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

Taylorsville, UT

Population: 59,729 (2022) · Small Cities (50K–100K)

C
55/100

Average fiscal health — some areas of concern

Total Spending
$425.7M
Per Capita
$7,128
Total Revenue
$2.8M
Total Debt
$0

Spending Breakdown

Housing & Community Development
50.5%$215.0M
Other
38.3%$163.0M
Fire Protection
5.2%$22.2M
Highways & Roads
2.3%$9.7M
Parks & Recreation
1.8%$7.5M
Hospitals
1.5%$6.6M
Education
0.4%$1.8M

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

Property Tax
34.2%$942K
Intergovernmental
694.8%$19.1M
Other
1099.3%$30.3M

Per Capita Spending by Department

Fire Protection$372/person
Highways & Roads$163/person
Parks & Recreation$125/person
Education$29/person

Score Breakdown

Budget Balance & Reserves (25%)1/100
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 Taylorsville stacks up against another city.

vs Salt Lake City, UTvs West Valley City, UTvs West Jordan, UT
Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances (2023). Population from American Community Survey.

Other Cities in Utah

Frequently Asked Questions

Taylorsville, UT spends $7,128 per resident, based on total expenditures of $425.7M for a population of 59,729. The city has a Fiscal Health Score of C (55/100).

Taylorsville, UT has total expenditures of $425.7M and total revenue of $2.8M. The city carries $0 in total debt, based on Census Bureau data from 2023.

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

Taylorsville, UT has a Fiscal Health Score of C (55/100). 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.