Residential Valuation Modeling Challenge:

Volunteer Modelers Report Their Findings

BY PATRICK M. O’CONNOR, ASA

This article reports the results of a project to explore the latest techniques in residential valuation
modeling. The project was initiated by the 2016 GIS/CAMA Technologies Conference Committee
with the support of the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO), the Urban and
Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), and NCSS, LLC. Modelers who volunteered
to participate in the project were (in alphabetical order) Paul Bidanset; James Bryan; James Ellens;
Ingi Finnsson; Brian Guerin, MRICS; Joshua Myers; Brian Newnan; Marcel Pragt; Jennifer
Rearich; James Shontz; and Will Wiggins. Patrick O’Connor, ASA, served as project organizer
and compiled the summaries published here from the participants’ final reports.

O ver the past 40 years, real estate

valuation modeling (specification
and calibration) has evolved significant-
ly. While most assessment jurisdictions
that value property to support property
assessments use traditional valuation
approaches of cost, income, and com-
parable sales, an increasing number are
moving towards more supportable mar-
ket valuation techniques available from
statistical modeling methods.
To demonstrate the current statistical
quality and variety of valuation model
structures, the 2016 GIS/CAMA Tech-
nologies Conference Committee with
the support of the International As-
sociation of Assessing Officers (IAAO),
the Urban and Regional Information
Systems Association (URISA), and NCSS,
LLC, organized a project to compare
current practices and techniques used
worldwide for residential valuation
modeling. Volunteer modelers were
free to select their preferred valuation
techniques. Some chose standard linear
regression, while others experimented
with regression techniques that are new
to the appraisal profession. Most used
some form of multiplicative regression
with several participants using regres-
sions coupled with another statistical
technique. The volunteers did not limit
themselves to the three traditional ap-
proaches to value.
At the conclusion of their tests, the
volunteer modelers provided a report of
their final model specifications, model
calibrations, databases with final estimates
of value, descriptions of their valuation
process, and justifications of their model
specifications and calibrations. This ar-
ticle presents a summary of their findings,

Patrick M. O’Connor, ASA, is president of O’Connor Consulting Incorporated in Plano,

Texas. He provides consulting services for computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) and
automated valuation models (AVM) for residential, apartment, commercial, and industrial
properties as well as appraisal and location analysis for real estate valuations. He served as
organizer and facilitator for the Residential Valuation Modeling Challenge.

Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 69

focusing on the aspects of technology,
statistical techniques, experimentation,
and ratio study quality statistics.
Background and Methodology
Volunteer Demographics
Eight individuals and one team of three
completed this modeling project. The
volunteers come from four countries:
Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, and
the United States. Seven were govern-
ment employees, and of the four that
came from the private sector, two had
worked as government modelers. The
members of the one team all work for the
Municipal Property Assessment Corpora-
tion (MPAC) in Ontario, Canada.
All those who chose to participate in the
project are considered within the field to
be experts in the use of statistical models.
The median level of appraisal experience
among volunteer modelers is 7 years. The
median level of experience in geographic
information systems (GIS) is 3 years. This
increasing expertise in GIS demonstrates
the growing trend towards the expansion
of real estate appraisal’s body of knowl-
edge of this analytical specialty within
cadastral mapping. Biographical informa-
tion on each of the project participants is
presented in appendix A.
Modeling Tools
Participating modelers used a vari-
ety of statistical software. The most
(three) used SPSS statistical software;
the lower-cost NCSS had two users; the
free statistical software “R” was used by
two modelers. One modeler used MRA
software. A variety of database software
was used by the modelers including the
Netherlands WOZ software. Third-party
valuation software by Zillow was used to
obtain information that was missing from
the project database.
Project Database
The city assessor of Bloomington, Il-
linois, graciously gave the modeling
project permission to use its 2011–2013
70 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2
sales database. This database, which
contained 2,472 sales transfer records,
had been adapted to provide a teaching
database for appraisal courses, so it did
not represent the full extent of the data
quality from the City of Bloomington As-
sessor’s Office. Of the 2,472 sales records
designated for modeling, 237 randomly
identified sold properties were desig-
nated for a holdout sample. Volunteers
used various means to separate modeling
from holdout cases.
As in many assessors’ offices that
adopted early computer-assisted mass
appraisal (CAMA) systems, this database
contained sets of numbers that repre-
sented various property characteristic
categorical sublevels. The Bloomington
City Assessor’s Office continues to main-
tain these numbers for use in data entry.
As computer storage and memory grew
to handle larger pieces of information,
this database evolved by adding property
characteristic names as may be found
in many newer CAMA systems. As an
example, table 1 presents the original
numbers and subcategory names for
exterior condition. It is possible that
many newer CAMA systems also use
subcategory numbers as operational
variables stored in their databases but
present results using descriptive names
to CAMA users. This convention helps to
accommodate the various government
jurisdictions, which may use slightly dif-
ferent names for the same function such
as: exter wall, exterior wall, and so forth.
The project assignment was intended
only for valuation of single-family houses,
Table 1. Example of subcategory numbers
and names
Exterior condition
Number Name
1 Poor
2 Fair
3 Average
4 Good
5 Very Good
6 Excellent
but the database purposely included
some other property classes to force the
modelers to filter out data that were not
relevant to the project and assignment.
This database uses traditional property
characteristics for land and buildings.
Location in the database is provided by
a set of residential fixed neighborhoods
and x, y coordinates. The modelers used
several variables for location including
fixed neighborhoods (majority), x,y
coordinates, location value response
surface (LVRS), and a combination of
fixed neighborhoods and LVRS.
Utilizing modeling techniques to ana-
lyze sales and property characteristics is
considered a standard part of market
analysis in real estate appraisal. Modelers
were encouraged to use the modeling
techniques that they preferred. All
modelers started their selection process
with a modeling file of 2,235 sales re-
cords. The final model file sizes varied
by modeler, however, because modelers
determined their filters for the data.
Part of the differences in modeling file
sizes can be explained by the differ-
ent value ranges modelers selected to
value in their modeling files. The upper
value range spans from approximately
$800,000 to over $2 million.
Table 2 presents the volunteers’ last
names, the size of their final sales model
file, and their market analysis (model-
ing) techniques. All modelers used some
form of regression, which identifies their
Table 2. Modelers and market analysis techniques
Modelers Final model file size
Bidanset 1920
Finnsson 2060
MPAC Team: Guerin,
Bryan, and Ellens 1971
Myers 2160
Newnan 2057
Pragt 2121
Rearich 2137
Shontz 1710
Wiggins 1727
Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 71
model’s overall specification format.
Also, regression software is considered a
calibration technique, as it is the engine
that analyzes sales data (crunches the
numbers).
Modelers and Techniques
Some volunteers requested to test new
software techniques that are not cur-
rently in common use for appraisal
specification and calibration. This ex-
perimentation was encouraged. One
group considered six test models. As
this modeling project represents pure
research, if the results met the guidelines
in the IAAO ratio studies standard (IAAO
2013), it would be considered a win. The
following sections contain summaries,
presented in alphabetical order, of each
participant’s modeling approach. A more
detailed description of individual models
is provided in appendix B.
Paul Bidanset
Paul Bidanset developed three regres-
sion-based models for the valuation. Two
models were locally weighted regression
(LWR) with a distance-decay weights
matrix based on geographical distance.
When used for CAMA purposes, the dis-
tance-decay weights matrix allows nearby
sales to have a stronger effect in estimat-
ing a property value than those farther
away. This modeling technique, coined
geographically weighted regression (GWR),
helps account for spatial autocorrelation
Market analysis techniques
Geographically weighted regression (GWR)
Multiplicative model, regression
Ordinary least squares (OLS), multiplicative model, quantile regression
Cross-validation, mixed geographic-attribute weighted regression (GAWR)
OLS regression
LOESS, localized regression
Multiplicative model, regression
OLS regression
OLS regression
of residuals by allowing coefficients to
fluctuate by location for the purpose of
reflecting local markets more accurately
than a model that applies the same coef-
ficients to all properties. For example,
GWR can simultaneously account for the
positive effect of a pool in one area and
the negative effect of a pool in another as
well as varying prices per square foot by
location, and even the varying effects of
age (e.g., positive in historic areas, nega-
tive in areas with dilapidated conditions
or out-of-date styles).
Paul’s first GWR model incorporated
a Gaussian weighting kernel, while the
second GWR model incorporated an
exponential weighting kernel (nei-
ther model included location-based
variables). Paul’s third model was an
ordinary least squares (OLS)-based ad-
ditive regression model that included
neighborhood indicator variables to help
account for location.
Figure 1. Comparison of sale prices to estimates of market value
72 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2
Three estimates of value were pre-
pared for each property —one from each
model. Ratio studies were conducted
for each model by respective neighbor-
hoods. An optimization process was
used to review these results. Whichever
model achieved the lowest coefficient of
dispersion (COD) for a particular neigh-
borhood had its respective estimates
applied as final values to all properties
therein. No model outperformed the
other two in every neighborhood, and
each model was deemed optimal for
more than one neighborhood.
This process created excellent results
in most categories. To review the over-
all estimates of market value, figure 1
presents the relationship of sale prices
to estimates of market value (FINAL_
PRED). Use of a log function minimized
differences between sales and estimates
of market value.
Ingi Finnsson
Ingi Finnsson researched additional
data from third parties, such as Zillow
software, to find missing year built. He
used QGIS to find additional information
about neighborhoods and other loca-
tional variables. Time adjustments usually
are analyzed by spline calculations, but
Ingi applied a unique adjustment by
polynomial curve. Figure 2 presents the
second degree polynomial curve compar-
ing sale prices per square foot to date.
This approach provides a unique curve
function that presents a downward curve
in the last year of the sales data.
In the City of Bloomington, neigh-
borhoods are maintained on an annual
basis by the city’s assessment staff, but
this modeler felt that many neighbor-
hoods were too small. He reconstructed
neighborhoods for his model which were
larger and designed around major physi-
cal boundaries that he could determine
from his access to GIS files. Although
the information was not used in his
final model, an age of sewers map Ingi
discovered on the Internet was found to
have some explanatory ability.
Figure 2. Comparison of sale prices per square foot to date
Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 73
Ingi used a multiplicative model for-
mula in an additive regression program.
Figure 3 presents the relationship of
sale prices to estimates of market value
(fitted.values).
MPAC Team: Brian Guerin, James
Bryan, and James Ellens
A team from the Municipal Property
Assessment Corporation (MPAC) con-
ducted research on six different models
for this project. The six models specified,
calibrated, and tested were
• Additive model with fixed
neighborhoods calibrated us-
ing multiple regression analysis
(MRA) and SPSS;
• Multiplicative model with fixed
neighborhoods calibrated using
MRA and SPSS;
• Hybrid model with fixed neigh-
borhoods calibrated using non-
linear regression and SPSS;
• Additive model with a location
value response surface calibrat-
ed using quantile regression in
R and ArcGIS;
Figure 3. Comparison of sale prices to estimates of market value
• Hybrid model with location
value response surface cali-
brated using quantile nonlinear
regression in R and ArcGIS;
• Hybrid model with fixed neigh-
borhoods calibrated using quan-
tile nonlinear regression in R.
Four models used fixed neighbor-
hoods and two models used location
value response surface techniques from
ArcGIS software. Two models were linear
(additive) model specifications, one was
multiplicative, and three were hybrid
(nonlinear) model specifications. For
calibration techniques, the team used
basic MRA, nonlinear, and quantile
regression.
The final specified additive model
included variables for separate living
areas—first story, second story, and at-
tic—adjusted by grade and superior/
inferior ratings; age multiplied by living
area; finished basement adjusted by
grade; square root of lot size centered
74 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2
