69.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in St. Paul, Minnesota
We compared 14 franchise concepts for St. Paul, Minnesota. Replacement and repair demand was a leading positive mechanism. Winter parking and access pressure was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
24Sources used
16Primary sources
28Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.6 points average among 7 affected concepts
0.5 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for St. Paul, Minnesota
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and Jan-Pro International produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing university and government account demand moved it from #1 to #2 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.3 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in St. Paul, Minnesota
Aged housing stock and private sewer laterals support recurring replacement, repair, and diagnostic demand
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [7] [8] [3]
Declared snow emergencies impose recurring curb-access and street-parking constraints
This relationship affected 13 concepts and reduced 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Declared snow emergencies impose phased street-parking restrictions and vehicles parked contrary to the rules may be ticketed and towed for up to 96 hours: night plow start: 21:00; day plow start: 08:00 next day; enforcement window hours up to: 96 mixed. [15] [16]
skilled-trade-route-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was transportation, routing, and parking. [7] [8] [15] [16] [3]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Aged housing stock and private sewer laterals support recurring replacement, repair, and diagnostic demand3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Private sewer-service lateral inventory and age: service laterals over: 74,000; private service miles over: 1,000; typical materials: clay tile, vitrified clay; typical age over years: 70 mixed [8]
- Median age of residential units in the 2018 Saint Paul housing assessment: 69 years [7] [3]
- Single-family, duplex, and triplex structures built before 1930: 57 percent [7] [3]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Government, education, and health institutions create a material institutional account base1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Declared snow emergencies impose recurring curb-access and street-parking constraints1 modeled effect
Winter parking and access pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Historic-property and special-sign-district controls can require site-specific prototype adaptation1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.71 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.25 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.14 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.23 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.3 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.26 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.37 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.63 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.59 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.41 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.63 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.71 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.29 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #3 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Twin Cities Metro Employment In Major Institution Heavy Sectors In 2025health care and social assistance jobs: 321,378; educational services jobs: 140,020; public administration jobs: 82,113
- City Procurement Thresholds And Bid Security Requirementsformal sealed competitive bid threshold usd: 175,000; two quote range usd: 10,000, 174,999; one quote range usd: 2,501, 9,999; procurement card limit usd: 2,500; bid bond percent for 175000 plus: 5 mixed
- City Economic Development Page States 58,000 Students Study At 11 Colleges In Saint Paulstudents: 58,000; colleges: 11 mixed
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.8 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.3 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #4 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank10
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #12 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank9
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #8 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Declared Snow Emergencies Impose Phased Street Parking Restrictions And Vehicles Parked Contrary To The Rules May Be Ticketed And Towed For Up To 96 Hoursnight plow start: 21:00; day plow start: 08:00 next day; enforcement window hours up to: 96 mixed
Concepts challenged most
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.7 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#4 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#5 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#6 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#8 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #5–#13
#10 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#11 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#12 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#13 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [6] [10] [12] [13] [19] [20] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [8] [6] [3]Competitive environment: [6] [12] [5] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [11] [9] [7] [8] [4]Transportation, routing, and parking: [15] [16] [24] [5] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [19] [20] [21] [17] [18] [23] [22] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [13] [14] [6] [12] [5]Referral ecosystem: [12] [10] [6] [14] [3]Territory quality: [6] [19] [20] [15] [5] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [18] [9] [22] [23] [13] [5] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +0.8 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +0.3 pts | — | — | — |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +0.6 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #4 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #5 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.6 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +0.3 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | +0.4 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | — | -0.3 pts |
| #10 Workout Anytime | — | — | — | -0.4 pts |
