Birmingham, AL vs Auburn, 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 Birmingham, AL at $1,823 per resident and in Auburn, AL at $934.
They also fund themselves differently: charges and fees is the largest single revenue source in Birmingham, AL at 13% of total revenue, whereas Auburn, AL relies most on intergovernmental transfers at 100%.
Summary
Birmingham spends 159.7% 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 | $44 | $0 |
| Sales Tax | $281 | $22 |
| Income Tax | $0 | $713 |
| Intergovernmental | $468 | $15,016 |
| Charges & Fees | $10,460 | $1,773 |
| Other | $734 | $3,814 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $22 | $0 |
| Fire Protection | $1,152 | $551 |
| Highways & Roads | $848 | $0 |
| Public Welfare | $2,110 | $1,001 |
| Health | $683 | $328 |
| Hospitals | $1,505 | $1,012 |
| Parks & Recreation | $1,823 | $934 |
| Housing | $5,487 | $2,229 |
| Sewerage | $594 | $182 |
| Utilities | $5,451 | $1,765 |
| Other | $11,115 | $3,853 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.