER $ % $12,894, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $167 $238 $273 $300 $311 GIBSON GIBSON $ % $2,210, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $29 $41 $47 $51 $53 GIBSON HUMBOLDT $ % $47,633, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $616 $880 $1,010 $1,108 $1,147 GIBSON KENTON $ % $4,192, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $54 $77 $89 $97 $101 GIBSON MEDINA $ % $19,517, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $252 $360 $414 $454 $470 GIBSON MILAN $ % $49,150, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $635 $908 $1,042 $1,143 $1,184 GIBSON RUTHERFORD $ % $7,390, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $96 $136 $157 $172 $178 GIBSON TRENTON $ % $21,714, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $281 $401 $460 $505 $523 GIBSON YORKVILLE $ % $1,649, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $21 $30 $35 $38 $40 GIBSON BRADFORD SSD $ % $22,160, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $286 $409 $470 $515 $534 GIBSON GIBSON CO SSD $ % $130,290, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $1,684 $2,406 $2,762 $3,030 $3,138 GIBSON KENTON SSD $ % $6,950, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $90 $128 $147 $162 $167 GIBSON MILAN SSD $ % $71,969, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $930 $1,329 $1,526 $1,674 $1,733 GIBSON TRENTON SSD $ % $54,707, % 71.0% 81.5% 89.4% 92.6% $707 $1,010 $1,160 $1,272 $1,318 GILES $ ,751 2, % $244,771, % 66.3% 77.6% 85.5% 88.6% $2,762 $3,752 $4,391 $4,839 $5,014 GILES ARDMORE $ % $9,243, % 66.3% 77.6% 85.5% 88.6% $104 $142 $166 $183 $189 GILES ELKTON $ % $4,146, % 66.3% 77.6% 85.5% 88.6% $47 $64 $74 $82 $85 GILES LYNNVILLE $ % $2,654, % 66.3% 77.6% 85.5% 88.6% $30 $41 $48 $52 $54 GILES PULASKI $ % $46,424, % 66.3% 77.6% 85.5% 88.6% $524 $712 $833 $918 $951 GRAINGER $ ,058 1, % $157,360, % 76.4% 82.4% 89.1% 92.8% $1,836 $2,330 $2,513 $2,717 $2,830 GREENE $ ,710 5, % $561,320, % 69.1% 80.7% 87.6% 91.5% $6,761 $8,933 $10,432 $11,324 $11,828 GREENE GREENEVILLE $ % $118,459, % 69.1% 80.7% 87.6% 91.5% $1,427 $1,885 $2,202 $2,390 $2,496 * - Denotes estimate corrected from original version dated.

17 Page 17 CORRECTED VERSION - APPENDIX E - Property Tax Freeze Impact Projections Per $0.01 Increase on Property Tax Rate Property Tax Freeze Corrected Version February 13, Total Owner 2006 % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Single Occupied % Owner Assessment Over Up Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 2006 Family Households Occupied for Residence to $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 County City SSD Tax Rate Households 65 or Over 65 or Over Properties Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income GRUNDY $ ,288 1, % $91,056, % 78.8% 85.6% 91.5% 95.2% $1,134 $1,487 $1,616 $1,727 $1,797 GRUNDY TRACY CITY $ % $9,525, % 78.8% 85.6% 91.5% 95.2% $119 $156 $169 $181 $188 * HAMBLEN $ ,829 4, % $533,244, % 66.2% 79.6% 85.3% 88.4% $5,774 $7,554 $9,084 $9,734 $10,088 * HAMBLEN MORRISTOWN $ % $192,504, % 66.2% 79.6% 85.3% 88.4% $2,085 $2,727 $3,279 $3,514 $3,642 HAMILTON $ ,464 22, % $3,457,495, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $32,388 $45,795 $55,649 $62,191 $67,441 HAMILTON CHATTANOOGA $ % $1,316,936, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $12,336 $17,443 $21,196 $23,688 $25,688 HAMILTON COLLEGEDALE $ % $59,831, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $560 $792 $963 $1,076 $1,167 HAMILTON EAST RIDGE $ % $150,939, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $1,414 $1,999 $2,429 $2,715 $2,944 HAMILTON LAKESITE $ % $27,253, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $255 $361 $439 $490 $532 HAMILTON LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN $ % $82,422, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $772 $1,092 $1,327 $1,483 $1,608 HAMILTON RED BANK $ % $91,386, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $856 $1,210 $1,471 $1,644 $1,783 HAMILTON RIDGESIDE $ % $7,832, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $73 $104 $126 $141 $153 HAMILTON SIGNAL MOUNTAIN $ % $150,011, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $1,405 $1,987 $2,414 $2,698 $2,926 HAMILTON SODDY DAISY $ % $109,677, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $1,027 $1,453 $1,765 $1,973 $2,139 HAMILTON WALDEN $ % $51,225, % 56.7% 68.9% 77.0% 83.5% $480 $678 $824 $921 $999 HANCOCK $ , % $41,505, % 81.4% 87.6% 90.4% 94.4% $750 $868 $934 $964 $1,007 HARDEMAN $ ,801 1, % $160,852, % 70.7% 81.6% 87.7% 91.9% $2,013 $2,555 $2,949 $3,170 $3,322 HARDEMAN BOLIVAR $ % $29,702, % 70.7% 81.6% 87.7% 91.9% $372 $472 $545 $585 $613 HARDEMAN GRAND JUNCTION $ % $2,200, % 70.7% 81.6% 87.7% 91.9% $28 $35 $40 $43 $45 HARDEMAN HICKORY VALLEY $ % $713, % 70.7% 81.6% 87.7% 91.9% $9 $11 $13 $14 $15 HARDEMAN HORNSBY $ % $1,426, % 70.7% 81.6% 87.7% 91.9% $18 $23 $26 $28 $29 HARDEMAN MIDDLETON $ % $4,097, % 70.7% 81.6% 87.7% 91.9% $51 $65 $75 $81 $85 HARDEMAN TOONE $ % $1,440, % 70.7% 81.6% 87.7% 91.9% $18 $23 $26 $28 $30 HARDEMAN WHITEVILLE $ % $5,771, % 70.7% 81.6% 87.7% 91.9% $72 $92 $106 $114 $119 HARDIN $ ,870 2, % $246,049, % 74.1% 87.8% 91.9% 92.8% $3,080 $4,195 $4,971 $5,203 $5,254 HARDIN ADAMSVILLE $ % $565, % 74.1% 87.8% 91.9% 92.8% $7 $10 $11 $12 $12 HARDIN SAVANNAH $ % $44,046, % 74.1% 87.8% 91.9% 92.8% $551 $751 $890 $931 $941 HAWKINS $ ,852 3, % $466,678, % 68.5% 81.4% 88.2% 91.9% $4,870 $6,259 $7,438 $8,059 $8,397 HAWKINS BULLS GAP $ % $4,768, % 68.5% 81.4% 88.2% 91.9% $50 $64 $76 $82 $86 HAWKINS CHURCH HILL $ % $62,204, % 68.5% 81.4% 88.2% 91.9% $649 $834 $991 $1,074 $1,119 HAWKINS KINGSPORT $ % $30,168, % 68.5% 81.4% 88.2% 91.9% $315 $405 $481 $521 $543 HAWKINS MOUNT CARMEL $ % $51,623, % 68.5% 81.4% 88.2% 91.9% $539 $692 $823 $892 $929 HAWKINS ROGERSVILLE $ % $31,513, % 68.5% 81.4% 88.2% 91.9% $329 $423 $502 $544 $567 HAWKINS SURGOINSVILLE $ % $17,628, % 68.5% 81.4% 88.2% 91.9% $184 $236 $281 $304 $317 HAYWOOD $ ,473 1, % $129,893, % 68.1% 77.6% 85.4% 90.0% $1,591 $2,052 $2,339 $2,574 $2,712 HAYWOOD BROWNSVILLE $ % $59,840, % 68.1% 77.6% 85.4% 90.0% $733 $945 $1,077 $1,186 $1,249 HAYWOOD STANTON $ % $1,946, % 68.1% 77.6% 85.4% 90.0% $24 $31 $35 $39 $41 HENDERSON $ ,730 2, % $190,440, % 69.9% 79.9% 86.0% 91.0% $2,178 $2,846 $3,253 $3,502 $3,705 HENDERSON LEXINGTON $ % $58,485, % 69.9% 79.9% 86.0% 91.0% $669 $874 $999 $1,075 $1,138 HENDERSON SARDIS $ % $2,483, % 69.9% 79.9% 86.0% 91.0% $28 $37 $42 $46 $48 HENDERSON SCOTTS HILL $ % $3,881, % 69.9% 79.9% 86.0% 91.0% $44 $58 $66 $71 $76 HENRY $ ,132 3, % $253,150, % 67.5% 80.1% 87.1% 91.0% $3,185 $4,424 $5,250 $5,709 $5,964 HENRY COTTAGE GROVE $ % $385, % 67.5% 80.1% 87.1% 91.0% $5 $7 $8 $9 $9 HENRY HENRY $ % $1,863, % 67.5% 80.1% 87.1% 91.0% $23 $33 $39 $42 $44 HENRY MCKENZIE $ % $519, % 67.5% 80.1% 87.1% 91.0% $7 $9 $11 $12 $12 * - Denotes estimate corrected from original version dated.