| #11 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.8 pts | -0.6 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #12 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.7 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #13 Aire Serv | — | +0.7 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.6 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.6 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, Jan-Pro International led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to transportation, routing, and parking. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for ActionCOACH, Jan-Pro International, PuroClean; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in St. Paul, Minnesota
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in St. Paul, Minnesota
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.8 to 69.8. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.8. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.8–69.8
- Category average
- 69.8
PuroClean69.8
Rainbow International Restoration69.8
Metric registry
The 28 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 306,684people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | St | Context only | [6] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -1.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | St | Context only | [6] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period | 125,249households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | St | Context only | [6] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 52.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | St | Context only | [6] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 5,667,950,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | St | Context only | [6] |
| Median age of residential units in the 2018 Saint Paul housing assessment | 69years | Ramsey County property-tax records and other housing data summarized in the 2018 assessment | St | Supports modeled relationship | [7] [3] |
| Single-family, duplex, and triplex structures built before 1930 | 57percent | Ramsey County property-tax records and other housing data summarized in the 2018 assessment | St | Supports modeled relationship | [7] [3] |
| Median construction year of small and large multifamily buildings in the 2018 housing assessment | small multifamily 4 19 units: 1,922; large multifamily 20 plus units: 1,965median year built | Ramsey County property-tax records and other housing data summarized in the 2018 assessment | St | Supports modeled relationship | [7] [3] |
| Most of the city sanitary sewer system was constructed from 1887 through 1958 | start year: 1,887; end year: 1,958construction year range | 2026 rates and current sewer-system description | City of Saint Paul sanitary sewer system | Context only | [8] |
| Private sewer-service lateral inventory and age | service laterals over: 74,000; private service miles over: 1,000; typical materials: clay tile, vitrified clay; typical age over years: 70mixed | 2026 rates and current sewer-system description | Private sanitary sewer laterals connected to Saint Paul public sewers | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Property owners are responsible for cleaning, inspecting, and repairing private sewer laterals from the building to the sewer-main connection | yesboolean | 2026 rates and current sewer-system description | Private sanitary sewer laterals connected to Saint Paul public sewers | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Ramsey County annual labor market totals in 2025 | labor force: 291,837; unemployment rate percent: 3.8; establishments: 15,199; jobs: 330,650; average annual wage usd: 81,328mixed | Annual 2025 QCEW and LAUS data; monthly labor conditions through early 2026 | Ramsey County, Minnesota | Context only | [10] |
| Twin Cities Metro employment in major institution-heavy sectors in 2025 | health care and social assistance jobs: 321,378; educational services jobs: 140,020; public administration jobs: 82,113jobs | Annual 2025 QCEW and LAUS data; monthly labor conditions through early 2026 | Seven-county Twin Cities Metro Area | Used in scoring | [10] |
| The City identifies health care and social assistance, public administration, and educational services among Saint Paul's top employment sectors | health care and social assistance, public administration, educational servicessector list | Page last edited April 1, 2026; several underlying statistics do not state a current observation year | St | Used in scoring | [12] |
| City economic-development page states 58,000 students study at 11 colleges in Saint Paul | students: 58,000; colleges: 11mixed | Page last edited April 1, 2026; several underlying statistics do not state a current observation year | St | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Selected Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington major occupational-group mean hourly wages in May 2025 | all occupations: 35.86; food preparation and serving: 17.41; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 21.68; office and administrative support: 27; installation maintenance and repair: 33.63; transportation and material moving: 27.08usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Minneapolis-St | Context only | [11] |
| Saint Paul minimum wage schedule effective July 1, 2026 | micro 5 or fewer: 14.25; small 6 100: 16.37; large and macro 101 plus: 16.37usd per hour | Rates effective July 1, 2026; large and macro rate effective January 1, 2026 | St | Context only | [9] |
| City procurement thresholds and bid-security requirements | formal sealed competitive bid threshold usd: 175,000; two quote range usd: 10,000, 174,999; one quote range usd: 2,501, 9,999; procurement card limit usd: 2,500; bid bond percent for 175000 plus: 5mixed | Current procurement thresholds and requirements accessed August 2026 | City of Saint Paul | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Supplier portal registration and solicitation documentation requirements include a Vendor Outreach questionnaire and, for construction contracts of at least $50,000, a notarized Responsible Contractor Affidavit | supplier registration required: yes; vendor outreach questionnaire: yes; responsible contractor affidavit construction threshold usd: 50,000mixed | Current supplier-registration and solicitation requirements accessed August 2026 | City of Saint Paul | Context only | [14] |
| Declared snow emergencies impose phased street-parking restrictions and vehicles parked contrary to the rules may be ticketed and towed for up to 96 hours | night plow start: 21:00; day plow start: 08:00 next day; enforcement window hours up to: 96mixed | Current 2026 snow-emergency parking rules | Saint Paul city streets | Used in scoring | [15] [16] |