on 8,850 square feet; typical lot size in
the sales dataset; and basement area. A
new age variable, AGEz, was calculated as
SALEYEAR − YrBlt and was used to create
an adjusted age variable to capture non-
linearity. Variable ADJAGE was multiplied
by total living area to produce a per-
square-foot-per-year adjustment for age
in the model. Second-floor areas were
estimated by subtracting the first-floor
area from total living area and adding
any finished attic space.
Linearization factors for four main
grades (A, B, C, D) and inferior/superior
ratings (+/− 5% and 10%) were used
as multipliers to adjust base rates for
living area by floor levels and finished
basement to reflect differences in con-
struction grade. Additional variables
specified in the final additive model
included number of baths, fireplaces,
pool area, poor and fair condition, porch
area, deck area, air-conditioning, and
a linearized garage area variable by
type—attached, detached, and base-
ment. Attached and detached garages
were valued using the same rate (coef-
ficient) with basement garage at 25% of
the base rate.
Situs variables specified included a
linearized traffic variable and binary
variables for lakefront, golf course, cul-
de-sac, and corner lot. Binary variables
also were used for neighborhood. Neigh-
borhoods were combined when less than
five sales were available for analysis.
Some neighborhoods were combined
based on physical characteristics and
location.
Figure 4 presents changes in sale-
price-to-assessment (fixed in time)
ratios over time. The following plot of
sale-to-assessment against sale month
indicates moderate price increases
that are approximated by linear spline
variables created at sale month periods
0–16, 17–28, and 29–35 to determine if
the rate of change is constant over the
sales period.
Figure 4. Comparison of sale-price-to-assessment ratios over time
Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 75
In the transition from additive to mul-
tiplicative model specification, garages,
pools, porch area, baths, and fireplaces
were constrained to their dollar amounts
from the additive model. Linearization
factors for grade and inferior/superior
ratings were carried forward from the
additive model for inclusion in the
multiplicative model specification. Site
adjustments included lake front.
The team’s hybrid models were speci-
fied in a similar manner to the additive
model with separate floor rates for the
first floor, upper floors/attic area, and
finished basement area adjusted for
construction grade. Additional features
included garage area, baths, fireplaces,
and air–conditioning; they were defined
in the same way as in the additive models.
Some of the MPAC team’s models are ad-
ditive regression. Some, however, used new
approaches—quantile regression and loca-
tion value response surfaces. These were
developed using sale-to-predicted-value
ratios and residuals and not sale prices.
 Response surface for the additive
model was based on a sale-to-assessment
ratio (SAR). Predicted values (assess-
ments) were calculated using coefficients
from the model specified with fixed
neighborhoods. Neighborhoods were
not included in these predicted values
(location was removed from the pre-
diction). Resultant SARs indicated not
only model error, which was assumed
not to be spatially correlated, but also
locational influence. SARs were then
smoothed using ordinary kriging in Ar-
cGIS and a location predication surface
was generated. These response surfaces
were then used to generate individual
location values for each sale in both mod-
eling and holdout datasets. Response
surface predictions were centered on
0 (prediction −1) and then used in an
additive quantile regression for final
value predictions. All quantile regres-
sion models were developed in R using
the QUANTREG package, which allows
for both linear and nonlinear analysis.
Figure 5. Comparison of time-adjusted sale prices to estimates of market value
76 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2
Based on the results of each model and
available statistics, the model deemed to
be the best for this project was the hybrid
model calibrated in R using quantile
nonlinear regression with a location re-
sponse surface developed using residuals
and kriging in ArcGIS.
Figure 5 presents the relationship of
time-adjusted sale prices (TASPRICEz)
to estimates of market value (HYBRID_
QUANT_RSA).
Joshua Myers
The models Josh Myers tested were mul-
tiple regression analysis (MRA) additive,
MRA multiplicative, mixed geographi-
cally weighted regression (GWR), and
mixed geographic-attribute weighted
regression (GAWR). Leave-one-out cross-
validation was used during the modeling
process to gain an indication of real-
world performance without knowledge
of the actual sale prices in the project’s
training dataset and to solve problems
associated with model over-fitting in the
training dataset. Model outliers were not
eliminated from the training dataset
during the modeling process. Time ad-
justments were generated by sale dates
(months) for use in the final model.
The mixed GAWR produced the best
statistical results and therefore was
chosen as the final model calibration
technique. In this framework, individual
sales are weighted by both attribute simi-
larity and distance to each sale property
in the specification for each sale prop-
erty. Final model specification for a
mixed GAWR is in two parts: a set of coef-
ficients that are fixed for all properties
and a set of coefficients that are spatially
varying from property to property. The
model calibration process employed an
interactive, pseudo-stepwise routine to
add variables according to their ability
to improve the model. The final model
specification used several square foot-
ages, indicators, and count variables,
including ground-floor living area and
Figure 6. Comparison of sale prices to estimates of market value
Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 77
upper-floor living area. Many of these
model variables would be selected by
appraisers that use the cost approach
(reasonable variables).
Josh tested two statistical functions that
are not frequently used in mass appraisal.
Non-cross-validation results have better
sales ratio quality statistics than cross-
valuation results, and, to be consistent
with the other models presented here,
non-cross-validation sales ratio quality
statistics are reported.
Figure 6 presents the relationship of
sale prices to estimate of market value
(model_building_non_cross_val_final).
Brian Newnan
After studying several model specifica-
tions and calibration techniques, Brian
Newnan chose to specify time by month
in a linear structure based on a linear
regression calibration. In the project
database, grade is designated in two
ways: one set uses letters with number
sublevels (5 or 10) between letters, a
separate set uses strictly numerical levels.
This presentation is standard for many of
the qualitative variables in this database.
Several qualitative variables such as grade
are transformed by multiplying grade
by square footage, so building square
footage was not a separate variable in
this model.
Neighborhoods were used for location
as was standard in most of the other
model specifications in this project.
Based on sales x, y coordinates, neighbor-
hoods were clustered to provide at least
200 sales per neighborhood.
Figure 7 presents the relationship of
sale prices (tasp1) to estimates of market
value (esp2_Final_Value).
Marcel Pragt
Marcel Pragt reorganized the initial
database by transforming it to fit in
the Netherlands standard data format,
WOZ, specified in the government tax
Figure 7. Comparison of sale prices to estimates of market value
78 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2
data appraisal law. By converting the
initial database, Marcel was able to use
his existing CAMA system to analyze this
database. Since not all existing neighbor-
hoods or zones had sufficient sales within
its geographic area, Marcel used street
names to develop zones. In all cases, sales
were clustered into zones for modeling.
To determine time trends, Marcel used
OLS regression and LOESS (localized re-
gression) methods that create a sine wave
trend through the data. LOESS was used
only because in the Netherlands, apprais-
als are made at a date in the past. Once a
time trend was developed, time-adjusted
sale prices (TASP) were used to prepare
estimates of value in three parts, ground
(plot), main property (building), and
remaining buildings, by using ordinary
least squares (linear regression).
After the first regression calibration,
appraisers reviewed both ratios and
residuals. If there was a remaining
building or a value-indicating property
characteristic that the model did not
have sufficient data to estimate, the
item was eliminated from the model.
Appraisers added market values for the
remaining property characteristics into
the current model manually and then
reappraised/re-calibrated it by using
OLS linear regression.
Once this process of appraising and
reappraising was completed, values were
converted to prices per square meter for
use in the finished model. The CAMA
application applied these square-meter
prices to all property characteristics
within each zone.
Figure 8 presents the relationship of
sale prices to estimates of market value
(total worth).
Jennifer Rearich
Jennifer Rearich used a unique adjust-
ment for change of value over time.
She reviewed sale prices per square
foot to see what different trends could
Figure 8. Comparison of sale prices to estimates of market value
Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 79
be identified over time. The results are
presented in figure 9. The trend line
shows that sale price per square foot
was steady for several years before rising
slightly and then dropping back below
the starting sale price per square foot.
To account for time in the model, she
divided time into three sections rather
than use time-adjusted sale price (TASP)
as the dependent variable in model
specification.
The project database was designed to
require corrections or filters of data be-
fore model specification and calibration.
Jennifer performed several data reviews.
One anomaly she found was that the
price per square foot mean and median
statistics for exterior condition indicated
a higher value for good condition than
for very good and excellent. Her findings
are presented in table 3’s data analysis.
The values in table 3 are not adjusted
for location because they were obtained
during a preliminary data review.
 Jennifer considered the possibility
that there might be over-stratification
of grade (construction quality) and
compressed some 20 grade levels into
a few grade levels to provide sufficient
sale prices per grade level. Some square-
footage-related areas were converted to
natural logs, while others were converted
to ratios of central size averages and then
converted to natural logs.
Preexisting location designations
did not provide sufficient sales in all
neighborhoods, so neighborhoods were
grouped spatially, acknowledging com-
mon property characteristics as well as
geographic boundaries and landmarks.
This grouping resulted in nine AREA
variables that covered the assessment
jurisdiction. These areas created base
location adjustments and further strati-
fication was utilized only when sufficient
neighborhood sales were significantly
higher or lower than the defined area.
Along with these areas and neighbor-