18 Page 18 CORRECTED VERSION - APPENDIX E - Property Tax Freeze Impact Projections Per $0.01 Increase on Property Tax Rate Property Tax Freeze Corrected Version February 13, Total Owner 2006 % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Single Occupied % Owner Assessment Over Up Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 2006 Family Households Occupied for Residence to $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 County City SSD Tax Rate Households 65 or Over 65 or Over Properties Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income HENRY PARIS $ % $59,005, % 67.5% 80.1% 87.1% 91.0% $742 $1,031 $1,224 $1,331 $1,390 HENRY PURYEAR $ % $3,604, % 67.5% 80.1% 87.1% 91.0% $45 $63 $75 $81 $85 HENRY PSSD $ % $68,847, % 67.5% 80.1% 87.1% 91.0% $866 $1,203 $1,428 $1,553 $1,622 HICKMAN $ ,721 1, % $180,379, % 75.5% 86.6% 91.3% 95.0% $1,845 $2,479 $2,843 $2,997 $3,119 HICKMAN CENTERVILLE $ % $26,569, % 75.5% 86.6% 91.3% 95.0% $272 $365 $419 $441 $459 HOUSTON $ , % $59,161, % 70.0% 84.3% 89.9% 93.1% $787 $991 $1,193 $1,273 $1,318 HOUSTON ERIN $ % $6,303, % 70.0% 84.3% 89.9% 93.1% $84 $106 $127 $136 $140 HOUSTON TENN RIDGE $ % $9,326, % 70.0% 84.3% 89.9% 93.1% $124 $156 $188 $201 $208 HUMPHREYS $ ,805 1, % $150,892, % 62.3% 72.3% 80.2% 84.9% $1,478 $2,074 $2,407 $2,670 $2,826 HUMPHREYS MCEWEN $ % $10,488, % 62.3% 72.3% 80.2% 84.9% $103 $144 $167 $186 $196 HUMPHREYS NEW JOHNSONVILLE $ % $15,437, % 62.3% 72.3% 80.2% 84.9% $151 $212 $246 $273 $289 HUMPHREYS WAVERLY $ % $27,174, % 62.3% 72.3% 80.2% 84.9% $266 $373 $433 $481 $509 JACKSON $ , % $78,485, % 71.9% 82.0% 88.3% 90.8% $970 $1,314 $1,498 $1,613 $1,659 JACKSON GAINESBORO $ % $4,562, % 71.9% 82.0% 88.3% 90.8% $56 $76 $87 $94 $96 * JEFFERSON $ ,860 3, % $517,529, % 63.6% 76.5% 82.8% 87.7% $4,879 $6,547 $7,875 $8,523 $9,028 * JEFFERSON BANEBERRY $ % $9,417, % 63.6% 76.5% 82.8% 87.7% $89 $119 $143 $155 $164 * JEFFERSON DANDRIDGE $ % $25,034, % 63.6% 76.5% 82.8% 87.7% $236 $317 $381 $412 $437 * JEFFERSON JEFFERSON CITY $ % $39,114, % 63.6% 76.5% 82.8% 87.7% $369 $495 $595 $644 $682 * JEFFERSON WHITE PINE $ % $12,812, % 63.6% 76.5% 82.8% 87.7% $121 $162 $195 $211 $223 JOHNSON $ ,386 1, % $153,506, % 76.7% 