Farmington, MO

Farmington, Missouri enters this review as a metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area with a population of 66,999 and direct, but incomplete, market evidence. It is intentionally unranked: Zillow does not publish enough history to calculate a trailing-12-month rent change. That 12-month rent change is unavailable, so this report assigns neither a score nor a rank. The decision frame is therefore a dated cross-section rather than a momentum call. Zillow observations are dated 2026-06-30; BLS labor evidence runs through 2026-05; Census Building Permits are 2026 year-to-date through M06; and Redfin is dated 2026-05-01. Each source is useful within its own definition, while the missing Zillow rent history limits comparisons over time.

Zillow’s asking-rent and home-value indexes provide the clearest current rent-and-value pairing, not a complete operating statement. At 2026-06-30, Zillow reports an asking-rent index of $824 and a home-value index of $196,310. The home-value index is 1.77% above its prior-year level. By contrast, no Zillow rental trend can be calculated, because the necessary trailing-12-month rent history is absent. The reported gross-yield ratio is 5.04%, a direct relationship between the supplied rent and value measures. It is not a net-yield figure, a record of achieved lease rents, or evidence that the 1.77% home-value movement applies to rent. The useful tension is current rent relative to current value against an unknown rent direction; that tension rules out treating the yield figure as a full return measure.

Census ACS supplies a household-income boundary, while HUD supplies FY2026 two-bedroom Fair Market Rent, and neither should be relabeled as Zillow’s asking-rent index. Census ACS median household income is $57,477; the supplied rent-to-income ratio is 17.2%, and the price-to-income ratio is 3.42. HUD’s two-bedroom FMR is $904. Zillow’s $824 rent reading is $80 below that HUD benchmark, or 91.1% of it. This comparison describes the distance between differently constructed measures, not the rent of a specified unit or the budget of a specified household. It also does not show rent burden across the market, because the Census ACS income statistic, HUD FMR, and Zillow asking-rent index use distinct scopes. The affordability evidence is therefore a boundary for further scrutiny, rather than an affordability verdict.

Labor and supply signals do not resolve into a single direction. BLS LAUS shows metro employment down 0.27% over the 12 months through 2026-05. The Census Building Permits Survey reports 110 permitted homes year-to-date through M06, equivalent to 1.64 per 1k people, with 0 in the 5-plus-unit category. Redfin’s 2026-05-01 for-sale snapshot has 3.0 months of supply, versus 3.1 previously, while median days on market is 61 rather than 45. Its sale-to-list ratio is 97.32%, and price drops appear on 28.93% of listings versus 26.91% previously. Thus, slightly lower months of supply sits beside longer marketing time and a greater share of price reductions. BLS measures labor, Census Building Permits measures permitted supply, and Redfin measures for-sale conditions; none substitutes for Zillow’s unavailable rent-change series.

Demand and participation indicators require the same separation of meanings. IRS county-to-county tax-return migration, aggregated to the market, records 1,490 moves in and 1,324 moves out, for net migration of 166. AGI associated with moves in is $46,230, compared with $45,233 for moves out, a supplied gap of $997. HMDA’s 2024 purchase-mortgage occupancy evidence records 756 purchases, including 75 investor purchases, for a 9.92% investor share. The IRS series tracks moving tax returns and associated AGI; HMDA tracks purchase mortgages and occupancy classification. Positive net migration and an identifiable investor share are separate observations, not proof that arrivals created rental demand, that investors set rents, or that either measure explains Zillow’s current asking-rent level.

FEMA’s National Risk Index adds a risk lens but no property-specific cost schedule. FEMA identifies inland flood, in the water hazard type, as the top hazard. The supplied National Risk Index score is 78.5, and the climate loss ratio is 0.001696. These are FEMA expected-annual-loss and risk indicators, not quoted insurance premiums, repair bills, tax amounts, utility charges, or mitigation expenses. The packet supplies no cost-level evidence for any of those items. Accordingly, the high-level risk score and loss ratio can be considered alongside the current Zillow, Census ACS, HUD, BLS, permit, Redfin, IRS, and HMDA evidence, but they cannot be converted here into a market-wide expense or property-level conclusion.

The practical due-diligence synthesis is a record of unresolved tests, not a lease, purchase, sale, or ranking recommendation. The remaining questions are whether achieved rents and lease turnover resemble Zillow’s asking-rent index; whether the Census ACS income and HUD FMR benchmarks correspond to the household and unit mix under review; and how the 110 permits are classified by timing and housing type. A separate unresolved item is reconciling Redfin’s shorter supply reading with its longer marketing time and higher price-drop share, without treating those for-sale measures as rent evidence. IRS migration and HMDA investor participation should remain distinct participant measures. FEMA’s inland-flood signal is paired with missing cost information. Until these questions have direct answers, the evidence supports a current cross-source profile only: the Zillow 12-month rent change remains unavailable, and Farmington receives no score or rank.