Figure 9. Comparison of sale price per square foot to sale date

Table 3. Comparison of exterior condition to sale price per square foot

EXTR_COND Mean Median Minimum Maximum Number
1.00 Poor 61.3964 57.6923 3.57 145.88 23
2.00 Fair 65.4470 62.9921 14.66 127.02 65
3.00 Average 84.0705 81.5697 9.55 160.69 225
4.00 Good 112.5692 110.0453 12.42 358.59 1508
5.00  Very Good 104.7591 103.3787 19.13 184.05 185
6.00 Excellent 108.1657 101.8519 37.70 294.25 229
Total 106.7055 104.6858 3.57 358.59 2235

80 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2

hoods, distances to the central business
district (CBD) and distances to highway
intersections were measured for use in
model calibration. Jennifer chose mul-
tiplicative regression specification and
calibration for research in this project.
As part of the presentation of her
model, Jennifer pointed out two com-
mon conditions in northern parts of
the United States that can affect model
specification. Most residences in the
northern U.S. have a heated living area,
so heating systems are assumed to exist in
all habitable buildings and are not con-
sidered to contribute to variance in sale
prices (dependent variable) in regres-
sion. Sometimes, this causes difficulties
for appraisers when converting from
a cost approach to a market-oriented
regression that may emphasize different
variables. The other observation relates
to the common development pattern of
older northern U.S. cities in which older,
less valuable housing is clustered near
Figure 10. Comparison of sale prices to estimates of market value
Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 81
the city center and higher-value, newer
houses are located on the periphery. In
other cities, the pattern may be reversed
with higher-value (rehabilitated or new)
housing closer to the center city. It may
be difficult for some modelers/apprais-
ers to recognize these two diametrically
different housing patterns.
Figure 10 presents the relationship of
sale prices to estimates of market value
(ESP Final).
Jim Shontz
Based on his experience, Jim Shontz, in
his calculation of square foot of living
area, assigned weights to various building
areas as follows:
Square Foot of Living Area = (.75 ×
Finished Basement Living Area) +
(1.00 × Main Floor Living Area) +
(0.75 × Enclosed Porch Square Foot)
+ (0.75 × Upper Floor Living Area) +
(Finished Attic Living Area).
 He reviewed this data by neighbor-
hood and then assigned neighborhoods
into the appropriate model. After de-
termining median values of property
characteristics by neighborhood, he cat-
egorized each neighborhood into three
logical groupings. All neighborhoods in a
given neighborhood group were directed
to the same model. A summary of these
three groups is presented in table 4.
Jim developed his models using Mi-
crosoft Access, Excel, and Visual Basic
for Applications to perform statistical
analysis. The resulting data were divided
into three models as seen in table 4. All
models were specified as additive models
with calibration in linear regression.
After the linear regression formula
was applied, a second value estimate was
developed though a comparable sales
program. First, property characteristics
were weighted and summed to determine
the five most comparable sales for each
subject property. Second, the comparable
sales were ordered by a comparability
index. Third, the adjusted sale price for
each subject was determined by differenc-
es between MRA estimates for subjects
and comparable sales. Finally, estimates
of subject properties were determined by
averaging the adjusted sale prices of the
middle three comparable sales.
Figure 11 presents the relationship of
sale prices to estimates of market value
(MRAEst).
Table 4. Median values for three modeling groups
Neighborhood Group A
Sale price $285,000
Price per square foot $109
Year built 2002
Living area (weighted) 2,700
Grade B C+10
Bedrooms 4 3
Bathrooms 2.5
SPloc02 1.67
Number of neighborhoods 28
Number of sales (filtered) 481
82 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2
Will Wiggins
Because some existing neighborhoods
did not contain sufficient sales, Will
Wiggins created super-neighborhoods
containing a minimum of 30 sales.
Several property characteristics were
used to determine similarity among
neighborhoods for combination into
super-neighborhoods.
Will used time-adjusted sale prices as
his dependent variable in linear regres-
sion. Categorical variables sublevels
were converted into individual binary
variables. Additional geographic loca-
tion influence was developed from a
transformed variable of x, y coordinates
absolute values.
Will’s final model was a linear speci-
fication with additive regression as the
calibration. Some of the categorical
variables in the model were converted to
binaries but other quality variables were
multiplied by square footage before be-
ing used as individual sublevels variables
such as qualitative variables, grade and
neighborhood.
Figure 12 presents the relationship of
sale prices to estimates of market value
(ESP2).
Statistical Quality Results
The volunteer modelers were encour-
aged to stretch their professional comfort
zones by testing new types of geographic
areas, techniques, and software. Volun-
Neighborhood Group B Neighborhood Group C
$160,000 $113,500
$99 $88
1991 1925
1,625 1,318
C+10
2
2.5 1
0.98 0.67
45 29
734 495
Figure 11. Comparison of sale prices to estimates of market value

Figure 12. Comparison of sale prices to estimates of market value

Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 83

teers thus had more freedom to test
new ideas/techniques. As evidenced
by the scatter plot diagrams in the fig-
ures, modelers utilized different upper
ranges of sale price and market estimates
($800,000 to $2 million). Some interna-
tional volunteers used the Internet to
find missing information they deemed
essential. Some used current technology,
while others applied technology new to
the appraisal profession. The number
of sales records varied in modeler’s final
modeling and holdout files.
No matter the differences in their
approach, these volunteer modelers
all achieved excellent ratio study qual-
ity statistics. Median sales ratios from
the modeling files were all within the
IAAO-recommended ranges (IAAO
2013). The IAAO-recommended range
for the appraisal level is 90% to 110%.
The IAAO-recommended range for
the price-related differential (PRD) is
98% to 103%. For the COD, the IAAO-
recommended range varies by property
class and location (see table 5). Most of
the other quality statistics were within the
IAAO-recommended ranges as well. The
price-related bias (PRB) for each partici-
pant was within the acceptable range of

Table 5. IAAO-recommended statistical quality standards

General property class Jurisdiction size/profile/market activity COD range
Residential improved Very large jurisdictions/densely populated/newer properties/active markets 5.0 to 10.0
(single-family dwellings, Large to mid-sized jurisdictions/older and newer properties/less active 5.0 to 15.0
condominiums, markets
manufactured housing, Rural or small jurisdictions/older properties/depressed market areas 5.0 to 20.0
2-4 family units)
Income-producing Very large jurisdictions/densely populated/newer properties/active markets 5.0 to 15.0
properties (commercial, Large to mid-sized jurisdictions/older and newer properties/less active 5.0 to 20.0
industrial, apartments) markets
Rural or small jurisdictions/older properties/depressed market areas 5.0 to 25.0
Residential vacant land Very large jurisdictions/rapid development/active markets 5.0 to 15.0
Large to mid-sized jurisdictions/slower development/less active markets 5.0 to 20.0
Rural or small jurisdictions/little development/depressed markets 5.0 to 25.0
Other (nonagricultural) Very large jurisdictions/rapid development/active markets 5.0 to 20.0
vacant land Large to mid-sized jurisdictions/slower development/less active markets 5.0 to 25.0
Rural or small jurisdictions/little development/depressed markets 5.0 to 30.0
Source: IAAO (2013)
Notes:
These types of property are provided for general guidance only and may not represent jurisdictional
requirements.
The coefficient of dispersion (COD) performance recommendations are based upon representative
and adequate sample sizes, with outliers trimmed and a 95% level of confidence.
Appraisal level recommendation for each type of property shown should be between 0.90 and 1.10.
The price-related differential (PRD) for each type of property should be between 0.98 and 1.03 to
demonstrate vertical equity. However, PRD standards are not absolute and may be less meaningful
when samples are small or when wide variation in prices exist. In such cases, statistical tests of
vertical equity hypotheses should be substituted.
Alternatively, assessing officials can rely on the price-related bias (PRB), which is less sensitive to
atypical prices and ratios. PRB coefficients should generally fall between −0.05 and 0.05. PRBs that
are statistically significant and less than −0.10 or greater than 0.10 indicate unacceptable vertical
inequities.
CODs lower than 5.0 may indicate sales chasing or non-representative samples.

