Brown County

Brown County's headline numbers tell a split story. At a median home price of $244,812 and median rent of $1,083, the gross rent-to-price ratio sits at 0.53%, which annualizes to roughly 6.4% gross yield before you touch expenses. That sounds workable until you run a real underwrite: at 6.85% financing with 20% down, the model spits out a monthly mortgage of $1,283 against rent of $1,083, producing negative cash flow of $579 per month before you even account for vacancy or maintenance. The cap rate of 3.45% confirms the story, this is not a market where the rent covers the debt at today's rates. The cash-on-cash return of -12.34% is the number that settles the argument. Where Brown County earns its overall score of 65 out of 100 is on the appreciation side: a 87 appreciation score and 5.28% year-over-year home price growth suggest the asset is working for you even when the income statement isn't.

That profile narrows the field considerably in terms of who belongs here. A pure cash-flow buyer running conventional 80% LTV financing should pass: the numbers don't close without either a much larger down payment to reduce the mortgage, or a purchase meaningfully below the $244,812 median. An all-cash or low-leverage buyer changes the math, since the underlying cap rate of 3.45% at least beats a savings account, though not by enough to excite anyone chasing yield. The investor this market actually suits is one buying for medium-to-long-term appreciation, comfortable carrying a monthly shortfall in exchange for 5%-plus annual price growth on a relatively affordable asset base. A value-add operator who can push rents above the $1,083 median through renovation could also find traction here, given the affordability index of 78, which suggests the market isn't so expensive that tenants have no room to absorb higher rents in improved units.

The carry costs deserve a close look before you finalize any underwrite. The combined monthly tax and insurance figure on the model property is $335, which is already baked into the $379 estimated expenses shown in the data. The state-average effective property tax rate of 1.28% is flagged as "normal," meaning it's neither a tailwind nor a headwind worth emphasizing on its own, but it still represents $3,134 annually on a $244,812 asset. That's a real number. Insurance adds another $881 per year at the 0.36% rate modeled here. Together these two line items consume $335 of monthly cash flow before a single repair ticket or vacancy day. Worth noting: these figures use a state-average effective rate from Tax Foundation 2024, and actual county or township rates in Brown County may differ from that baseline.

The specific risk worth naming in Brown County is scale. With a population of 38,278, this is a small market, and small markets concentrate risk. A single large employer reducing headcount, a shift in regional migration patterns, or any softening of the local economy can move vacancy and rent materially faster than it would in a metro with 10x the population. The stability score of 50 out of 100 reflects that exposure. An investor accustomed to diversified urban rental markets should calibrate their assumptions accordingly and build a wider vacancy buffer into their model than they might elsewhere.

Comparing Brown to its neighboring counties, it carries the lowest median home price in the peer group at $244,812, with Yankton at $273,318, Clay at $275,761, Tripp at $279,487, Fall River at $279,151, and Hamlin at $320,294. The overall scores are nearly identical across the group, ranging from 63 to 66, with Brown tied at 65 alongside Yankton and Clay. What Brown's lower price point offers is a lower absolute dollar exposure for the same approximate market quality score, which matters when the cash-on-cash return is negative regardless of which county you pick. An investor should choose Brown over its neighbors specifically when the strategy is appreciation-focused and capital preservation at entry matters, since you're buying the same quality of market for $28,000 to $75,000 less per door than the alternatives. If the goal shifts toward a market with stronger built-in economic anchors or a more developed tenant base, the data here doesn't provide enough differentiation among the neighbors to make that call, and further due diligence at the local level would be required.