69.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Kennewick, Washington
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Kennewick, Washington. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
23Local sources used
20Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.8 points average among 8 affected concepts
1.1 points average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Kennewick, Washington
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Workout Anytime, and HomeSmiles produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.8 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.1 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #14 to #5 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Kennewick, Washington
Realized 2020–2025 housing-unit growth expands the resident service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Derived housing-unit growth from 2020 to April 2025: 6.35 percent. [6]
Hanford labor demand overlaps electrician, plumbing, mechanical, and technical trades in an above-national-wage regional market
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Selected skilled-trade employment and wage measures in the Kennewick-Richland labor market: all occupations mean hourly: 35.32; all occupations us mean hourly: 33.54; construction extraction jobs: 9,290; construction extraction employment share percent: 7.2; construction extraction us share percent: 4.1; construction extraction mean hourly: 39.92; construction extraction us mean hourly: 31.42; installation maintenance repair share percent: 4.2; additional values omitted mixed employment wage and location quotient metrics. [8] [9]
old_building_demand_and_complexity
Realized housing growth expands the residential customer base while the hearing-draft housing inventory indicates that a substantial share of existing housing predates 2000. The two conditions can coexist: growth supports household-service scale, while older stock can increase repair or replacement propensity for residential building systems. Building age is not treated as proof that original systems remain or are failing simultaneously. [6] [7] [4]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Realized 2020–2025 housing-unit growth expands the resident service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Hanford labor demand overlaps electrician, plumbing, mechanical, and technical trades in an above-national-wage regional market1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Vista Field binding design review and architecture/parking standards can require site-specific prototype adaptation1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.83 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.61 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.61 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.22 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.22 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.56 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.78 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.22 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.85 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.87 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.90 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.10 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.91 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.09 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.05 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.95 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #3 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20255.3 percent
- Housing Units In 2020 And April 20252020 census: 32,242; 2025 estimate: 34,289 housing units
- Derived Housing Unit Growth From 2020 To April 20256.35 percent
Concepts helped most
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.2 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.8 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.8 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #14 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-1.1 pts
Average across all concepts-0.8 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Selected Skilled Trade Employment And Wage Measures In The Kennewick Richland Labor Marketall occupations mean hourly: 35.32; all occupations us mean hourly: 33.54; construction extraction jobs: 9,290; construction extraction employment share percent: 7.2; construction extraction us share percent: 4.1; construction extraction mean hourly: 39.92; construction extraction us mean hourly: 31.42; installation maintenance repair share percent: 4.2; additional values omitted mixed employment wage and location quotient metrics
- People Contributing Daily To Hanford Site Cleanup Efforts13,000 people more than
- Hanford Contractor Roles Overlap With Franchise Relevant Skilled Trades And Technical Laboremployer: Hanford Mission Integration Solutions (HMIS) / Hanford Site; cited roles: engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, instrument technicians; hiring evidence: HMIS states that it employs hundreds of engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, and instrument technicians and describes competitive pay and benefits.; compensation or market evidence: source geography: Kennewick-Richland MSA, May 2025, electricians mean hourly: 45.24, plumbers pipefitters steamfitters mean hourly: 45.5, installation maintenance repair mean hourly: 34.91, construction extraction mean hourly: 39.92; affected franchise labor attributes: skilled trade labor, licensed trade labor, technical labor; occupational overlap confidence: high; limitations: The BLS compensation values are MSA-wide, not HMIS-specific pay rates. Hanford is a regional labor-market anchor rather than an employer located inside Kennewick city limits. documented occupational overlap
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.8 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#2 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#3 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#5 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#7 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #6–#8
#8 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#9 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#10 PuroCleanStable · tested #10–#11
#11 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #4–#12
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#13
#13 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [6] [7] [9] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [5] [4] [12] [1]Competitive environment: [22] [23] [4] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [9] [10] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [15] [16] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [5] [17] [18] [19] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [22] [23] [4] [21] [1] [3]Referral ecosystem: [21] [3] [10]Territory quality: [4] [14] [15] [16] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [11] [13] [18] [19] [20] [17] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|
