Local operating-model alignment analysis
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Fargo and see how 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F shaped local-alignment scores.
Bottom line
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Fargo's local operating conditions. Fargo's 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to freeze-thaw repair demand. [12] [13] Fargo's 43.7% owner-occupied housing share created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to low homeownership concentration. [1] [2]
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors scored 70.44. It leads FASTSIGNS by 0.08 points. The documented recent-mover share in Fargo is 23.6%. For Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 0.90 points through high housing turnover and occupancy change. [1] [2] 43.7% of housing in Fargo is owner occupied. For Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, this was the largest negative contribution, reducing the score by 1.12 points through low homeownership concentration. [1] [2] The largest direct difference versus FASTSIGNS came from Fargo's 43.7% owner-occupied housing share, which contributed -1.12 points to Pillar To Post Home Inspectors versus 0.00 points to FASTSIGNS. [1] [2]
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 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome InspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 Item 7 source | 70.44Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.90 pts23.6% recent-mover share | -1.12 pts43.7% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 70.36Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.31 pts$86.9 million commercial remodel permit value | -0.15 pts51.4 inches normal annual snowfall | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Aire ServHVACInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 Item 7 source | 70.30Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.42 pts172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F | -1.12 pts43.7% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management | 70.25Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.30 pts56.3% renter-occupied housing share | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Rainbow International RestorationProperty RestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 Item 7 source | 70.20Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.25 pts172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F | -0.75 pts43.7% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting TrainingInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 Item 7 source | 70.01Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.19 pts56.3% renter-occupied housing share | -0.20 pts2.6% fargo city unemployment rate | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 69.90Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive scored relationship | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source | 69.76Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.25 pts172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F | -0.75 pts43.7% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Workout AnytimeFull-Service FitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 Item 7 source | 69.36Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.12 pts8.2% population change since 2020 | -0.41 pts51.4 inches normal annual snowfall | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims AdvocacyInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 Item 7 source | 68.85Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.13 pts8.2% population change since 2020 | -1.00 pts43.7% 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: service vehicle required, emergency response, and high daily stop count.
Most relevant modeled attributes: restoration service, hvac service, and property inspection service.
Most relevant modeled attributes: service vehicle required, high daily stop count, and customer parking dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: scheduled residential service, recurring residential demand, and housing turnover 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 | Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | FASTSIGNS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 43.7% owner-occupied housing share [1] [2] | -1.12 pts | 0.00 pts | -1.12 pts |
| 23.6% recent-mover share [1] [2] | +0.90 pts | 0.00 pts | +0.90 pts |
| 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F [12] [13] | +0.62 pts | 0.00 pts | +0.62 pts |
| 8.2% population change since 2020 [1] [2] | +0.51 pts | 0.00 pts | +0.51 pts |
| 51.4 inches normal annual snowfall [14] [12] | -0.41 pts | -0.15 pts | -0.26 pts |
| 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F [12] [13] | -0.23 pts | 0.00 pts | -0.23 pts |
Fargo's 43.7% owner-occupied housing share created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: -1.12 points for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors versus 0.00 points for FASTSIGNS. [1] [2]
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, FASTSIGNS, and Aire Serv gained more than the rest of the field from 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F and $86.9 million commercial remodel permit value. They were also less exposed than the rest of the field to 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F through transportation, routing, and parking. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, FASTSIGNS, and Aire Serv 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. [12] [13] [7]
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 | +0.39 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.62 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.07 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.64 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.440 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.44 |
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
69.98 average across 2 concepts
0.95 points average among 5 affected concepts
1.01 points average reduction among 11 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
This relationship affected 5 concepts and added 0.96 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F. [12]
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 1.07 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 43.7% 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: $102,690–$134,290 · 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.
8 material local relationships changed this score: 5 advantages and 3 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 43.7% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #1 without this driver. | -1.12 pts | HighEvidence |
| 23.6% recent-mover share | +0.90 pts | HighEvidence |
| 8.2% population change since 2020 | +0.51 pts | HighEvidence |
| $86.9 million commercial remodel permit value | +0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F | +0.62 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $30.95/hour mean wage for mean hourly wage, all occupations occupations | +0.07 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
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 | +0.39 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.62 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.07 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.64 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.440 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.44 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
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.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.042 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 51.4 inches normal annual snowfall | -0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
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 | +0.46 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.15 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.357 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.36 |
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.
8 material local relationships changed this score: 5 advantages and 3 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32FLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #3 to #8 without this driver. | +1.42 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $30.95/hour mean wage for mean hourly wage, all occupations occupations | +0.10 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 | +1.42 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.10 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.80 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.296 |
| 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.
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. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.055 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 56.3% renter-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #4 to #5 without this driver. | +0.30 pts | HighEvidence |
| 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 | +0.33 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.254 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.25 |
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: 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.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32FLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #5 to #9 without this driver. | +1.25 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $30.95/hour mean wage for mean hourly wage, all occupations occupations | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
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 | -0.18 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.25 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.06 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.93 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.197 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.20 |
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.
