45% of America's Aggressive Municipal Spenders Cluster in 5 States — Your Territory Model Is Wrong

GovTech sales teams allocate territory by population. The assumption: more people means more budget means more deals. The data says otherwise.

Of 7,186 US cities scored by Starbridge, 49 earn the "Aggressive Spender" designation — 0.68%. These are cities with accelerating budgets, funded capital programs, and live procurement signals. And 22 of them — 45% — concentrate in just five states.

The Geographic Distribution Nobody Plans For

| State | Aggressive Spenders | Total Cities Scored | Rate | vs National (0.7%) | |-------|-------------------|-------------------|------|--------------------| | TX | 7 | 384 | 1.8% | 2.6x | | CA | 5 | 429 | 1.2% | 1.7x | | FL | 4 | 229 | 1.7% | 2.5x | | SC | 3 | 66 | 4.5% | 6.4x | | GA | 3 | 147 | 2.0% | 2.9x | | Other 45 states | 27 | 5,931 | 0.5% | below average |

South Carolina is the outlier. With only 66 scored cities, it produces aggressive spenders at 6.4 times the national rate. A territory model that weights SC by population would rank it 23rd. A model that weights by aggressive-spender concentration would rank it first.

Texas and Florida run at 2.5x the national rate — less surprising given their growth profiles. But Georgia at 2.9x is notable: three of its 147 scored cities are actively investing at the highest tier, including Atlanta with a $3B total operating budget and Roswell and Port Wentworth at scores of 90 and 88.

What Makes These 49 Cities Structurally Different

Five of the 49 appear in this report's profiled sample. They span four states, populations from 24,000 to 520,000, and budget growth rates from 9.4% to 39.4%. Three structural traits set them apart:

Cash reserves deep enough to buy without borrowing. Dublin, OH holds an unassigned General Fund balance at 64.4% of expenditures — more than triple GFOA minimums — plus a $33.3M FY2024 surplus. Oak Harbor, WA holds $70.2 million in discretionary capacity. The Colony, TX maintains $35.9M in unassigned reserves. When a city has this much liquidity, the procurement bottleneck is business-case quality, not budget availability.

Revenue that does not depend on a single tax type. Oak Harbor combines a fire levy lid lift, excess bond levy, and enterprise funds covering 42% of the budget. Dublin leans on income tax — budgeted to grow 7.7%. Atlanta raised property tax revenue to approximately $388.6M through a one-mill reallocation — no millage rate increase. Multi-stream revenue means these cities absorb economic shocks without cutting procurement.

Declining debt obligations that free operating dollars. Euless, TX and The Colony both report shrinking debt service. Those freed dollars flow directly into capital and technology budgets — a structural shift, not a one-time windfall.

$10B+ in Capital Commitments Across 5 Cities

Atlanta alone accounts for $9.3B in total capital funding. Immediate projects include $120M in downtown infrastructure bonds on a hard deadline tied to the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

Dublin approved $374.6M across 144 capital projects over five years. Oak Harbor committed $63M to capital projects including a $20M marina upgrade. The Colony has $13M+ in active street and infrastructure projects.

The Territory Planning Implication

Population-weighted territory models assume procurement activity distributes evenly. It does not. The 0.68% of cities rated Aggressive Spender cluster in ways that population cannot predict:

- South Carolina has 6.4x the national aggressive-spender rate with a fraction of Texas's or California's population - Georgia produces the same number of aggressive spenders (3) as South Carolina despite having 2.2x more scored cities — meaning GA's individual cities are less likely to be aggressive, but the ones that are (Atlanta) operate on a different scale entirely - The other 45 states combined produce aggressive spenders at 0.5% — below the national average

A vendor who allocates 50-state coverage equally spends 90% of effort in states where 55% of aggressive spenders live. A vendor who concentrates on five states reaches 45% of the opportunity with 10% of the territory.

This data is from Starbridge's December 2025 scoring of 7,186 US cities. The concentration pattern is structural — driven by state fiscal policy, tax base composition, and capital investment cycles — not seasonal.