84 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2

−0.10 to +0.10; the recommended range
is −0.05 to +0.05. Results for holdout
samples were similar to the training/
modeling sample results.
Each modeler’s quality results are
presented in table 6. These statistics
were either prepared or confirmed by
this author as project coordinator using
the same statistical software.
The presentation of participants’
quality statistics should provide a clear
indication of the high quality of research
performed by these volunteers. These
statistics, however, should not be used to
choose winners and losers of this model-
ing challenge, but rather to see the overall
quality of the results obtained by this very
diverse set of volunteer modelers.
Conclusions
This residential modeling research
project was designed to show the cur-
rent technical level of the mass appraisal
profession. While it accomplished this
goal, a more important goal has been
achieved—highlighting the skill levels
of participating modelers. Some expe-
rienced modelers had the opportunity
to test new software programs and tech-
niques. Some modelers with limited
experience outside their assessment
jurisdictions, states/provinces, and na-
tions were able to work with a completely
different residential real estate database
and develop good ratio quality statistics.
All volunteers used some form of regres-
sion in their modeling process; many used
the more complex form of multiplicative
regression. Each modeler used different
approaches to data analysis and market
analysis. These presentations indicate the
following were the modelers’ focus:
• Highlights of data and market
analysis procedures;
• Scatter plot graphs that showed
the relationship of sale prices to
volunteer’s estimates of market
value;
• Tables and figures showing the
reasons for selecting various ad-
justment processes, if applicable;
• How building square footage
was transformed with more than
one variable in some models so
that building square footage
would not be a significant stand-
alone variable.
Insights gained from the residential
modeling challenge can be summarized
as follows:
• Volunteers demonstrated that
modelers are trained to exam-
ine data and perform market
analysis without making prede-
termined assumptions;
• Mass appraisal modelers can
study existing data to develop
local geographic knowledge;

Table 6. Ratio quality statistics by modeler

Price-related Coefficient of
Volunteers Sales counts Median differential (PRD) dispersion (COD)
Bidanset 1920 0.998 1.011 7.1
Finnsson 2060 1.005 1.013 8.7
MPAC Team: Guerin, Bryan, and Ellens 1971 0.999 1.011 7.0
Myers 2160 1.001 1.020 8.0
Newnan 1873 1.000 1.014 9.1
Pragt 2121 0.996 1.048 15.5
Rearich 2137 0.996 1.019 9.9
Shontz 1710 1.006 1.017 9.3
Wiggins 1727 1.001 1.036 12.2

Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 85

 • Experimentation with newer
statistical techniques showed
their potential for the appraisal
profession;
• Various techniques can be em-
ployed to develop statistically
significant neighborhoods;
• Time adjustments can be suc-
cessfully applied using various
techniques;
• When an anomaly was found in
the database, several ideas were
offered on what steps could be
taken to ameliorate its effect
on the model. Even with all the
experimentation and pushing
the limits of current techniques,
ratio studies presented good
quality statistics that were mostly
within the recommendations
of the Standard on Ratio Studies
(IAAO 2013).
All volunteers were able to adjust to
an unfamiliar database that retained an
older numbering system for categorical
sub-variables. While the volunteers all
started with the same number of sales
records and a designated number of
randomly identified sold properties for
a holdout file, volunteers went on to
use various means to separate model-
ing from holdout cases. This approach
led to the variety of sales counts in each
modeler’s final modeling file shown in
tables 2 and 6.
The different size modeling files also
may be due in part to the value ranges
that each modeler attempted to value.
As shown in the scatter plot diagrams,
the modelers’ upper value ranged from
nearly $800,000 to over $2 million. This
wide range of values may have an effect
on the quality statistics in the ratio stud-
ies. Therefore, the quality of the models
should not be compared based on small
differences of a few points given the wide
range of sale prices and the experimen-
tation with new modeling techniques.
The efforts of all the volunteers have
provided an excellent service to the ap-
praisal profession.
The single most used statistical soft-
ware in this project was IBM-SPSS.
Together, the lower-cost NCSS and free
R statistical software systems were used
by more participants than SPSS. In the
future, free or low-cost statistical software
may become more prevalent in the mass
appraisal profession.
Each volunteer submitted documen-
tation of the models created for the
project, including model specification
and calibration. As the project organizer,
I wish to thank all these volunteers for
their hard work and devotion in com-
pleting their individual projects and for
providing sufficient explanations of their
models which allowed me to review the
models and advanced the knowledge of
the appraisal profession.
Reference
IAAO. 2013. Standard on Ratio Studies.
Kansas, City, MO: International Associa-
tion of Assessing Officers.
Additional Sources
Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk, and J. Speck.
2010. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl
and the Decline of the American Dream. New
York: North Point Press.
Fotheringham, A.S., C. Brunsdon, and
M. Charlton. 2003. Geographically Weight-
ed Regression: The Analysis of Spatially
Varying Relationships. Chichester, West
Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

86 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2

 Appendix A. Modeler Biographies
Paul Bidanset
Paul Bidanset entered the mass appraisal
profession in 2012. He is Real Estate
CAMA Modeler for the Office of the
Real Estate Assessor in Norfolk, Virginia,
United States. He is a doctoral candidate
in the School of the Built Environment at
Ulster University, Northern Ireland. He
is completing his dissertation under the
supervision of Drs. Peadar Davis, Michael
McCord, and William McCluskey.
Ingi Finnsson
Ingi Finnsson is the Director of Valua-
tion and Economics at Registers Iceland,
where he has been working as a CAMA
modeler since 2008. Registers Iceland
uses regression models for residential
and commercial real estate valuations
and is developing them for other prop-
erty types. Ingi holds a master’s degree
in industrial engineering from the Uni-
versity of Iceland.
MPAC Team
Brian Guerin, MRICS
Brian Guerin is Director, Assessment
Standards and Mass Appraisal, with the
Municipal Property Assessment Corpora-
tion (MPAC) in Ontario, Canada. Since
1999, he has been responsible for develop-
ment of all mass appraisal analytics used
in valuation of all property types including
eight province-wide assessment updates.
James Bryan
James Bryan is an MPAC mass appraisal
specialist with 5 years’ experience devel-
oping mass appraisal models for valuing
residential properties in Ontario. James
has extensive experience working with
a variety of statistical software packages
and GIS programs.
James Ellens
James Ellens is an MPAC mass appraisal
specialist with 9 years’ experience in mass
appraisal analytics specializing in research,
statistics, automated valuation models, and
CAMA software system development.
Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 87
Joshua Myers
Josh Myers is a U.S.-based statistician
and modeler working in the field of
mass appraisal. He specializes in spatial
regression modeling, including models
utilizing geographic-attribute weighted
regression. Josh has his own statistical
consulting company, Josh Myers Valua-
tion Solutions. Josh holds a masters in
statistics from University of Virginia.
Brian Newnan
Brian Newnan was formerly senior
appraiser at Travis Central Appraisal
District (CAD) in Austin, Texas, United
States. He retired in 2014. While at Travis
CAD, he modeled single-family dwellings
for 5 years using MRA, both additive
and multiplicative. He also has mod-
eled other large metropolitan districts
in Texas including Dallas CAD (Dallas)
and Tarrant CAD (Fort Worth).
Marcel Pragt
Marcel Pragt is a director at The Peb-
bles Group Local Government in the
Netherlands. Marcel has many years of
experience as an information analyst and
has helped many companies with the
introduction of information technology.
He has been responsible for technical
management and maintenance of The
Pebbles Group’s software and infrastruc-
ture for many years. He holds bachelor’s
degrees in architecture, informatics, and
business administration.
Jennifer Rearich
Jennifer Rearich joined Maricopa Coun-
ty Assessor’s Office (Phoenix, Arizona,
United States) in January 2012. She
spent a year as a residential appraiser
before becoming a CAMA regression
modeler. She holds a bachelor of sci-
ence in planning from Arizona State
University and a master of philosophy
in planning, growth, and regeneration
from the University of Cambridge in the
United Kingdom.
 Appendix A. Modeler Biographies (continued)
Jim Shontz
Jim Shontz gained his valuation expe-
rience in Kansas where the preferred
valuation methodology for residential
property is the comparable sales ap-
proach. He currently is CAMA Manager
for the Kansas Department of Revenue
Property Valuation Division. His respon-
sibilities include overseeing training and
support of CAMA applications the office
provides throughout the state.
Will Wiggins
Will Wiggins obtained his modeling
exposure at the Travis Central Appraisal
District in Austin, Texas, United States.
He joined the office in 2010 as a com-
88 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2
mercial appraiser. He was promoted
to Analyst Manager with responsibility
for the residential analyst team. Their
responsibilities included CAMA software
enhancements, database mining/scrub-
bing, data quality control, economic area
development, market segmentation,
linear and multiple regression, and cho-
ropleth mapping using ESRI and ArcGIS
software. He subsequently was promoted
to Assistant Director of Real Property
Appraisal. In 2012, he joined North
Texas Property Tax Services, Dallas, as a
senior property tax consultant. He holds
a bachelor of science degree in finance
and a certification in real estate from
the University of Wyoming in Laramie.
 Appendix B. Participant’s Models
These models are condensed versions. They present model specification without calibration.