84.5% 88.6% 91.1% $2,267 $2,769 $3,051 $3,199 $3,289 JOHNSON MOUNTAIN CITY $ % $19,378, % 76.7% 84.5% 88.6% 91.1% $286 $350 $385 $404 $415 KNOX $ ,195 26, % $3,507,134, % 56.1% 67.9% 76.7% 82.6% $28,963 $42,203 $51,080 $57,700 $62,138 KNOX KNOXVILLE $ % $1,280,219, % 56.1% 67.9% 76.7% 82.6% $10,572 $15,405 $18,646 $21,062 $22,683 LAKE $ , % $23,470, % 79.7% 87.9% 92.7% 93.7% $434 $533 $587 $619 $626 LAKE RIDGELY $ % $6,651, % 79.7% 87.9% 92.7% 93.7% $123 $151 $166 $176 $177 LAKE TIPTONVILLE $ % $8,114, % 79.7% 87.9% 92.7% 93.7% $150 $184 $203 $214 $216 LAUDERDALE $ ,333 1, % $154,353, % 76.0% 83.6% 89.2% 92.2% $1,910 $2,241 $2,465 $2,630 $2,718 LAUDERDALE GATES $ % $3,156, % 76.0% 83.6% 89.2% 92.2% $39 $46 $50 $54 $56 LAUDERDALE HALLS $ % $12,781, % 76.0% 83.6% 89.2% 92.2% $158 $186 $204 $218 $225 LAUDERDALE HENNING $ % $4,489, % 76.0% 83.6% 89.2% 92.2% $56 $65 $72 $76 $79 LAUDERDALE RIPLEY $ % $43,890, % 76.0% 83.6% 89.2% 92.2% $543 $637 $701 $748 $773 * LAWRENCE $ ,328 3, % $256,901, % 72.4% 82.5% 89.5% 91.4% $3,227 $4,350 $4,957 $5,378 $5,492 * LAWRENCE IRON CITY $ % $1,494, % 72.4% 82.5% 89.5% 91.4% $19 $25 $29 $31 $32 * LAWRENCE LAWRENCEBURG $ % $62,108, % 72.4% 82.5% 89.5% 91.4% $780 $1,052 $1,198 $1,300 $1,328 * LAWRENCE LORETTO $ % $11,557, % 72.4% 82.5% 89.5% 91.4% $145 $196 $223 $242 $247 * LAWRENCE SAINT JOSEPH $ % $4,933, % 72.4% 82.5% 89.5% 91.4% $62 $84 $95 $103 $105 LEWIS $ , % $99,669, % 71.0% 80.9% 89.0% 91.7% $1,119 $1,522 $1,734 $1,908 $1,966 LEWIS HOHENWALD $ % $21,167, % 71.0% 80.9% 89.0% 91.7% $238 $323 $368 $405 $418 LINCOLN $ ,476 2, % $255,805, % 70.5% 80.7% 86.4% 89.7% $3,424 $4,503 $5,155 $5,519 $5,730 LINCOLN ARDMORE $ % $1,403, % 70.5% 80.7% 86.4% 89.7% $19 $25 $28 $30 $31 LINCOLN FAYETTEVILLE $ % $40,283, % 70.5% 80.7% 86.4% 89.7% $539 $709 $812 $869 $902 LINCOLN PETERSBURG $ % $1,684, % 70.5% 80.7% 86.4% 89.7% $23 $30 $34 $36 $38 * LOUDON $ ,754 3, % $708,621, % 55.9% 68.5% 77.2% 82.4% $6,896 $9,986 $12,237 $13,791 $14,720 * LOUDON LENOIR CITY $ % $48,870, % 55.9% 68.5% 77.2% 82.4% $476 $689 $844 $951 $1,015 * LOUDON LOUDON $ % $34,604, % 55.9% 68.5% 77.2% 82.4% $337 $488 $598 $673 $719 * - Denotes estimate corrected from original version dated.

