Alt30 · Municipal intelligence

← Map

Strategy alignment · Arizona

Does the spending fit the strategy?

Every town leans one way — building capital, or running services. This asks whether that lean fits where the town is headed and whether its tax strategy can fund it. One verdict per city, then the evidence: the capital-intensity trend, its growth cohort, and what its revenue base can actually carry.

Stable · 7.5% 2010–2020
Strategy Aligned

Thatcher is coherent: a service orientation that fits a stable trajectory, funded from a base that can carry it.

Stable (+8%)Service-leaning spendingNo property taxCIR 2.3% vs cohort 3.0%

Orientation fits direction?

Aligned

A stable base with a moderate capital-vs-service balance — spending tracks a steady population.

Tax strategy funds it?

Aligned

A service focus funded from revenue the town controls — a sustainable match of spending to tax strategy.

Direction is the realized 2010→2020 growth trajectory — a proxy for a town's goals, not a plan it has stated. Orientation and tax strategy are FY2022 Census of Governments; property tax is the one clean local signal, so the funding verdict leans on it. A verdict is a question worth asking a town, read against its trajectory — not a grade.

The evidence · spending orientation

Capital Intensity Ratio — the share of Thatcher's own spending that builds things rather than running services — across the four Census years, read against its cohort.

2.3%

capital intensity, 2022

+0.14pp

per year, 2007–2022 (4 pts)

40th

percentile among 30 stable cities

Capital intensity climbed +2.3pp in a city whose population was roughly flat.

Capital intensity (left)Service index, 2017 = 100 (right)hollow = low-confidence year
Thatcher: capital intensity across the four Census of Governments years, with resident-service spending indexed alongside where the data breaks it out (2017–2022).

Against its growth cohort, 2022

2.3%

Thatcher

3.0%

median of 30 stable cities

Can the revenue base fund it?

Capacity is real but narrow: funding rests on sales tax at 75% of own-source revenue — a fragile footing for ongoing services, and little room to change direction without leaning harder on it.

66%

raised locally (taxes + fees)

32%

from state & federal aid

0.39

diversification · −0.12 vs cohort

Own-source revenue mix

Property tax 0%Sales tax 75%Other taxes 2%Fees & charges 23%

Untapped levers & exposures

  • Property tax is not levied

    The largest recurring revenue lever is untapped. Property tax scales with assessed value, so it is the instrument that most directly captures a city's own growth — and its absence leaves sales tax and state aid to carry the whole load.

  • Revenue concentrated in sales tax

    About 75% of own-source revenue comes from sales tax. A base this concentrated is exposed to a downturn in that one stream, and gives little room to fund a new direction without leaning harder on it.

FY2022, U.S. Census of Governments. The Census folds state-shared sales tax into a city's own general sales tax, so the locally-raised and aid shares are directional — the shared portion inflates “raised locally” and understates true state dependence. Property tax is the one unambiguously-local signal, which is why the untapped-lever read leans on it.

Fastest-climbing capital intensity

CityCohortPop 10–20CIR/yrCIR 2022Service 17–22
BuckeyeGrowing79.8%+1.9pp31.1%+59.3pp
Sierra VistaStable3.2%+1.0pp23.7%+12.4pp
GlendaleStable9.5%+0.9pp12.4%+5.6pp
Queen CreekGrowing125.8%+0.9pp71.9%
Show LowGrowing10.1%+0.7pp25.8%+49.7pp
El MirageGrowing12.6%+0.6pp11.5%+7.9pp
KingmanGrowing16.5%+0.5pp18.4%
FlagstaffGrowing16.6%+0.4pp20.7%−4.6pp
DouglasDeclining-4.9%+0.4pp11.9%−9.1pp
Bullhead CityStable4.6%+0.3pp2.3%+9.6pp
Camp VerdeGrowing11.7%+0.1pp4.2%
CottonwoodStable6.8%+0.1pp12.6%+14.6pp

Ranked by the least-squares slope of capital intensity over the trusted years, among cities above 10,000 residents — below that a single project distorts the ratio, so smaller towns are browsable by name but not ranked here. Click any row to load that city above. “Service 17–22” is the change in resident-service spending per capita over the two years that carry functional detail.

How this is calculated
Capital Intensity Ratio = capital outlay ÷ (capital outlay + current operating spending), from the U.S. Census Bureau: 2017 and 2022 Census of Governments, 2007 and 2012 historical IndFin. The four years are five-year Census-of-Governments snapshots, not an annual series, so a “trend” is a line through at most four points and each reports how many. Six small towns have pre-2017 figures we do not trust and exclude from trends. This is a research lens, not a verdict: a high or rising ratio is a question to ask a city, read against its growth, not a judgment on its own.

Opportunity cost

What else could that money have bought?

Enter a project cost or incentive package and see it restated in the services a city actually funds. It weighs your figure against real spending — it does not estimate what the project itself would return.

$

$5,000,000 is 5.4 years of Show Low's parks & recreation budget — or a 20.2% lift to its entire operating budget for one year.

5.4×

years of the parks & recreation budget

20.2%

of the operating budget, one year

$410

per resident

For context, Show Low spends $921K a year on parks & recreation — about $76 per resident.

Service spending is the city's FY2022 current operations from the U.S. Census of Governments — the latest year broken out by function. A project cost is one-time, so it is shown as “years of” an annual service or as a single-year share of the operating budget, never as if the capital dollars recurred. This is a comparison of scale, not a forecast of what the project would return.

The forward view

Where is this strategy headed?

Alignment reads the record through FY2022. The fiscal-trajectory tool projects the recurring revenue base forward — and lets you bend it with a state income-tax cut, a downturn, or a new property tax.