Paul Bidanset
Multiplicative Regression Model with Ordinary Least Squares (Additive Regression)
This model used the following variables:
Dependent: lnSALEPRICE (natural log)
Independent: TOTAL_SF, lnAGE (natural log), SH_LOT_SF, GAR_SF, EXTR_COND (dummy variable), BASEMENT (dummy
variable), FIN_BS_SF, EXTR_WALLS (dummy variable), GRADE_NAME (dummy variable), RM6 (three-month reverse month
of sale spline variable), RM24 (three-month reverse month of sale spline variable), PORCH_STYLE (dummy variable),
Lake_Front (dummy variable), Golfcourse (dummy variable), NH (dummy variables for each neighborhood)

Geographically Weighted Regression

Geographically weighted regression used an adaptive bandwidth with both exponential (wgt = exp(−vdist/bw)) and Gaussian
(wgt = exp(−.5×(vdist/bw)^2)) kernels with the following variables:
Dependent: lnSalePrice
Independent: TOTAL_SF, lnAge, SH_LOT_SF, GAR_SF, FIN_BS_SF, RM6, RM24, GRADE
Results were disaggregated to the neighborhood level and a ratio study was conducted for the following three models:
1. Global (ordinary least squares)
2. Geographically weighted regression (adaptive bandwidth—exponential kernel)
3. Geographically weighted regression (adaptive bandwidth—Gaussian kernel).
Values for each neighborhood were selected based on model with optimal COD. Neighborhood values from respective “optimal
models” were compiled and a ratio study calculated for the entire sample.

Ingi Finnsson
Multiplicative Regression Model with Ordinary Least Squares (Additive Regression)
This model used the following variables:
ln(formula = ln.p1 ~ ln.livarea + ln.garage + ln.porch) + GRADE + age25 + age80.plus + NH.2 + NH.16 + NH.32 +
NH.33 + NH.35 + NH.36 + NH.41 + NH.43 + NH.44 + NH.48 + NH.49 + NH.58 + NH.62 + NH.63 + NH.71 + NH.72 +
NH.73 + NH.82 + NH.84 + NH.85 + NH.95 + NH.98 + NH.104 + NH.108 + NH.110 + is.lakef + f.por5_6 + BATH_COEF
+ Lotsf_adj_11 + EXTR_COND.1 + EXTR_COND.2 + EXTR_COND.3 + Story_Type.1 + Story_Type.2 + Story_Type.3
+ Story_Type.4 + Story_Type.5 + Story_Type.7 + Story_Type.11 + Story_Type.13 + street.1 + street.2 + street.3 +
street.5 + street.6 + street.7 + street.8 + street.10 + FLAG.3 + FLAG.5 + PER_AC.100 + Z1 + Streets.1 + Streets.6 +
series + summer + january
Notes:
1. Ln.pl is time adjustment; NH is neighborhoods.
2. Binary variables are is.lakef, f.por5_6, PER_AC.100, Z1 (zoning), summer, and january.
3. The first portion of the model is converted to log-linear terms and the rest of the model is linear.

MPAC Team: Brian Guerin, James Bryan, and James Ellens

Additive Model with Fixed Neighborhoods
In this model specification, neighborhoods (NB#) are binary variables.
(Constant) + QS_AREA1 + QS_AREA2UA + ADJAGESF + QS_FINBSMT + NB105 + NB21 + GARAGESF + NB85 + NB49 +
Lake_Front + NB91 + NB101 + NB73 + NB110 + NO_FP + NB98 + BSMTAREA + NB18 + NB88 + NB71 + NB58 + NB93
+ LOTSF8850 + BATH_COEF + POOL_SF + NB75 + NB10 + NB40 + NB48 + NB61 + PORCH_SF + NB65 + NB38 + NB104
+ NB36 + NB41 + TRAFFIC + NB5 + NB37 + NB108 + NB79 + NB28 + NB62 + NB66 + NB11 + NB12

Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 89

 Appendix B. Participant’s Models (continued)
Multiplicative Model with Fixed Neighborhoods
In this model specification, LN represents natural log of the variable (multiplicative regression).
(Constant) + LN_AREA + LN_PERGOOD + LN_QU_FACT + FINBSMT + NB21 + BSMT + NB49 + NB85 + NB105 + NB101
+ NB91 + NB73 + NB110 + NB18 + NB40 + NB36 + Lake_Front + NB98 + NB58 + LANDTOBLDG + NB71 +NB88 +
NB93 + NB38 + NB41 + LN_TRAFFIC + NB5 + S_15STY + NB65 + NB10 + NB104 + ATTIC + NB75 + NB48 + NB61 +
NB108 + NB79 + NB66 + S_TRILEVEL + NB35 + NB37 + NB34 + NB28 + NB12 + NB14 + NB2 + NB62 + NB31 + NB43
+ NB16 + NB32 + NB69 + NB1 + NB3 + NB4 + NB6 + NB7 + NB8 + NB9 + NB11 + NB20 + NB22 + NB23 + NB26 +
NB42 + NB44 + NB45 + NB47 + NB50 + NB52 + NB53 + NB54 + NB56 + NB57 + NB60 + NB64 + NB76 + NB78 + NB80
+ NB81 + NB82 + NB83 + NB84

Hybrid Model with Fixed Neighborhoods

FLOOR_1R + FLOOR_2R + FINBSMT_R + BSMT_R + PGOOD + GRADEEXP + LANDEXP + GARAGE_R + POOL_R + NH1_R
+ NH2_R + NH3_R + NH4_R + NH5_R + NH6_R + NH7_R + NH8_R + NH9_R + NH10_R + NH11_R + NH12_R +
NH14_R + NH16_R + NH18_R + NH20_R + NH21_R + NH22_R + NH23_R + NH26_R + NH28_R + NH31_R + NH32_R
+ NH34_R + NH35_R + NH36_R + NH37_R + NH38_R + NH40_R + NH41_R + NH42_R + NH43_R + NH44_R +
NH45_R + NH47_R + NH48_R + NH49_R + NH50_R + NH52_R + NH53_R + NH54_R + NH55_R + NH56_R + NH57_R
+ NH58_R + NH60_R + NH61_R + NH62_R + NH64_R + NH65_R + NH66_R + NH69_R + NH71_R + NH73_R +
NH75_R + NH76_R + NH78_R + NH79_R + NH80_R + NH81_R + NH82_R + NH83_R + NH84_R + NH85_R + NH88_R
+ NH89_R + NH91_R + NH93_R + NH95_R + NH97_R + NH98_R + NH99_R + NH101_R + NH104_R + NH105_R +
NH108_R + NH110_R + NH111_R + FP_R + BATH_R + PORCH_R + AC_R + LAKE_PCT + TRAF_ART

