Skip to main content
Data from U.S. Census Bureau · 2026 · Methodology
CitySpend

Parker, CO

Population: 58,733 (2022) · Small Cities (50K–100K)

B
73/100

Good fiscal health — above-average across most metrics

Total Spending
$636.9M
Per Capita
$10,844
Total Revenue
$609.3M
Total Debt
$0

Spending Breakdown

Parks & Recreation
28.8%$183.7M
Housing & Community Development
27.4%$174.6M
Public Welfare
21.9%$139.2M
Other
12.5%$79.5M
Sewerage
2.9%$18.4M
Fire Protection
2.8%$18.0M
Hospitals
2.8%$17.6M
Highways & Roads
0.8%$4.9M
Utilities
0.2%$1.0M

Spending data sourced from the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of State & Local Government Finances. Per-capita comparisons use the Lincoln Institute's Fiscally Standardized Cities methodology for fair cross-city benchmarking.

Revenue Sources

Sales Tax
13.3%$81.2M
Intergovernmental
100.0%$609.3M
Other
10.0%$60.8M

Per Capita Spending by Department

Fire Protection$306/person
Highways & Roads$83/person
Parks & Recreation$3,128/person

Score Breakdown

Budget Balance & Reserves (25%)71/100
Debt Burden (20%)100/100
Pension Funding (20%)76/100
Spending Efficiency (15%)100/100
Revenue Diversity (10%)0/100
Trend Direction (10%)50/100

Compare Cities

See how Parker stacks up against another city.

vs Denver, COvs Colorado Springs, COvs Aurora, CO
Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances (2023). Population from American Community Survey.

Other Cities in Colorado

Frequently Asked Questions

Parker, CO spends $10,844 per resident, based on total expenditures of $636.9M for a population of 58,733. The city has a Fiscal Health Score of B (73/100).

Parker, CO has total expenditures of $636.9M and total revenue of $609.3M. The city carries $0 in total debt, based on Census Bureau data from 2023.

Parker, CO employs 0 government workers, of which 0 are full-time. The average government salary is $0, with 0.0 employees per 10,000 residents.

Parker, CO has a Fiscal Health Score of B (73/100). This score evaluates budget balance, debt burden, pension funding, spending efficiency, revenue diversity, and 3-year fiscal trajectory compared to peer cities of similar population.