Rutland, VT

Rutland, VT's decision frame is evidence-led rather than league-table based. The statistical area has a population of 60,425, but Zillow does not publish enough history to calculate its trailing-12-month rent change. It is therefore unranked, and this report does not assign a score or rank. The available record instead poses a source-reconciliation question: Zillow reports a $1,466 asking-rent level and a home-value level of $320,181, while BLS LAUS reports a 2.51% year-over-year decline in metro employment through 2026-05. Zillow also shows a 3.79% home-value increase through 2026-06-30. Those observations have different coverage and timing; neither turns the other into a conclusion about current rental momentum. The decision issue is what each series measures, which missing evidence would alter its meaning, and whether it fits the user's own situation.

At the 2026-06-30 Zillow reading, the asking-rent and home-value indexes are $1,466 and $320,181. The provided gross yield is 5.49%, a cross-sectional relationship between the supplied rent and value measures, rather than a statement of net cash flow. It is not a substitute for expense evidence, and the packet supplies no operating-cost series. Zillow's 3.79% value change is a year-over-year index movement; it is not a rent-growth figure or a closing-price return. Critically, the Zillow trailing-12-month rent change is unavailable, not zero and not inferable from the current rent level. Asking-rent evidence also cannot establish signed rents, concessions, lease renewals, unit mix, or the duration of an advertised rent. The central Zillow tension is a reported value increase alongside an unmeasured rent trend, which leaves rent/value movement unresolved.

Census ACS sets an affordability boundary, not a household-by-household verdict. It reports median household income of $68,616, alongside a supplied rent-to-income measure of 25.64% and price-to-income measure of 4.67. HUD's FY2026 two-bedroom Fair Market Rent is $1,345. The Zillow asking-rent level is $121 above that HUD benchmark, or 1.09 times it. This comparison needs narrow interpretation: Census is an income measure, HUD is a two-bedroom Fair Market Rent benchmark, and Zillow is an asking-rent index. None identifies a given renter's income, bedroom need, actual lease payment, or eligibility for any program. Accordingly, the figures delimit a comparison to test, rather than demonstrate broad affordability or an outcome for a particular household.

Labor, construction, and resale-market evidence point to distinct parts of the area rather than a unified supply signal. BLS LAUS shows metro employment down 2.51% over the 12 months through 2026-05. Census Building Permits reports 74 permitted homes year to date through M06, equal to 1.22 per 1,000 residents; 10 permits were in buildings with five or more units, a 13.5% share. Permits are authorizations, so this series does not identify completed or occupied homes. Redfin's 2026-05-01 for-sale measures show 6.6 months of supply against a prior 4.3, a 2.3-month increase, and median days on market of 69 against 43, a 26-day increase. The sale-to-list ratio is 96.28%. Price reductions occurred on 19.78% of listings, below the prior 21.96% by 2.18 percentage points. Redfin describes listed homes for sale, not rental vacancies, while the BLS series is labor change; the packet does not establish a single mechanism connecting them.

IRS and HMDA add evidence on mover composition and financed purchase occupancy, but they answer neither the same question nor the Zillow rent gap. IRS county-to-county tax-return migration, aggregated to Rutland, records 1,334 movers in and 1,203 out, for net migration of 131. Reported inbound AGI is $66,363 versus $58,193 outbound, a supplied gap of $8,170. This is a migration-accounting signal, not evidence that incoming returns became renters, homeowners, or purchasers in the period. HMDA records 512 purchase mortgages in 2024, including 69 classified as investor purchases, an investor share of 13.48%. HMDA is purchase-mortgage occupancy evidence, so the share should not be treated as a census of all acquisitions, rental stock, or investor strategies. Positive IRS net migration and the HMDA investor share can coexist with the BLS employment decline without resolving its meaning.

FEMA provides the packet's risk evidence, not a property insurance quote or an operating-cost schedule. FEMA's National Risk Index identifies inland flood as the top hazard and classifies it as water. The supplied NRI risk score is 50.5, and the climate-loss ratio is 0.000974; these are expected annual loss evidence at the stated geography, not a determination of exposure for any address. No insurance premium, tax bill, repair cost, utility cost, or maintenance-cost level is provided. The report therefore cannot translate FEMA's metro-level indicators into net yield, tenant expense, or a site-specific cost burden. Cost questions remain separate from the Zillow gross-yield figure and must not be filled with assumed expenses.

Taken together, the practical due-diligence task is to preserve the boundaries among the sources before using them in a renter, landlord, or small-investor decision. Relevant questions are whether the Zillow asking-rent index matches the units and lease terms under review; whether the HUD two-bedroom benchmark matches the intended household comparison; and whether Census ACS income is an appropriate comparator. The supply review should distinguish Census Building Permits authorizations from delivered homes and Redfin resale listings from rental availability, while retaining the BLS employment period separately. The demand review should retain IRS tax-return migration separately from HMDA financed-purchase occupancy. FEMA's inland-flood and expected-loss evidence requires separate cost documentation rather than an unsupported adjustment to yield. This process supports no market-wide buy, lease, or investment verdict. With the Zillow trailing-12-month rent change unavailable, the market remains unranked and no score or rank is assigned.