19 Page 19 CORRECTED VERSION - APPENDIX E - Property Tax Freeze Impact Projections Per $0.01 Increase on Property Tax Rate Property Tax Freeze Corrected Version February 13, Total Owner 2006 % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Single Occupied % Owner Assessment Over Up Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 2006 Family Households Occupied for Residence to $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 County City SSD Tax Rate Households 65 or Over 65 or Over Properties Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income MCMINN $ ,621 3, % $406,698, % 70.8% 78.5% 85.0% 89.3% $4,681 $6,473 $7,177 $7,771 $8,164 MCMINN ATHENS $ % $92,210, % 70.8% 78.5% 85.0% 89.3% $1,061 $1,468 $1,627 $1,762 $1,851 MCMINN CALHOUN $ % $3,431, % 70.8% 78.5% 85.0% 89.3% $40 $55 $61 $66 $69 MCMINN ENGLEWOOD $ % $8,062, % 70.8% 78.5% 85.0% 89.3% $93 $128 $142 $154 $162 MCMINN ETOWAH $ % $21,212, % 70.8% 78.5% 85.0% 89.3% $244 $338 $374 $405 $426 MCMINN NIOTA $ % $5,352, % 70.8% 78.5% 85.0% 89.3% $62 $85 $94 $102 $107 * MCNAIRY $ ,542 2, % $163,606, % 72.7% 85.0% 89.5% 94.6% $2,382 $2,906 $3,397 $3,577 $3,781 * MCNAIRY ADAMSVILLE $ % $13,424, % 72.7% 85.0% 89.5% 94.6% $195 $238 $279 $294 $310 * MCNAIRY BETHEL SPRINGS $ % $3,970, % 72.7% 85.0% 89.5% 94.6% $58 $71 $82 $87 $92 * MCNAIRY SELMER $ % $27,302, % 72.7% 85.0% 89.5% 94.6% $398 $485 $567 $597 $631 MACON $ ,423 1, % $135,746, % 76.2% 83.5% 89.1% 92.2% $1,641 $1,982 $2,172 $2,317 $2,398 MACON LAFAYETTE $ % $24,367, % 76.2% 83.5% 89.1% 92.2% $295 $356 $390 $416 $430 MACON RED BOILING SPGS $ % $3,962, % 76.2% 83.5% 89.1% 92.2% $48 $58 $63 $68 $70 MADISON $ ,441 5, % $785,453, % 57.1% 71.2% 78.5% 84.8% $6,659 $9,342 $11,649 $12,843 $13,874 MADISON HUMBOLDT $ % $1,326, % 57.1% 71.2% 78.5% 84.8% $11 $16 $20 $22 $23 MADISON JACKSON $ % $440,580, % 57.1% 71.2% 78.5% 84.8% $3,735 $5,240 $6,534 $7,204 $7,782 MADISON THREE WAY $ % $22,577, % 57.1% 71.2% 78.5% 84.8% $191 $269 $335 $369 $399 MARION $ ,380 2, % $262,004, % 72.9% 80.7% 88.0% 91.7% $3,076 $4,137 $4,580 $4,994 $5,204 MARION CHATTANOOGA $ % $221, % 72.9% 80.7% 88.0% 91.7% $3 $3 $4 $4 $4 MARION JASPER $ % $30,565, % 72.9% 80.7% 88.0% 91.7% $359 $483 $534 $583 $607 MARION KIMBALL $ % $12,884, % 72.9% 80.7% 88.0% 91.7% $151 $203 $225 $246 $256 MARION NEW HOPE $ % $7,745, % 72.9% 80.7% 88.0% 91.7% $91 $122 $135 $148 $154 MARION SOUTH PITTSBURG $ % $17,882, % 72.9% 80.7% 88.0% 91.7% $210 $282 $313 $341 $355 MARION WHITWELL $ % $11,418, % 72.9% 80.7% 88.0% 91.7% $134 $180 $200 $218 $227 MARION RICHARD CITY SSD $ % $4,752, % 72.9% 80.7% 88.0% 91.7% $56 $75 $83 $91 $94 * MARSHALL $ ,272 1, % $229,068, % 66.2% 75.7% 84.9% 88.7% $2,162 $2,880 $3,293 $3,693 $3,858 * MARSHALL CHAPEL HILL $ % $11,831, % 66.2% 75.7% 84.9% 88.7% $112 $149 $170 $191 $199 * MARSHALL CORNERSVILLE $ % $6,932, % 66.2% 75.7% 84.9% 88.7% $65 $87 $100 $112 $117 * MARSHALL LEWISBURG $ % $62,830, % 66.2% 75.7% 84.9% 88.7% $593 $790 $903 $1,013 $1,058 * MARSHALL PETERSBURG $ % $844, % 66.2% 75.7% 84.9% 88.7% $8 $11 $12 $14 $14 MAURY $ ,280 4, % $810,121, % 59.5% 72.2% 81.8% 87.4% $6,565 $9,481 $11,505 $13,035 $13,927 MAURY COLUMBIA $ % $278,673, % 59.5% 72.2% 81.8% 87.4% $2,258 $3,262 $3,958 $4,484 $4,791 MAURY MOUNT PLEASANT $ % $33,150, % 59.5% 72.2% 81.8% 87.4% $269 $388 $471 $533 $570 MEIGS $ , % $123,060, % 71.0% 77.3% 86.4% 92.4% $1,185 $1,673 $1,822 $2,036 $2,178 MEIGS DECATUR $ % $9,663, % 71.0% 77.3% 86.4% 92.4% $93 $131 $143 $160 $171 MONROE $ ,201 3, % $410,781, % 71.6% 79.9% 86.9% 90.9% $4,573 $6,382 $7,122 $7,746 $8,103 MONROE MADISONVILLE $ % $35,014, % 71.6% 79.9% 86.9% 90.9% $390 $544 $607 $660 $691 MONROE SWEETWATER $ % $45,435, % 71.6% 79.9% 86.9% 90.9% $506 $706 $788 $857 $896 MONROE TELLICO PLAINS $ % $5,257, % 71.6% 79.9% 86.9% 90.9% $59 $82 $91 $99 $104 MONROE VONORE $ % $17,292, % 71.6% 79.9% 86.9% 90.9% $193 $269 $300 $326 $341 MONTGOMERY $ ,569 5, % $1,317,049, % 57.1% 70.0% 78.7% 85.4% $6,989 $10,393 $12,741 $14,325 $15,544 MONTGOMERY CLARKSVILLE $ % $906,203, % 57.1% 70.0% 78.7% 85.4% $4,809 $7,151 $8,767 $9,856 $10,695 MOORE $ , % $85,894, % 61.7% 75.9% 81.6% 87.0% $786 $1,243 $1,529 $1,644 $1,752 MOORE LYNCHBURG $ % $4,299, % 61.7% 75.9% 81.6% 87.0% $39 $62 $77 $82 $88 MORGAN $ ,827 1, % $123,555, % 77.2% 86.5% 93.4% 96.1% $1,466 $1,999 $2,240 $2,419 $2,489 * - Denotes estimate corrected from original version dated.

20 Page 20 CORRECTED VERSION - APPENDIX E - Property Tax Freeze Impact Projections Per $0.01 Increase on Property Tax Rate Property Tax Freeze Corrected Version February 13, Total Owner 2006 % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or % 65 or Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Single Occupied % Owner Assessment Over Up Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Over Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to Up to 2006 Family Households Occupied for Residence to $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 County City SSD Tax Rate Households 65 or Over 65 or Over Properties Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income Income MORGAN OAKDALE $ % $832, % 77.2% 86.5% 93.4% 96.1% $10 $13 $15 $16 $17 MORGAN OLIVER SPRINGS $ % $236, % 77.2% 86.5% 93.4% 96.1% $3 $4 $4 $5 $5 MORGAN SUNBRIGHT $ % $4,235, % 77.2% 86.5% 93.4% 96.1% $50 $69 $77 $83 $85 * OBION $ ,572 2, % $212,744, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $2,788 $3,506 $4,104 $4,360 $4,551 * OBION HORNBEAK $ % $2,340, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $31 $39 $45 $48 $50 * OBION KENTON $ % $3,287, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $43 $54 $63 $67 $70 * OBION OBION CITY $ % $5,015, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $66 $83 $97 $103 $107 * OBION RIVES $ % $1,117, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $15 $18 $22 $23 $24 * OBION SOUTH FULTON $ % $12,880, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $169 $212 $248 $264 $276 * OBION TRIMBLE $ % $12, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 * OBION TROY $ % $6,628, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $87 $109 $128 $136 $142 * OBION UNION CITY $ % $67,582, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $886 $1,114 $1,304 $1,385 $1,446 * OBION KENTON SSD $ % $5,110, % 69.8% 81.7% 86.8% 90.6% $67 $84 $99 $105 $109 OVERTON $ ,795 1, % $134,630, % 77.9% 87.4% 92.8% 96.5% $1,985 $2,412 $2,706 $2,874 $2,988 OVERTON LIVINGSTON $ % $20,505, % 77.9% 87.4% 92.8% 96.5% $302 $367 $412 $438 $455 PERRY $ , % $60,978, % 70.8% 79.1% 85.6% 91.7% $747 $942 $1,053 $1,139 $1,221 PERRY LINDEN $ % $4,930, % 70.8% 79.1% 85.6% 91.7% $60 $76 $85 $92 $99 PERRY LOBELVILLE $ % $5,279, % 70.8% 79.1% 85.6% 91.7% $65 $82 $91 $99 $106 PICKETT $ , % $57,842, % 79.1% 89.9% 94.3% 96.6% $1,038 $1,343 $1,527 $1,601 $1,641 PICKETT BYRDSTOWN $ % $4,535, % 79.1% 89.9% 94.3% 96.6% $81 $105 $120 $126 $129 POLK $ ,218 1, % $147,963, % 76.6% 83.8% 88.1% 91.3% $1,662 $2,415 $2,642 $2,778 $2,879 POLK BENTON $ % $7,303, % 76.6% 83.8% 88.1% 91.3% $82 $119 $130 $137 $142 POLK COPPERHILL $ % $2,737, % 76.6% 83.8% 88.1% 91.3% $31 $45 $49 $51 $53 POLK DUCKTOWN $ % $3,108, % 76.6% 83.8% 88.1% 91.3% $35 $51 $56 $58 $60 PUTNAM $ ,129 4, % $609,599, % 65.0% 76.9% 83.3% 87.4% $6,405 $8,567 $10,135 $10,979 $11,519 PUTNAM ALGOOD $ % $26,527, % 65.0% 76.9% 83.3% 87.4% $279 $373 $441 $478 $501 PUTNAM BAXTER $ % $8,159, % 65.0% 76.9% 83.3% 87.4% $86 $115 $136 $147 $154 PUTNAM COOKEVILLE $ % $220,863, % 65.0% 76.9% 83.3% 87.4% $2,321 $3,104 $3,672 $3,978 $4,173 PUTNAM MONTEREY $ % $12,881, % 65.0% 76.9% 83.3% 87.4% $135 $181 $214 $232 $243 * RHEA $ ,250 2, % $232,309, % 69.3% 84.0% 87.9% 92.0% $2,722 $3,519 $4,266 $4,464 $4,672 * RHEA DAYTON $ % $37,654, % 69.3% 84.0% 87.9% 92.0% $441 $570 $691 $724 $757 * RHEA GRAYSVILLE $ % $5,347, % 69.3% 84.0% 87.9% 92.0% $63 $81 $98 $103 $108 * RHEA SPRING CITY $ % $12,943, % 69.3% 84.0% 87.9% 92.0% $152 $196 $238 $249 $260 * ROANE $ ,270 4, % $574,461, % 63.7% 76.9% 84.5% 89.1% $6,152 $8,632 $10,421 $11,451 $12,074 * ROANE HARRIMAN $ % $36,099, % 63.7% 76.9% 84.5% 89.1% $387 $542 $655 $720 $759 * ROANE KINGSTON $ % $66,890, % 63.7% 76.9% 84.5% 89.1% $716 $1,005 $1,213 $1,333 $1,406 * ROANE OAK RIDGE $ % $56,367, % 63.7% 76.9% 84.5% 89.1% $604 $847 $1,023 $1,124 $1,185 * ROANE OLIVER SPGS $ % $5,775, % 63.7% 76.9% 84.5% 89.1% $62 $87 $105 $115 $121 * ROANE ROCKWOOD $ % $29,488, % 63.7% 76.9% 84.5% 89.1% $316 $443 $535 $588 $620 * ROBERTSON $ ,084 3, % $624,228, % 60.8% 75.1% 83.3% 88.4% $4,819 $6,570 $8,115 $9,001 $9,552 * ROBERTSON ADAMS $ % $4,155, % 60.8% 75.1% 83.3% 88.4% $32 $44 $54 $60 $64 * ROBERTSON CEDAR HILL $ % $1,808, % 60.8% 75.1% 83.3% 88.4% $14 $19 $24 $26 $28 * ROBERTSON GREENBRIER $ % $50,942, % 60.8% 75.1% 83.3% 88.4% $393 $536 $662 $735 $780 * ROBERTSON MILLERSVILLE $ % $15,512, % 60.8% 75.1% 83.3% 88.4% $120 $163 $202 $224 $237 * ROBERTSON PORTLAND $ % $777, % 60.8% 75.1% 83.3% 88.4% $6 $8 $10 $11 $12 * - Denotes estimate corrected from original version dated.