Local operating-model alignment analysis
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Dayton and see how More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment shaped local-alignment scores.
Bottom line
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Dayton's local operating conditions. The More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment reported for Dayton region created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to defense/aerospace economic concentration. [18] Dayton's 48.4% owner-occupied housing share created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to low homeownership concentration. [1] [2]
FASTSIGNS scored 70.79. It leads City Wide Facility Solutions by 0.05 points. For Dayton region, the documented wright-patterson afb employment is More than 38,000 employees. For FASTSIGNS, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 0.45 points through defense/aerospace economic concentration. [18] The model applied its general operating-friction guardrail at 0.10 points. The largest direct difference versus City Wide Facility Solutions came from the +4.4% construction employment year-over-year growth reported for Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area, which contributed +0.32 points to FASTSIGNS versus 0.00 points to City Wide Facility Solutions. [4]
What this means: this is a deterministic comparison of documented local conditions against resolved operating-model exposures. It is not an earnings forecast, investment recommendation, or franchise-quality rating.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 70.79Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.45 ptsMore than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management | 70.74Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.48 ptsMore than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting TrainingInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 Item 7 source | 70.30Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.34 ptsMore than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source | 70.15Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.35 ptsMore than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | -0.37 pts48.4% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Rainbow International RestorationProperty RestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 Item 7 source | 70.11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.32 ptsMore than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | -0.36 pts48.4% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 70.01Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.13 ptsMore than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome InspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 Item 7 source | 69.92Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.49 pts20.6% recent-mover share | -0.54 pts48.4% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Workout AnytimeFull-Service FitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 Item 7 source | 69.75Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive scored relationship | -0.20 pts$100,600 median owner-occupied home value | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 Item 7 source | 69.70Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.24 ptsMore than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | -0.54 pts48.4% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source | 69.65Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.13 ptsMore than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | -0.54 pts48.4% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
Cross-concept impact analysis
A city condition changes a franchise score only when it intersects with a relevant operating-model exposure. The center shows average effect when applied; the surrounding ring shows how broadly that relationship reached across the concepts assessed.
Most relevant modeled attributes: homeownership dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: institutional sales.
Most relevant modeled attributes: recurring residential demand and local business density dependence.
Most relevant modeled attributes: multi family housing dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: housing turnover dependency and real estate transaction dependency.
Modeled evidence traces
Each trace follows one documented local condition through resolved operating-model exposure, exact score contribution, and the resulting modeled difference. Open either image for the full-size analytical view.
Why the ranking came out this way
The comparison, score path, and counterfactual below all use the same contribution ledger as the published ranking.
The modeled gap is small enough that the two concepts should be treated as a leading cluster rather than a decisive first and second place.
| Modeled relationship | FASTSIGNS | City Wide Facility Solutions | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| +4.4% construction employment year-over-year growth [4] | +0.32 pts | 0.00 pts | +0.32 pts |
| $4.379 billion health care and social assistance receipts [1] [22] | +0.07 pts | +0.18 pts | -0.11 pts |
| 51.6% renter-occupied housing share [1] [2] | +0.07 pts | +0.15 pts | -0.07 pts |
The +4.4% construction employment year-over-year growth reported for Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: +0.32 points for FASTSIGNS versus 0.00 points for City Wide Facility Solutions. [4]
FASTSIGNS, City Wide Facility Solutions, and JAN-PRO International gained more than the rest of the field from More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment and $4.379 billion health care and social assistance receipts through target-market demand. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for FASTSIGNS, City Wide Facility Solutions, and JAN-PRO International when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality. [18] [1] [22]
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.86 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.793 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.79 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Inside the analysis workflow
Methodology-reference views of the research and QA workflow. Open any image for the full-size version.