Additive Quantile with Location Value Response Surface

INTERCEPT+ QS_AREA1 + QS_AREA2UA + ADJAGESF + LOTSF8850 + PORCH_SF + POOL_SF + QS_FINBSMT +
GARAGESF + BSMTAREA + Lake_Front + BATH_COEF + NO_FP

Hybrid Quantile with Location Value Response Surface

(FLOOR_1R × GFLA + FLOOR_2R × (AREA2U + SF_FIN_ATT) + FINBSMT_R × FIN_BS_SF) × (PERGOOD)^PGOOD ×
((GRADE_FACT × SUP_FACT)^GRADEEXP) + POOL_R × POOL_SF + GARAGE_R × GARAGESF + BSMT_R × BSMTAREA
+ FP_R × NO_FP + BATH_R × BATH_COEF + PORCH_R × PORCH_SF + AC_R × AIRCOND + (69040.49 + Predicted) ×
((SH_LOT_SF/8850)^LANDEXP) × LAKE_PCT^Lake_Front × TRAF_ART^T_ARTERIAL

Hybrid Quantile with Fixed Neighborhoods

(FLOOR_1R × GFLA + FLOOR_2R × (AREA2U + SF_FIN_ATT) + FINBSMT_R × FIN_BS_SF) × (PERGOOD)^PGOOD ×
((GRADE_FACT × SUP_FACT)^GRADEEXP) + POOL_R × POOL_SF + GARAGE_R × GARAGESF + BSMT_R × BSMTAREA +
FP_R × NO_FP + BATH_R × BATH_COEF + PORCH_R × PORCH_SF + AC_R × AIRCOND + (NH1_R^NB1 + NH2_R^NB2
+ NH3_R^NB3 + NH4_R^NB4 + NH5_R^NB5 + NH6_R^NB6 + H7_R^NB7 + NH8_R^NB8 + NH9_R^NB9 +
NH10_R^NB10 + NH11_R^NB11 + NH12_R^NB12 + NH14_R^NB14 + NH16_R^NB16 + NH18_R^NB18 +
NH20_R^NB20 + NH21_R^NB21 + NH22_R^NB22 + NH23_R^NB23 + NH26_R^NB26 + NH28_R^NB28 +
NH31_R^NB31 + NH32_R^NB32 + NH34_R^NB34 + NH35_R^NB35 + NH36_R^NB36 + NH37_R^NB37 +
NH38_R^NB38 + NH40_R^NB40 + NH41_R^NB41 + NH42_R^NB42 + NH43_R^NB43 + NH44_R^NB44 +
NH45_R^NB45 + NH47_R^NB47 + NH48_R^NB48 + NH49_R^NB49 + NH50_R^NB50 + NH52_R^NB52 +
NH53_R^NB53 +
NH54_R^NB54 + NH55_R^NB55 + NH56_R^NB56 + NH57_R^NB57 + NH58_R^NB58 + NH60_R^NB60 +
NH61_R^NB61 + NH62_R^NB62 + NH64_R^NB64 + NH65_R^NB65 + NH66_R^NB66 + NH69_R^NB69 +
NH71_R^NB71 + NH73_R^NB73 + NH75_R^NB75 + NH76_R^NB76 + NH78_R^NB78 + NH79_R^NB79 +
NH80_R^NB80 + NH81_R^NB81 + NH82_R^NB82 + NH83_R^NB83 + NH84_R^NB84 + NH85_R^NB85 +
NH88_R^NB88 + NH89_R^NB89 + NH91_R^NB91 + NH93_R^NB93 + NH95_R^NB95 + NH97_R^NB97 +
NH98_R^NB98 + NH99_R^NB99 + NH101_R^NB101 + NH104_R^NB104 + NH105_R^NB105 + NH108_R^NB108 +
NH110_R^NB110 + NH111_R^NB111) × ((SH_LOT_SF/8850)^LANDEXP) × LAKE_PCT^Lake_Front × T
RAF_ART^T_ARTERIAL

90 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2

Joshua Myers
Geographically Weighted Regression
Fixed coefficients: finished basement square feet + pool square feet + garage count + lake indicator variable + finished attic
indicator variable + number of fireplaces + month of sale + slab square feet + number of bedrooms + basement unfinished
square feet + masonry exterior wall indicator variable + busy street indicator variable + corner lot indicator variable
Spatially varying coefficients: intercept + ground floor living area + upper floor living area + grade + age + age squared

Brian Newnan
Additive Regression with Several Combined Terms—Use, Size, and Qualitative Variables
Constant + AGE + BATHSZ + BS_TYPE1 + BS_TYPE2 + BS_TYPE3 + ECON6 + EWALL7 +FIRPLZ + FOUND1 + GARSPZ +
L_DEPTH + L_LOC3 + LAKE + NBSQ10 + NBSQ101 + NBSQ103 + NBSQ104 + NBSQ105 + NBSQ110 + NBSQ18 + NBSQ21
+ NBSQ29 + NBSQ3 + NBSQ38 + NBSQ40 + NBSQ48 + NBSQ49 + NBSQ52 + NBSQ58 + NBSQ61 + NBSQ65 + NBSQ69
+ NBSQ71 + NBSQ73 + NBSQ75 + NBSQ79 + NBSQ82 + NBSQ83 + NBSQ85 + NBSQ86 + NBSQ88 + NBSQ91 + NBSQ92
+ NBSQ93 + NBSQ96 + NBSQ98 + POOL3 + PORCH4 + PORCHZ + ROOF1 + SFGRAD10 + SFGRAD12 + SFGRAD13 +
SFGRAD14 + SFGRAD15 + SFGRAD16 + SFGRAD17 + SFGRAD18 + SFGRAD19 + SFGRAD20 + SFGRAD3 + SFGRAD4 +
SFGRAD5 + SFGRAD7 + SFGRAD8 + SFGRAD9 + STORY10 + STORY11 + STORY5