| Business signs require permits; named special sign districts and locally designated historic properties have additional review requirements | citywide sign permit required: yes; special sign districts: Smith Avenue, Highland Village, Grand Avenue, St. Anthony Park, White Bear Avenue; historic properties require hpc staff approval: yesmixed | Current sign-permit requirements accessed August 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Heritage Preservation review is required before permits for covered exterior work in designated historic districts or sites; published review timing is 2 to 8 weeks depending on project size | review time weeks min: 2; review time weeks max: 8weeks | Current business opening and expansion approval guidance accessed August 2026 | Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Districts and Sites | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Colliers Q2 2026 office vacancy rates show large St. Paul submarket differences | st paul cbd percent: 36.7; midway percent: 8.7; suburban st paul percent: 7.6; st paul cbd q2 net absorption sqft: -82,000mixed | Q2 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Cushman & Wakefield Q2 2026 St. Paul CBD office vacancy and asking rent | vacancy percent: 33.3; inventory sqft: 5,770,654; overall asking rent per sqft: 22.57; class a asking rent per sqft: 28.23mixed | Q2 2026 | St | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Twin Cities industrial market fundamentals in Q2 2026 | overall vacancy percent: 5.4; asking rent nnn per sqft: 9.43; under construction sqft: 6,700,000; build to suit pipeline sqft over: 4,800,000mixed | Q2 2026 | Minneapolis-St | Context only | [21] |
| Metropolitan Sewer Availability Charge applies to first-time connections or increased potential wastewater demand; one unit is 274 gallons of maximum potential daily flow and the unit rate is $2,485 | unit flow gallons per day: 274; unit rate usd: 2,485mixed | Current program and rate accessed August 2026; 2026 procedure manual effective January 1, 2026 | Metropolitan Council wastewater service area including Saint Paul | Context only | [22] |
| 2026 annual Storm Sewer System Charge for commercial and industrial properties and parking lots | class g rate usd per acre: 2,478.03; green infrastructure district surcharge cap percent: 100; current green infrastructure district surcharge percent: 100mixed | 2026 annual Storm Sewer System Charge rates | Saint Paul commercial and industrial properties; district surcharge only where applicable | Context only | [23] |
| Robert Street Reconstruction completion was celebrated July 16, 2026 | completion event date: 2026-07-16; active route disruption as of access date: nomixed | Project completion celebrated July 16, 2026 | Robert Street, downtown Saint Paul, Kellogg Boulevard to I-94 | Context only | [24] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 70.71 after target-market demand +0.8 pts and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3I 142(1).docxInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Median age of residential units in the 2018 Saint Paul housing assessment, Single-family, duplex, and triplex structures built before 1930, and Median construction year of small and large multifamily buildings in the 2018 housing assessment
- 4Structural Constraints and Hidden Costs: A Forensic Interrogation of Municipal GeographiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5Franchise data - remake - 142.csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 6QuickFacts: St. Paul city, Minnesota
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, and Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022
- 7Housing Assessment
Used for: Median age of residential units in the 2018 Saint Paul housing assessment, Single-family, duplex, and triplex structures built before 1930, and Median construction year of small and large multifamily buildings in the 2018 housing assessment
- 8Sanitary Sewer Rates
Used for: Most of the city sanitary sewer system was constructed from 1887 through 1958, Private sewer-service lateral inventory and age, and Property owners are responsible for cleaning, inspecting, and repairing private sewer laterals from the building to the sewer-main connection
- 9City of Saint Paul Minimum Wage Increases for Small and Micro Businesses
Used for: Saint Paul minimum wage schedule effective July 1, 2026
- 10New Realities in the Metro Area’s Labor Market
Used for: Ramsey County annual labor market totals in 2025 and Twin Cities Metro employment in major institution-heavy sectors in 2025
- 11Occupational Employment and Wages in Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington — May 2025
Used for: Selected Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington major occupational-group mean hourly wages in May 2025
- 12Why Do Business in Saint Paul?
Used for: The City identifies health care and social assistance, public administration, and educational services among Saint Paul's top employment sectors and City economic-development page states 58,000 students study at 11 colleges in Saint Paul
- 13Bidding, Bonding and Insurance
Used for: City procurement thresholds and bid-security requirements
- 14Supplier Resources
Used for: Supplier portal registration and solicitation documentation requirements include a Vendor Outreach questionnaire and, for construction contracts of at least $50,000, a notarized Responsible Contractor Affidavit
- 152026 Snow Emergency Brochure
Used for: Declared snow emergencies impose phased street-parking restrictions and vehicles parked contrary to the rules may be ticketed and towed for up to 96 hours
- 16Ticketing & Towing
Used for: Declared snow emergencies impose phased street-parking restrictions and vehicles parked contrary to the rules may be ticketed and towed for up to 96 hours
- 17Business Sign Permit
Used for: Business signs require permits; named special sign districts and locally designated historic properties have additional review requirements
- 18Step Four - Get Approval
Used for: Heritage Preservation review is required before permits for covered exterior work in designated historic districts or sites; published review timing is 2 to 8 weeks depending on project size
- 19Minneapolis Q2 Office Market Report 2026
Used for: Colliers Q2 2026 office vacancy rates show large St. Paul submarket differences
- 20Minneapolis Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Cushman & Wakefield Q2 2026 St. Paul CBD office vacancy and asking rent
- 21Minneapolis Q2 Industrial Market Report 2026
Used for: Twin Cities industrial market fundamentals in Q2 2026
- 22SAC basics for local governments
Used for: Metropolitan Sewer Availability Charge applies to first-time connections or increased potential wastewater demand; one unit is 274 gallons of maximum potential daily flow and the unit rate is $2,485
- 23Storm Sewer System Charge
Used for: 2026 annual Storm Sewer System Charge for commercial and industrial properties and parking lots
- 24Robert Street Reconstruction
Used for: Robert Street Reconstruction completion was celebrated July 16, 2026
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.