Evaluation set
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
Concepts were included when the available operating-model evidence supported a deterministic local-sensitivity profile. Brand participation in our referral network does not affect the score.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
70.13 average across 2 concepts
0.07 points average among 4 affected concepts
0.08 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
This relationship affected 9 concepts and added 0.30 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment. [18]
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.52 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 48.4% owner-occupied housing share. [1] [2]
Compare all assessed concepts
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see every material score-changing relationship, with factor net shown only as secondary context; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 2 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.069 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employmentLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #1 to #2 without this driver. | +0.45 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| +4.4% construction employment year-over-year growth | +0.32 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| -0.7% population change since 2020 | -0.09 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 51.6% renter-occupied housing share | +0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| $4.379 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.86 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.793 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.79 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 1 constraint. 5 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.041 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employmentLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #2 to #1 without this driver. | +0.48 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| $4.379 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.18 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 51.6% renter-occupied housing share | +0.15 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.83 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.742 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.74 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 3 constraints. 4 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.096 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employmentLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #3 without this driver. | +0.34 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 51.6% renter-occupied housing share | +0.09 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| -0.7% population change since 2020 | -0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| $100,600 median owner-occupied home value | -0.05 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.38 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.305 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.30 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 1 constraint. 4 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.104 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 48.4% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #4 to #3 without this driver. | -0.36 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | +0.35 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 51.6% renter-occupied housing share | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.11 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.150 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.15 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 1 constraint. 4 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.092 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 48.4% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #5 to #4 without this driver. | -0.36 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | +0.32 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 51.6% renter-occupied housing share | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.07 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.111 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.11 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.045 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.11 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.012 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.01 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
2 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 1 constraint. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.022 pts.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.12 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.924 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.92 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
2 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.045 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $100,600 median owner-occupied home valueLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #8 without this driver. | -0.20 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Approved backflow device required for commercial and industrial cross-connections and at the point of service commercial/industrial backflow prevention requirement | -0.09 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.20 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.09 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.754 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.75 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints. 5 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.075 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 48.4% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #9 to #8 without this driver. | -0.54 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | +0.24 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| -0.7% population change since 2020 | -0.13 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.50/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.36 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.06 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.702 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.70 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 2 constraints. 4 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.015 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 48.4% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #10 to #9 without this driver. | -0.54 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | +0.13 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| -0.7% population change since 2020 | -0.09 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 51.6% renter-occupied housing share | +0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.50/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.41 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.06 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.648 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.65 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
7 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 3 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.023 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 48.4% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #11 to #6 without this driver. | -0.60 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment | +0.24 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| -0.7% population change since 2020 | -0.16 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| $4.379 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.08 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| $100,600 median owner-occupied home value | -0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| 51.6% renter-occupied housing share | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.50/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.08 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.43 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.08 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.647 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.65 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
2 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 1 constraint. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.045 pts.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.43 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.616 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.62 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.034 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $18.50/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.64 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.06 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.421 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.42 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
2 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 2 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold.
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.83 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.212 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.21 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Factor impact
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #13 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 4 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #11 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We separated regulations that create operating burdens from those that may create demand for qualified compliance and retrofit services.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #6 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Rank stability
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.
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Net factor impact
This graph plots net factor totals for the top 14 concepts. A near-zero net can contain meaningful positive and negative scored relationships that offset each other; those underlying drivers remain visible in each franchise's expanded score explanation.
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction | Regulatory and operating friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 FASTSIGNS | +0.90 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #2 City Wide Facility Solutions | +0.80 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #3 JAN-PRO International | +0.40 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #4 PuroClean | +0.10 pts | — | — |
| #5 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.10 pts | — | — |
| #6 ActionCOACH | +0.10 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | -0.10 pts | — | — |
| #8 Workout Anytime | -0.20 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | -0.40 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | -0.40 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #11 HomeSmiles | -0.40 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #13 Aire Serv | -0.60 pts | +0.10 pts | — |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | -0.80 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