Marcel Pragt
Data in English are converted to the Dutch standard WOZ data model. The WOZ model uses the Dutch prescribed standard model,
which uses less data, so Marcel could not use some of the data provided. Time trends are established within the provided transac-
tions based on the LOESS (localized regression) method.
The data initially are divided into zones (neighborhoods). These zones are classified again into parent zones because there
were too few transactions in the zone (A to Z). The software then estimates values in three parts: the main property (building),
the ground (plot), and the remaining buildings.
In the first step, estimated values are statistically calculated using the ordinary least squares method. The Dutch try to establish
a correct value with sales ratios between 0.95 and 1.05 with minimal distribution. The next step relates other features, such as
swimming pools, to market value through comparison of estimates of value to sale prices. These differences are analyzed and placed
in a remaining building model. When this is finished, reappraising is done, and the steps are repeated until the correct ratios remain.
The final step is to convert the analytically calculated estimated value to a separate scaled model for the main building and plot.
Ordinary Least Squares Model
Constant + UnitsTypeG + UnitsTypeGCorr + UnitsTypeGLog + UnitsTypeP + UnitsTypePCorr + UnitsTypePLog +
PositionIndicator_2 + PositionIndicator_4 + PositionIndicator_5 + ObjectClass_01 + ObjectClass_02 + ObjectClass_03
+ ObjectClass_04 + ObjectClass_05 + ObjectClass_06 + ObjectClass_07 + ObjectClass_08 + ObjectClass_09 +
ObjectClass_10 + ObjectClass_11 + ObjectClass_12 + Age + Age2 + ValueArea1_A + ValueArea1_AA + ValueArea1_B
+ ValueArea1_C + ValueArea1_D + ValueArea1_E + ValueArea1_F + ValueArea1_H + ValueArea1_I + ValueArea1_J +
ValueArea1_K + ValueArea1_M + ValueArea1_N + ValueArea1_O + ValueArea1_P + ValueArea1_Q + ValueArea1_R
+ ValueArea1_S + ValueArea1_T + ValueArea1_U + ValueArea1_V + ValueArea1_W + ValueArea1_X + ValueArea1_Y
+ ValueArea1_Z + ValueArea2_1 + ValueArea2_102 + ValueArea2_103 + ValueArea2_104 + ValueArea2_107
+ ValueArea2_109 + ValueArea2_11 + ValueArea2_12 + ValueArea2_13 + ValueArea2_14 + ValueArea2_15
+ ValueArea2_16 + ValueArea2_17 + ValueArea2_18 + ValueArea2_19 + ValueArea2_2 + ValueArea2_20 +
ValueArea2_21 + ValueArea2_22 + ValueArea2_23 + ValueArea2_24 + ValueArea2_25 + ValueArea2_26 +
ValueArea2_28 + ValueArea2_3 + ValueArea2_30 + ValueArea2_31 + ValueArea2_32 + ValueArea2_34 +
ValueArea2_35 + ValueArea2_36 + ValueArea2_37 + ValueArea2_38 + ValueArea2_39 + ValueArea2_4 +
ValueArea2_42 + ValueArea2_43 + ValueArea2_44 + ValueArea2_45 + ValueArea2_46 + ValueArea2_47 +
ValueArea2_48 + ValueArea2_49 + ValueArea2_5 + ValueArea2_50 + ValueArea2_51 + ValueArea2_52 +
ValueArea2_53 + ValueArea2_54 + ValueArea2_55 + ValueArea2_56 + ValueArea2_57 + ValueArea2_58 +
ValueArea2_60 + ValueArea2_61 + ValueArea2_62 + ValueArea2_63 + ValueArea2_64 + ValueArea2_65 +
ValueArea2_67 + ValueArea2_68 + ValueArea2_7 + ValueArea2_70 + ValueArea2_72 + ValueArea2_74 +
ValueArea2_75 + ValueArea2_77 + ValueArea2_78 + ValueArea2_79 + ValueArea2_8 + ValueArea2_80 +

Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2 91

 Appendix B. Participant’s Models (continued)
ValueArea2_83 + ValueArea2_84 + ValueArea2_85 + ValueArea2_86 + ValueArea2_88 + ValueArea2_89 +
ValueArea2_9 + ValueArea2_90 + ValueArea2_91 + ValueArea2_92 + ValueArea2_93 + ValueArea2_94 +
ValueArea2_95 + ValueArea2_96 + ValueArea2_97 + ValueArea2_98

Jennifer Rearich
Multiplicative Regression Model with Ordinary Least Squares (Additive Regression)
Constant + MONTHS1 + MONTHS2 + MONTHS3 + LN_SQFT + LN_UPPERSQFT_RATIO + LN_FINISHED_BASEMENT_RATIO
+ LN_LANDRATIO + LN_GAR_ALL_RATIO + LINBATH + FND_BRKCONCBLK + ROOF_ROLL + WALL_WOOD +
WALL_STUCCO + WALL_BRKFR2 + WALL_ASPHLT + GRD_D + GRD_CPLS + GRD_BMIN + GRD_B + GRD_BPLS + GRD_
AMIN + GRD_A + GRD_APLS + COND_POOR + LN_LIN_PORCH_RATIO + LN_POOL_SF_RATIO + NO_AC +
LN_PCTGOOD_SQRT + ADJ_FIREPLACE + LAKE_ADJ + GOLF_ADJ + LOC_COR + STREET_CITYART + STREET_PRIVATE +
AREA3 + AREA4 + AREA10 + A1_NH60NEW + A1_NH95X + A2_NH43X + A2_NH51 + A2_NH104 + A3_NH6 + A3_NH9
+ A3_NH55 + A3_NH68 + A3_NH78 + A3_NH80 + A3_NH93 + A3_NH96 + A3_NH103 + A5_NH1 + A5_NH2 +
A5_NH5 + A5_NH45X + A5_NH47X + A5_NH85 + A5_NH91 + A5_NH98 + A5_NH101 + A5_NH105 + A7_NH36 +
A7_NH37X + A7_NH38 + A7_NH50 + A8_NH11 + A8_NH12 + A8_NH13 + A8_NH14 + A8_NH18X + A8_NH58 +
A8_NH86 + A9_NH20 + A9_NH21 + A9_NH23 + A9_NH24 + A9_NH25X + A9_NH31 + A9_NH34 + A10_NH40 +
A10_NH40RR

Jim Shontz
Additive Models with Linear Regression
Neighborhood Group A
Intercept + Age_SFLA_GF + AttGarSF_GF + Baths3_SFLA_GF + BelowGradeSFLA_GF + DS_SFLA_GF + Lake_SFLA_GF
+ LotSF_SPlocAdj + MainLevelSFLA_GF + SFLA_Gfnorm + UpperLevelSFLA_GF

Neighborhood Group B
Intercept + Age_SFLA_GF + AttGarSF_GF + Baths2_SFLA_GF + BelowGradeSFLA_GF + BsmtGarSF_GF + DeckSF_GF +
DetGarSF_GF + DS_SFLA_GF + Golf_SFLA_GF + Lake_SFLA_GF + LotSF_SPlocAdj + MainLevelSFLA_GF +
SFLAnoAC_GF + SFLA_Gfnorm + UnfinBsmtSF_GF + UpperLevelSFLA_GF

Neighborhood Group C
Intercept + Age_SFLA_GF + AttGarSF_GF + Baths2_SFLA_GF + DeckSF_GF + DetGarSF_GF + DS_SFLA_GF +
LotSF_SPlocAdj + NoBsmtSF_GF + NoGarSFLA_GF + SFLAnoAC

Will Wiggins
Additive Models with Linear Regression
Constant + BATH_COEF + BTHQ14 + BTHQ16 + BTHQ19 + BTHQ3 + GAR_SF + GAR4 NO_FP + POOL3 + PRCHST4 +
PRCHST6 + EXTCON2 + EXTWAL2 + ECOB1 + FNCOB1 + STRTYP5 + ROOF3 + BSMT1 + BSMT4 + BSMT8 + FIN_BS_SF
+ TOTAL_SF + SF_CRAWL + GRADE + GRD15SF + GRD17SF + GRD18 + GRD19SF + GRD20SF + NH + NH10 + NH101 +
NH102 + NH103 + NH104 + NH12SF + NH14 + NH18SF + NH21SF + NH26SF + NH28SF + NH38 + NH41 + NH42SF +
NH49 + NH5 + NH50SF + NH54SF + NH71 + NH73SF + NH75 + NH85 + NH86SF + NH88 + NH89 + NH92 + NH95 +
NH96 + NH97 + NH9SF + SNSF15 + SNSF17 + SNSF2 + SNSF20 + SNSF21 + SNSF3 + SNSF7 + PSFLOC02 + Lake_Front
+ SPLOC02 + STREET3 + VALDIS3 + ZONE1 + ZONE13 + ZONE2

92 Journal of Property Tax Assessment & Administration • Volume 13, Issue 2