Key Points:

• Arizona’s largest cities show stagnant or declining population growth

• Phoenix adds just 3,157 new residents, a 0.2% growth rate

• Slower-growing cities may adopt “middle housing” to attract new residents

The state’s most populated cities are in no danger of losing their status — at least not immediately.

New figures from the Census Bureau show that population trends in the state’s largest cities have largely stalled or began to decline.

Last year’s census placed 1.66 million residents in Phoenix. This year, that same census added just 3,157 new residents to the city over the last 12 months, an anemic 0.2% growth.

Tucson fared even worse, with its 548,371 head count actually 2,262 less than the year before. In fact, since the decennial census in 2020, the state’s second largest city has added only 5,773 residents.

Similar patterns of slow — or negative — growth show up for Mesa, Gilbert and Chandler, the next largest cities according to the Census Bureau.

Meanwhile, the city of Surprise managed to increase its year-over-year population by more than 7,700, a 4.6% annual growth rate. And that places it just 15,000 less than Tempe with a 0.6% annual change.

And other communities on the fringes of urban areas grew even faster.

Leading the pack is Queen Creek, where 6,800 new residents boosted population by 8.2% in a single year. Goodyear grew by 6.5%, with Apache Junction up 5.8%.

There also are signs of growth farther outside the Phoenix metro area.

Some of that growth is likely attributable to people who work in and around Phoenix being willing to commute longer distances to find more affordable housing and communities to their liking.

Buckeye, toward the western edge of Maricopa County, grew by 5.5%. And the trend continues to spread deep into Pinal County, with Maricopa growing by 4.6%, followed by Coolidge at 4.2%, 3.8% in Casa Grande, 3.0% in Florence, and 2.3% in Eloy.

There also are some areas of growth in the rest of the state.

Marana posted a 5.7% growth rate by adding more than 3,500 residents in the one-year period, enough to make it the fourth fastest growing city in Arizona on a year-over-year basis. And Sahuarita, on the other edge of the Tucson area, posted a 1.3% gain.

At the other extreme, the population in the landlocked Paradise Valley dropped by 250 — a 2.0% decrease, the largest recorded on a percentage basis. Also at the top of the negative growth chart according to the Census Bureau are Patagonia, Guadalupe, Litchfield Park, Winkelman and Winslow.

The numbers are more than about bragging rights.

First, they show where people want to live, though the Census Bureau doesn’t get into the reasons, whether they be affordable housing, municipal amenities, or even climate.

But there are real fiscal implications.

Population growth means new housing. And that means sales taxes from construction activities and property taxes from homeowners.

More residents generally lead to more commercial centers and the sales and property taxes they generate.

But what’s also important is that cities also get shared revenues from the state that are largely dependent on population. And there’s a lot of money at stake.

It starts with what is known as “urban revenue sharing.”

That stems from a change in law in 1972 when voters approved a deal: cities would give up their right to levy their own income taxes in exchange for an 18% share of what the state collects. That annual figure, according to the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, now tops $1.26 billion.

What makes that important is this is a fixed pot. And cities get a share based on their population.

Put another way, rapidly growing communities will get a bigger slice of the pie — whatever the size of the pie is that year — while those who don’t grow as fast or shrink end up with less.

Another $900 million comes from the share that cities get of state sales taxes.

Cities also get some of the vehicle license tax, based on a formula that includes both population and where vehicles are registered. That is about $327 million.

And another almost $499 million is divided up from the Highway User Revenue Fund, composed largely of gasoline taxes and other fees. Here, too, population is a factor as well as the county of origin of gasoline sales.

All that leaves it to the local officials of those slower-growing communities to decide what options they have or are willing to adopt to spur new residents.

One option already available to Arizona communities is so-called “middle housing.”

That allows — and in larger cities, requires — cities to take areas, particularly near central business districts that are zoned for single-family homes, and forcibly allow duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes and townhomes. These can be less expensive and therefore more attractive to some would-be residents than locating in the far reaches of the suburbs and having to commute.

Closely related — and important for landlocked cities — is finding new ways to build residential structures. In Tempe, for example, that has taken the form of converting commercial areas into sites for mid-rise mixed-used development.

There are no Census Bureau figures for San Tan which was not officially incorporated until September 2025.