| #1 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.2 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #2 Workout Anytime | +0.6 pts | — |
| #3 HomeSmiles | +0.9 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | — | — |
| #5 City Wide | — | — |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | — | — |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | — | -0.6 pts |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | — | -0.8 pts |
| #10 PuroClean | — | -0.8 pts |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | +0.8 pts | -1.7 pts |
| #12 Aire Serv | +0.9 pts | -1.8 pts |
| #13 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.7 pts | -1.6 pts |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.8 pts | -1.8 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Workout Anytime, HomeSmiles led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Workout Anytime, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Kennewick, Washington
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.2Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Kennewick, Washington
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.2 to 69.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.2. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.8 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.2–69.2
- Category average
- 69.2
Rainbow International Restoration69.2
PuroClean69.2
Metric registry
The 20 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 88,366people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020–2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 Census geography | Kennewick, Washington | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 5.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020–2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 Census geography | Kennewick, Washington | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 61.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020–2024 ACS characteristics; 2020 Census geography | Kennewick, Washington | Conditional relationship | [4] |
| Housing units in 2020 and April 2025 | 2020 census: 32,242; 2025 estimate: 34,289housing units | 2020 Census baseline, April 1 2025 OFM estimates, and 2046 planning projection | Kennewick, Washington | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Derived housing-unit growth from 2020 to April 2025 | 6.35percent | 2020 Census baseline, April 1 2025 OFM estimates, and 2046 planning projection | Kennewick, Washington | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing-stock construction-era distribution described in the 2026 hearing-draft supporting volume | built before 1980: about 50 percent; built 1980 to 1999: 23 | Supporting conditions and inventories assembled for the 2026 Comprehensive Plan hearing draft | Kennewick, Washington housing stock | Conditional relationship | [7] [5] |
| Selected skilled-trade employment and wage measures in the Kennewick-Richland labor market | all occupations mean hourly: 35.32; all occupations us mean hourly: 33.54; construction extraction jobs: 9,290; construction extraction employment share percent: 7.2; construction extraction us share percent: 4.1; construction extraction mean hourly: 39.92; construction extraction us mean hourly: 31.42; installation maintenance repair share percent: 4.2; additional values omittedmixed employment wage and location quotient metrics | May 2025 | Kennewick-Richland, Washington MSA | Used in scoring | [8] |
| People contributing daily to Hanford Site cleanup efforts | 13,000people more than | Current page last updated July 13, 2026 | Hanford Site / Tri-Cities labor shed | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Hanford contractor roles overlap with franchise-relevant skilled trades and technical labor | employer: Hanford Mission Integration Solutions (HMIS) / Hanford Site; cited roles: engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, instrument technicians; hiring evidence: HMIS states that it employs hundreds of engineers, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, and instrument technicians and describes competitive pay and benefits.; compensation or market evidence: source geography: Kennewick-Richland MSA, May 2025, electricians mean hourly: 45.24, plumbers pipefitters steamfitters mean hourly: 45.5, installation maintenance repair mean hourly: 34.91, construction extraction mean hourly: 39.92; affected franchise labor attributes: skilled trade labor, licensed trade labor, technical labor; occupational overlap confidence: high; limitations: The BLS compensation values are MSA-wide, not HMIS-specific pay rates. Hanford is a regional labor-market anchor rather than an employer located inside Kennewick city limits.documented occupational overlap | Current page last updated April 14, 2026 | Tri-Cities / Hanford labor shed affecting Kennewick | Used in scoring | [10] [9] [8] |
| Municipal water hardness range and seasonal variability | ppm min: 50; ppm max: 200; grains per gallon min: 5; grains per gallon max: 14; varies throughout year: yesppm and grains per gallon | 2025 water-quality monitoring and current system information | City of Kennewick municipal water system | Context only | [12] |
| Southridge Area fire impact fees under KMC 3.95 | detached residential each: 1,144.81; multifamily per unit: 1,277.58; residential care per bed: 7,087.38; hotel motel per room: 1,573.08; office per sqft: 1.33; assembly gathering per sqft: 1.72; retail commercial per sqft: 1.27; industrial storage per sqft: 0.13usd by listed basis | January 2026 fee schedule | Southridge Area, Kennewick | Context only | [11] |
| Food-service wastewater FOG pretreatment is required, with either indoor grease traps or larger outdoor interceptors depending on facility sizing | covered establishments: all food service establishments including coffee shops; allowed device types: smaller indoor grease trap, larger outdoor grease interceptor; plumbing permit required for new or remodeled establishment: yes; sizing basis: certified plumber or licensed engineer using Uniform Plumbing Code fixture capacity or drainage fixture unitscategorical requirement | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Food-service establishments served by Kennewick wastewater | Context only | [13] |
| Downtown railway grade-separation item in the 2026–2031 TIP is a study rather than a programmed construction project | project name: Downtown Kennewick — Railway Grade Separation Study; programmed preliminary engineering thousands usd: 498; right of way allocation thousands usd: 0; construction allocation thousands usd: 0; status: study programmedproject status and thousands usd | 2026–2031 programmed transportation projects | Downtown Kennewick railway at-grade crossings | Context only | [14] |