FASTSIGNS, City Wide Facility Solutions, and JAN-PRO International gained more than the rest of the field from More than 38,000 employees wright-Patterson AFB employment and $4.379 billion health care and social assistance receipts through target-market demand. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for FASTSIGNS, City Wide Facility Solutions, and JAN-PRO International when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality.
Category comparisons
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
2 Property Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.11 to 70.15. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.15. Target-market demand added 0.09 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.04-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
2 Plumbing & Drain Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.65 to 69.70. Mr. Rooter ranked highest at 69.70. Labor and staffing friction added 0.06 points on average among the affected concepts. Target-market demand reduced the exposed concepts by 0.39 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.05-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
Metric registry
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population estimate | 136,688 | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] |
| Population change since 2020 | -0.7% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Population density | 2,466.5 persons/sq mi | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] |
| Households | 58,477 | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 48.4% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 51.6% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Same-house one-year share | 79.4% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Recent-mover share | 20.6% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $100,600 | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median gross rent | $918 | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median owner cost with mortgage | $1,147 | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median household income | $45,247 | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Poverty rate | 26.9% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Senior population share | 14.1% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-18 population share | 21.3% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 disability share | 14.8% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 uninsured share | 9.4% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Labor-force participation | 58.8% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Household broadband subscription | 85.5% | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Mean travel time to work | 20.3 minutes | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Retail sales per capita | $7,307 | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts | $4.379 billion | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts | $1.112 billion | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Accommodation and food-service sales | $345.3 million | 2020-2025 / ACS 2020-2024 / 2022 business data | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [1] |
| All-occupations mean hourly wage | $31.60/hour | May 2025 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [3] |
| Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | $16.26/hour | May 2025 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations | $18.50/hour | May 2025 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Office and administrative support mean hourly wage | $23.41/hour | May 2025 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Sales mean hourly wage | $22.55/hour | May 2025 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Construction and extraction mean hourly wage | $31.12/hour | May 2025 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [3] |
| Installation, maintenance and repair mean hourly wage | $29.25/hour | May 2025 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [3] |
| Healthcare practitioner and technical mean hourly wage | $48.47/hour | May 2025 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [3] |
| Metro unemployment rate | 3.5% | July 2026 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [4] |
| Construction employment year-over-year growth | +4.4% | July 2026 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Manufacturing employment | 42,400 jobs | July 2026 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Trade, transportation and utilities employment | 71,200 jobs | July 2026 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Education and health services employment | 81,700 jobs | July 2026 | Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [4] |
| Industrial vacancy rate | 3.9% | Q2 2026 | Dayton commercial real-estate market | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Industrial asking rent | $5.81/SF | Q2 2026 | Dayton commercial real-estate market | Context only | [16] |
| Industrial space under construction | 1.4 million SF | Q2 2026 | Dayton commercial real-estate market | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Office vacancy rate | 20.0% | Q2 2026 | Dayton commercial real-estate market | Context only | [17] |
| Office asking rent | $16.42/SF | Q2 2026 | Dayton commercial real-estate market | Context only | [17] |
| Ohio statutory minimum wage for covered employers | $11.00/hour | 2026 | Ohio | Context only | [5] |
| City municipal income tax rate | 2.5% | Current; 2.5% rate effective 2025 | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [6] [7] |
| SOPEC small-business aggregation supply rate | 10.691 cents/kWh | June 2026-May 2027 | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [10] |
| One-inch monthly water minimum charge | $39.99/month | Effective January 1, 2026 | City of Dayton water service area | Context only | [8] |
| Minimum sign-permit fee package per regulated sign | $190.79 minimum per sign | 2025 application | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [12] |
| HVAC contractor registration fee | $250 for one year | 2026-2027 | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [14] [13] |
| HVAC contractor surety bond requirement | $10,000 surety bond | 2026-2027 | Dayton, Ohio | Context only | [14] |
| Food-service plan review timing | Plans required 30 days before construction | Current | Montgomery County, Ohio | Context only | [15] |
| Wright-Patterson AFB employment | More than 38,000 employees | Current | Dayton region | Used in scoring | [18] |
| Wright-Patterson AFB annual economic impact | $6.5 billion/year | Current | Dayton region | Context only | [18] |
| University of Dayton enrollment | 9,713 students | Fall 2025 | University of Dayton campus | Context only | [19] |
| Sinclair Community College system enrollment | 34,580 students | FY 2025-26 / 2025 | Dayton region | Context only | [20] |
| Dayton International Airport passengers | More than 1.3 million passengers | 2025 | Dayton region | Used in scoring | [21] |
| Dayton International Airport enplanement growth | +1.7% | 2025 | Dayton region | Context only | [21] |
How to use the ranking
Methodology
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply fully supported relationships at full weight and otherwise scoreable research- or taxonomy-gated relationships at a reduced provisional weight.
Keep territory-, site-, customer-, project-, or configuration-dependent relationships outside the baseline score until the relevant candidate selections are known.
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
Every concept starts from the same 70.00 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In Dayton, FASTSIGNS reached 70.793. Target-market demand netted to +0.86 points after more than 38,000 employees wright-patterson afb employment was partly offset by -0.7% population change since 2020. [18] [1] [2] Regulatory and operating friction netted to -0.10 points after combining observed local relationships with a conservative or model-applied adjustment.
The current model caps total local movement at ±18.00 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Score calibration
Each score-changing relationship starts with its model-defined maximum effect. The documented city-condition strength and the franchise's weighted operating exposure scale that maximum. Evidence confidence, provenance, geographic applicability, and the profile-confidence multiplier then modify the pre-cap effect. Fully supported relationships use full weight; broadly applicable relationships held back only by research or taxonomy-review gates use an additional 0.80 eligibility multiplier. Candidate-dependent site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections remain outside the baseline score until resolved. Correlation and score caps can reduce the resulting magnitude before the final contribution is added to the common baseline.
The model does not use one universal Minor/Moderate/Strong point table. Relationship-specific max_effect values are the actual point ceilings, so publishing generic point bands would misstate the scoring system.
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model updates are versioned and dated, documenting material changes to scoring, evidence handling, methodology, governance, and presentation across published reports.
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
Used for: Population estimate, Population change since 2020, Population density, Households, and Owner-occupied housing share
Used for: Population change since 2020, Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, Same-house one-year share, and Recent-mover share
Used for: All-occupations mean hourly wage, Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations, Office and administrative support mean hourly wage, and Sales mean hourly wage
Used for: Metro unemployment rate, Construction employment year-over-year growth, Manufacturing employment, Trade, transportation and utilities employment, and Education and health services employment
Used for: Ohio statutory minimum wage for covered employers
Used for: City municipal income tax rate
Used for: City municipal income tax rate
Used for: One-inch monthly water minimum charge
Used for: SOPEC small-business aggregation supply rate
Used for: Minimum sign-permit fee package per regulated sign
Used for: HVAC contractor registration fee
Used for: HVAC contractor registration fee and HVAC contractor surety bond requirement
Used for: Food-service plan review timing
Used for: Industrial vacancy rate, Industrial asking rent, and Industrial space under construction
Used for: Office vacancy rate and Office asking rent
Used for: Wright-Patterson AFB employment and Wright-Patterson AFB annual economic impact
Used for: University of Dayton enrollment
Used for: Sinclair Community College system enrollment
Used for: Dayton International Airport passengers and Dayton International Airport enplanement growth
Before contacting a franchisor
Apply the analysis to your situation
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Twenty Twenty-Five
