Chicago, IL vs Omaha, NE
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Chicago, IL outspends Omaha, NE by a wide margin per resident — $34,551 versus $11,180, a 209% difference. A gap this size usually reflects a structurally different service mix or accounting scope rather than a single line item.
Omaha, NE holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 90/100 (grade A) against 61/100 (grade C) for Chicago, IL — a 29-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Omaha, NE reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Chicago, IL carries $977 per resident. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Chicago, IL leads with fire protection at $10,754 per resident, while Omaha, NE leads with parks and recreation at $742.
They also fund themselves differently: intergovernmental transfers is the largest single revenue source in Chicago, IL at 100% of total revenue, whereas Omaha, NE relies most on other revenue at 17%.
Summary
Chicago spends 209.0% more per capita than Omaha ($23,371/person difference). Omaha, NE has the stronger Fiscal Health Score (A, 90/100).
Fiscal Health Score
Key Metrics
Per Capita Spending by Department
Revenue Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Property Tax | $26 | $624 |
| Sales Tax | $74 | $373 |
| Income Tax | $229 | $0 |
| Intergovernmental | $85,083 | $2,622 |
| Charges & Fees | $2,847 | $0 |
| Other | $3,463 | $4,672 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $10,754 | $0 |
| Highways & Roads | $930 | $319 |
| Public Welfare | $1,858 | $1,521 |
| Health | $426 | $456 |
| Hospitals | $1,444 | $0 |
| Parks & Recreation | $122 | $742 |
| Housing | $6,520 | $3,045 |
| Sewerage | $129 | $0 |
| Utilities | $2,983 | $581 |
| Other | $9,385 | $4,516 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.