Skip to main content
Data from U.S. Census Bureau · 2026 · Methodology
CitySpend

Overland Park, KS

Population: 196,676 (2022) · Mid-Size Cities (100K–250K)

A
85/100

Excellent fiscal health — strong reserves, low debt, well-funded pensions

Total Spending
$1.6B
Per Capita
$8,044
Total Revenue
$2.1B
Total Debt
$0

Spending Breakdown

Other
33.4%$529.1M
Housing & Community Development
26.1%$412.1M
Parks & Recreation
22.2%$351.3M
Public Welfare
9.0%$142.8M
Hospitals
5.3%$84.1M
Highways & Roads
2.8%$44.3M
Fire Protection
1.2%$18.3M

Spending data sourced from the Census Bureau's Annual Survey of State & Local Government Finances. Per-capita comparisons use the Lincoln Institute's Fiscally Standardized Cities methodology for fair cross-city benchmarking.

Revenue Sources

Sales Tax
8.0%$169.3M
Intergovernmental
9.7%$205.5M
Other
7.4%$158.1M

Per Capita Spending by Department

Fire Protection$93/person
Highways & Roads$225/person
Parks & Recreation$1,786/person

Score Breakdown

Budget Balance & Reserves (25%)79/100
Debt Burden (20%)100/100
Pension Funding (20%)76/100
Spending Efficiency (15%)100/100
Revenue Diversity (10%)100/100
Trend Direction (10%)50/100

Compare Cities

See how Overland Park stacks up against another city.

vs Wichita, KSvs Kansas City, KSvs Olathe, KS
Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances (2023). Population from American Community Survey.

Other Cities in Kansas

Frequently Asked Questions

Overland Park, KS spends $8,044 per resident, based on total expenditures of $1.6B for a population of 196,676. The city has a Fiscal Health Score of A (85/100).

Overland Park, KS has total expenditures of $1.6B and total revenue of $2.1B. The city carries $0 in total debt, based on Census Bureau data from 2023.

Overland Park, KS employs 0 government workers, of which 0 are full-time. The average government salary is $0, with 0.0 employees per 10,000 residents.

Overland Park, KS has a Fiscal Health Score of A (85/100). This score evaluates budget balance, debt burden, pension funding, spending efficiency, revenue diversity, and 3-year fiscal trajectory compared to peer cities of similar population.