Auburn, AL vs Birmingham, AL
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Birmingham, AL outspends Auburn, AL by a wide margin per resident — $30,790 versus $11,856, a 160% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Auburn, AL holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 80/100 (grade A) against 55/100 (grade C) for Birmingham, AL — a 25-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Auburn, AL reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Birmingham, AL carries $2,823 per resident. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Auburn, AL at $934 per resident and in Birmingham, AL at $1,823.
They also fund themselves differently: intergovernmental transfers is the largest single revenue source in Auburn, AL at 100% of total revenue, whereas Birmingham, AL relies most on charges and fees at 13%.
Summary
Birmingham spends 61.5% more per capita than Auburn ($18,935/person difference). Auburn, AL has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (A, 80/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $0 | $44 |
| Sales Tax | $22 | $281 |
| Income Tax | $713 | $0 |
| Intergovernmental | $15,016 | $468 |
| Charges & Fees | $1,773 | $10,460 |
| Other | $3,814 | $734 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $0 | $22 |
| Fire Protection | $551 | $1,152 |
| Highways & Roads | $0 | $848 |
| Public Welfare | $1,001 | $2,110 |
| Health | $328 | $683 |
| Hospitals | $1,012 | $1,505 |
| Parks & Recreation | $934 | $1,823 |
| Housing | $2,229 | $5,487 |
| Sewerage | $182 | $594 |
| Utilities | $1,765 | $5,451 |
| Other | $3,853 | $11,115 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.