Hutchinson County

Hutchinson County scores 72 overall and lands at the 86th national percentile out of 1,000 counties, which tells you this is a genuinely competitive market by the numbers, not a borderline pick. The appreciation score of 83 is the headline, backed by 8.61% year-over-year home price growth on a median purchase price of $232,753. That kind of price movement in a market this size is worth taking seriously. The cash-flow score, however, is listed as zero, and no cap rate or cash-on-cash figures are provided in the underlying data, which is itself informative: the rent-to-price relationship here does not produce obvious day-one cash flow at a 6.85% financing rate. This is unambiguously an appreciation-tilted market. Investors who need month-one positive cash flow should model carefully before committing.

The affordability index of 80 is a useful secondary signal. It tells you that homes here remain accessible relative to local incomes, which matters for rental demand sustainability. Prices have run 8.61% in one year, yet the market hasn't priced out the workforce that fills rental units. That combination, appreciating prices alongside an 80 affordability reading, suggests the price growth has not yet detached from income fundamentals. For a buy-and-hold investor, that's a better setup than a market with a 95 affordability index and the same price trajectory, because tenant demand has a longer runway before becoming constrained.

Given the cash-flow score of zero and no supplied cap rate, this market most directly suits the appreciation buyer with a long hold horizon and enough equity or liquidity to carry the asset without depending on net rental income to cover shortfalls. A value-add operator could find opportunity if properties are acquired below the $232,753 median and rents can be forced higher through renovation, but that thesis needs to be proven at the property level since the county-level data doesn't support assuming positive cash flow at market pricing. A pure cash-flow buyer should be skeptical and run a detailed rent survey before contracting.

No economic anchors or employer data were provided for Hutchinson County, so the employment and demand-driver picture can't be addressed from the supplied inputs. What can be said is that the stability score of 50 sits at the midpoint, neither a red flag nor reassurance, and for a county with a population of 7,401, concentration risk is a real consideration. Small markets are inherently dependent on a limited number of industries or employers, and a single plant closure or agricultural downturn can move vacancy meaningfully. That risk deserves a line on any underwriting model you build here.

On carry costs, the combined monthly tax and insurance estimate is $318, based on a state-average effective property tax rate of 1.28% (Tax Foundation 2024) and an insurance rate of 0.36%. The tax rate flags as "normal" and is not an outlier in either direction. At a 1.28% state-average rate on a $232,753 purchase, you're looking at roughly $2,979 annually in property taxes and $838 in insurance, for $3,817 combined, or about $318 per month before you get to mortgage, maintenance, or vacancy. That's a manageable carry cost number at this price point and won't materially change the cash-flow narrative on its own, though the caveat stands that county and township rates in South Dakota can diverge from the state average, and you should pull the actual mill rate for the specific parcel before closing.

Among the five neighboring counties in the data, Hutchinson carries a median price of $232,753 and an overall score of 72. Harding County prices in lower at $211,924 with the same overall score of 72, meaning it offers equivalent composite quality at roughly $21,000 less per door, which matters if your strategy is price-sensitive or you're buying multiple units. Grant County scores 73 at $228,365, the closest competitor on both dimensions. McCook and Deuel counties are priced meaningfully higher at $274,393 and $294,477 respectively, both at lower overall scores of 71 and 73, which makes them harder to justify on a risk-adjusted basis unless specific local factors support the premium. You'd choose Hutchinson over McCook or Deuel if you're optimizing for price efficiency within similar score tiers. You'd choose Harding over Hutchinson if lower entry cost is the primary constraint. The thin margin between Hutchinson and Grant at comparable scores suggests touring both markets before committing, since deal-level differences will likely matter more than the county composite scores at that margin.