2 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.017 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 2.6% fargo city unemployment rateLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #6 without this driver. | -0.20 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 56.3% renter-occupied housing share | +0.19 pts | HighEvidence |
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 | +0.19 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.18 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.007 |
| 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: $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.
1 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 1 constraint.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrailLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #7 without this driver. | -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 | 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.900 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.90 |
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: 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: 3 advantages and 3 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32FLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #8 to #11 without this driver. | +1.25 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $30.95/hour mean wage for mean hourly wage, all occupations occupations | +0.06 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
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 | -0.62 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.25 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.06 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.94 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.761 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.76 |
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.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.036 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 51.4 inches normal annual snowfallLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #9 without this driver. | -0.41 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 2.6% fargo city unemployment rate | -0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 8.2% population change since 2020 | +0.12 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
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 | +0.12 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.36 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.41 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.356 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.36 |
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.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 3 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.035 pts.
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
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 | -0.75 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.44 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.845 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.85 |
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: Moderately 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: 3 advantages and 4 constraints.
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.20 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.22 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.173 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.17 |
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.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 3 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.028 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F | +0.22 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $30.95/hour mean wage for mean hourly wage, all occupations occupations | +0.08 pts | ModerateEvidence |
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 | -0.75 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.22 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.08 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.62 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.934 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.93 |
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: Moderately 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: 3 advantages and 3 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.046 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $30.95/hour mean wage for mean hourly wage, all occupations occupations | +0.09 pts | ModerateEvidence |
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 | -0.44 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | +0.09 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.82 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.840 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.84 |
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: Moderately 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: 3 advantages and 4 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.046 pts.
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
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 | -0.47 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.19 |
| 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 | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.379 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.38 |
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #8 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #3 to #8, 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 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #3 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #5 to #1, 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 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. City Wide Facility Solutions moved from #4 to #3, 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 | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Regulatory and operating friction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.40 pts | +0.60 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.60 pts | — |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +0.50 pts | — | — | -0.10 pts | — |
| #3 Aire Serv | -0.40 pts | +1.40 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.80 pts | — |
| #4 City Wide Facility Solutions | +0.30 pts | — | — | — | -0.10 pts |
| #5 Rainbow International Restoration | -0.20 pts | +1.20 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.90 pts | — |
| #6 JAN-PRO International | +0.20 pts | — | -0.20 pts | — | — |
| #7 ActionCOACH | — | — | — | — | -0.10 pts |
| #8 PuroClean | -0.60 pts | +1.30 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.90 pts | — |
| #9 Workout Anytime | +0.10 pts | — | -0.40 pts | -0.40 pts | — |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | -0.80 pts | — | — | -0.40 pts | — |
| #11 HomeSmiles | -0.40 pts | — | -0.20 pts | -1.20 pts | — |
| #12 Mister Sparky Electric | -0.70 pts | +0.20 pts | +0.10 pts | -1.60 pts | — |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | -0.40 pts | — | +0.10 pts | -1.80 pts | — |
| #14 ZOOM DRAIN | -0.50 pts | — | — | -2.20 pts | — |
Interpretation
