Mesa, AZ vs Bakersfield, CA
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 Mesa, AZ at $953 per resident and in Bakersfield, CA at $741.
They also fund themselves differently: charges and fees is the largest single revenue source in Mesa, AZ at 9% of total revenue, whereas Bakersfield, CA relies most on intergovernmental transfers at 100%.
Summary
Mesa spends 10.3% 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 | $47 | $1 |
| Sales Tax | $463 | $20 |
| Income Tax | $1,376 | $1,909 |
| Intergovernmental | $1,383 | $3,862 |
| Charges & Fees | $3,334 | $1,024 |
| Other | $2,253 | $1,915 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $422 | $0 |
| Highways & Roads | $192 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $829 | $840 |
| Health | $147 | $0 |
| Hospitals | $537 | $425 |
| Parks & Recreation | $953 | $741 |
| Housing | $4,190 | $3,391 |
| Sewerage | $38 | $265 |
| Utilities | $2,376 | $2,679 |
| Other | $3,082 | $3,234 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.