Bakersfield, CA vs Mesa, AZ
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Mesa, AZ and Bakersfield, CA spend within 10.3% of each other per resident — $12,768 versus $11,576 — so on the headline spending-per-capita measure the two cities are effectively neck and neck.
Mesa, AZ holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 90/100 (grade A) against 56/100 (grade C) for Bakersfield, CA — a 34-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Bakersfield, CA reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Mesa, AZ carries $469 per resident. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Bakersfield, CA at $741 per resident and in Mesa, AZ at $953.
They also fund themselves differently: intergovernmental transfers is the largest single revenue source in Bakersfield, CA at 100% of total revenue, whereas Mesa, AZ relies most on charges and fees at 9%.
Summary
Mesa spends 9.3% more per capita than Bakersfield ($1,192/person difference). Mesa, AZ has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (A, 90/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $1 | $47 |
| Sales Tax | $20 | $463 |
| Income Tax | $1,909 | $1,376 |
| Intergovernmental | $3,862 | $1,383 |
| Charges & Fees | $1,024 | $3,334 |
| Other | $1,915 | $2,253 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $0 | $422 |
| Highways & Roads | $0 | $192 |
| Public Welfare | $840 | $829 |
| Health | $0 | $147 |
| Hospitals | $425 | $537 |
| Parks & Recreation | $741 | $953 |
| Housing | $3,391 | $4,190 |
| Sewerage | $265 | $38 |
| Utilities | $2,679 | $2,376 |
| Other | $3,234 | $3,082 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.