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, FASTSIGNS, and Aire Serv gained more than the rest of the field from 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F and $86.9 million commercial remodel permit value. They were also less exposed than the rest of the field to 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F through transportation, routing, and parking. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, FASTSIGNS, and Aire Serv 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 69.76 to 70.20. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.20. Property replacement-cycle demand added 1.25 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 0.93 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.44-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 67.38 to 67.84. Mr. Rooter ranked highest at 67.84. Labor and staffing friction added 0.07 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 2.01 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.46-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 change since 2020 | 8.2% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Population density | 2,529.7 persons/sq mi | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Household count | 59,970 households | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 43.7% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 56.3% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $281,900 | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median household income | $66,998 | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Poverty rate | 12.9% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Recent-mover share | 23.6% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Age 65+ population share | 13.3% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-18 population share | 20.0% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 disability share | 9.1% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 uninsured share | 6.8% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 insured share | 93.2% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Civilian labor-force participation | 74.1% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Retail sales per capita | $33,663 per capita | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Accommodation and food services sales | $542.108 million | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] |
| Mean travel time to work | 15.5 minutes | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Households with broadband subscription | 88.3% | 2020-2024 ACS / 2025 population estimates / 2022 Economic Census | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Mean hourly wage, all occupations | $30.95/hour | May 2025 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | $16.92/hour | May 2025 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Office and administrative support mean hourly wage | $24.32/hour | May 2025 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Construction and extraction mean hourly wage | $30.87/hour | May 2025 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Installation, maintenance and repair mean hourly wage | $30.75/hour | May 2025 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Metro unemployment rate | 2.6% | July 2026 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [4] [5] |
| Fargo city unemployment rate | 2.6% | December 2025 city unemployment; April 2026 summary edition | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Trade, transportation and utilities employment | 30.6 thousand jobs | July 2026 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Mining, logging and construction employment | 12.0 thousand jobs | July 2026 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [4] |
| Manufacturing employment | 12.3 thousand jobs | July 2026 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [4] |
| Permitted construction value | $407.3 million | 2026-01-01 through 2026-08-31 | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Commercial remodel permit value | $86.9 million | 2026-01-01 through 2026-08-31 | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [7] |
| New commercial permit value | $180.5 million | 2026-01-01 through 2026-08-31 | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [7] |
| NDSU enrollment | 11,952 students | Fall 2025 | North Dakota State University campus | Context only | [8] |
| Sanford Medical Center Fargo licensed/operating bed count | 284 beds | Current as accessed 2026-09-05 | Fargo, North Dakota | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Sanford Medical Center Fargo patients from outside metro area | 60% of patients | Current as accessed 2026-09-05 | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Essentia Health-Fargo bed count | 133 beds | Current as accessed 2026-09-05 | Fargo, North Dakota | Supports modeled relationship | [10] |
| Hector International Airport annual passengers | 1,179,442 passengers | Calendar year 2025 | Hector International Airport | Context only | [11] |
| Hector International Airport air cargo landed weight | 215.1 million lb landed weight | Calendar year 2025 | Hector International Airport | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Normal annual snowfall | 51.4 inches | 1991-2020 climate normals; annual report context | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F | 172.4 days/year | 1991-2020 climate normals; annual report context | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Normal annual days with minimum temperature <=0F | 41.7 days/year | 1991-2020 climate normals; annual report context | Fargo, North Dakota | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Raw Red River water hardness | 17 grains/gal average | Current treatment description as accessed 2026-09-05 | City of Fargo water treatment system | Context only | [15] |
| Finished water hardness target | 7 grains/gal target | Current treatment description as accessed 2026-09-05 | City of Fargo water treatment system | Context only | [15] |
| Marginal water rate above 2,000 gallons up to 200,000 gallons | $5.70 per 1,000 gallons | Current rates as accessed 2026-09-05 | City of Fargo water utility | Context only | [16] |
| Commercial/multifamily sewer rate | $2.55 per 1,000 gallons; $25 minimum | Current rates as accessed 2026-09-05 | City of Fargo sewer utility | Context only | [16] |
| Permanent sign permit minimum fee | $50 minimum or $0.50/sq ft, whichever is greater | Fees effective 2025-01-01; current as accessed 2026-09-05 | Fargo, North Dakota | Context only | [18] |
| North Dakota contractor licensing job-value threshold | License required when job value exceeds $4,000 | Current as accessed 2026-09-05 | North Dakota | Context only | [21] |
| North Dakota statutory minimum wage | $7.25/hour | Current poster accessed 2026-09-05; wage effective since 2009 | North Dakota | Context only | [22] |
| MATBUS annual passengers | 1.3 million passengers | 2024 profile metrics presented in 2026 meeting minutes | Fargo, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [23] |
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 Fargo, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors reached 70.440. Target-market demand netted to +0.39 points after 23.6% recent-mover share was partly offset by 43.7% owner-occupied housing share. [1] [2] Property replacement-cycle demand totaled +0.62 points, led by 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32f at +0.62 points. [12] [13] 51.4 inches normal annual snowfall and 172.4 days/year normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32f together produced -0.64 points through transportation, routing, and parking. [14] [12] [13]
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 change since 2020, Population density, Household count, Owner-occupied housing share, and Renter-occupied housing share
Used for: Population change since 2020, Population density, Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, and Median owner-occupied home value
Used for: Mean hourly wage, all occupations, Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage, Office and administrative support mean hourly wage, Construction and extraction mean hourly wage, and Installation, maintenance and repair mean hourly wage
Used for: Metro unemployment rate, Trade, transportation and utilities employment, Mining, logging and construction employment, and Manufacturing employment
Used for: Metro unemployment rate
Used for: Fargo city unemployment rate
Used for: Permitted construction value, Commercial remodel permit value, and New commercial permit value
Used for: NDSU enrollment
Used for: Sanford Medical Center Fargo licensed/operating bed count and Sanford Medical Center Fargo patients from outside metro area
Used for: Essentia Health-Fargo bed count
Used for: Hector International Airport annual passengers and Hector International Airport air cargo landed weight
Used for: Normal annual snowfall, Normal annual days with minimum temperature <=32F, and Normal annual days with minimum temperature <=0F
Used for: Raw Red River water hardness and Finished water hardness target
Used for: Marginal water rate above 2,000 gallons up to 200,000 gallons and Commercial/multifamily sewer rate
Used for: Permanent sign permit minimum fee
Used for: North Dakota contractor licensing job-value threshold
Used for: North Dakota statutory minimum wage
Used for: MATBUS annual passengers
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