| 2026 asphalt overlay is limited to two named road segments | segments: W. Canal Drive — Edison Street to Volland Street, Southridge Boulevard — Ridgeline Drive to Hildebrand Boulevard; start: 2026-06; expected end: fall 2026; work types: grinding, HMA overlay, patching, curb and sidewalk work, striping and markingsproject scope | Construction scheduled June 2026 through fall 2026 | Two Kennewick road segments | Context only | [15] |
| Columbia Center Boulevard widening Phase 1 construction is planned for 2028, not active in August 2026 | design completion percent: 90; right of way status: ongoing; phase 1 construction start year: 2,028; current 2026 status: design and right of wayproject status | Design/right-of-way status accessed August 2026; Phase 1 construction planned for 2028 | Columbia Center Boulevard from Quinault Avenue to Deschutes Avenue | Context only | [16] |
| Vista Field localized PFAS soil investigation and cleanup received no-further-action status and development resumed | cleanup status: complete; state regulator: Washington State Department of Ecology; regulatory status: no further action; development status: moving forwardcategorical status | June 2026 environmental cleanup status | Vista Field, Kennewick | Context only | [17] |
| Vista Field design standards bind covered property purchasers and require review of improvement plans and material choices | binding mechanism: declaration and adopted design standards; review required for: improvement plans and material choices; city standard interaction: City mixed-use design standards prevail where applicable conflicts occurcategorical requirement | Binding design standards adopted November 2021 and reviewed August 2026 | Vista Field properties subject to the adopted standards | Conditional relationship | [18] [19] |
| Vista Field standards regulate building placement, architecture, parking location/access, and concealment of service or mechanical elements | regulated elements: building type and placement, architectural materials and configuration, parking location and access, concealment of mechanical or service elements; examples: selected building types use rear/shared parking, parking access is generally by alley or rear lot, roof mechanical equipment must be concealed from public view where specifiedcategorical site design controls | Binding design standards adopted November 2021 and reviewed August 2026 | Vista Field, Kennewick | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Routine or overnight commercial-vehicle parking in residential districts is restricted by KMC 18.12.220 | general rule: no commercial vehicle overnight or routine parking in R district; exception requires home occupation permit: yes; exception vehicle max gross weight lbs: 10,000categorical rule and pounds gvw | Current codified section accessed August 2026 | Residential zoning districts in Kennewick | Context only | [20] |
| Trios Health operates a 111-bed Southridge hospital and a broader Tri-Cities outpatient network | hospital beds: 111; care centers: 10; urgent care centers: 1; hospital location: Southridge campus, Kennewickinstitutional facilities | Current organization description as of August 2026 | Kennewick Southridge campus with Tri-Cities care network | Context only | [21] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors reached 70.83 after target-market demand +1.2 pts and labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Local evidence supporting this report
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.
- 1I 172(3).docxInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Jurisdictional Audit: Structural Constraints and Hidden Enterprise CostsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 162(20260818-210007).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Kennewick city, Washington
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, and Owner-occupied housing unit rate
- 5Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update
Used for: Housing-stock construction-era distribution described in the 2026 hearing-draft supporting volume
- 6Kennewick Comprehensive Plan First Draft Open House
Used for: Housing units in 2020 and April 2025 and Derived housing-unit growth from 2020 to April 2025
- 7Kennewick 2025 Comprehensive Plan | DRAFT July 17, 2026 — Volume II
Used for: Housing-stock construction-era distribution described in the 2026 hearing-draft supporting volume
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Kennewick-Richland — May 2025
Used for: Selected skilled-trade employment and wage measures in the Kennewick-Richland labor market and Hanford contractor roles overlap with franchise-relevant skilled trades and technical labor
- 9Hanford Careers
Used for: People contributing daily to Hanford Site cleanup efforts and Hanford contractor roles overlap with franchise-relevant skilled trades and technical labor
- 10Careers
Used for: Hanford contractor roles overlap with franchise-relevant skilled trades and technical labor
- 11City of Kennewick Master Fee Schedule — January 2026
Used for: Southridge Area fire impact fees under KMC 3.95
- 12Water Quality Report
Used for: Municipal water hardness range and seasonal variability
- 13Fats, Oils, Grease (FOG) Pretreatment Requirements
Used for: Food-service wastewater FOG pretreatment is required, with either indoor grease traps or larger outdoor interceptors depending on facility sizing
- 14City of Kennewick Six-Year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) — 2026 to 2031
Used for: Downtown railway grade-separation item in the 2026–2031 TIP is a study rather than a programmed construction project
- 152026 City-Wide Asphalt Overlay (P2605)
Used for: 2026 asphalt overlay is limited to two named road segments
- 16Columbia Center Blvd. Widening (P2403)
Used for: Columbia Center Boulevard widening Phase 1 construction is planned for 2028, not active in August 2026
- 17Property Sales and Development Move Forward at Vista Field
Used for: Vista Field localized PFAS soil investigation and cleanup received no-further-action status and development resumed
- 18Resolution 2021-23 Adopting the Vista Field Design Standards
Used for: Vista Field design standards bind covered property purchasers and require review of improvement plans and material choices and Vista Field standards regulate building placement, architecture, parking location/access, and concealment of service or mechanical elements
- 19Codes & Standards
Used for: Vista Field design standards bind covered property purchasers and require review of improvement plans and material choices
- 20Kennewick Municipal Code § 18.12.220 — Storing of Commercial Vehicles
Used for: Routine or overnight commercial-vehicle parking in residential districts is restricted by KMC 18.12.220
- 21Trios Health nationally recognized for commitment to excellence in stroke care
Used for: Trios Health operates a 111-bed Southridge hospital and a broader Tri-Cities outpatient network
- 22
- 23
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.