Omaha, NE vs Chicago, IL
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: Omaha, NE leads with parks and recreation at $742 per resident, while Chicago, IL leads with fire protection at $10,754.
They also fund themselves differently: other revenue is the largest single revenue source in Omaha, NE at 17% of total revenue, whereas Chicago, IL relies most on intergovernmental transfers at 100%.
Summary
Chicago spends 67.6% 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 | $624 | $26 |
| Sales Tax | $373 | $74 |
| Income Tax | $0 | $229 |
| Intergovernmental | $2,622 | $85,083 |
| Charges & Fees | $0 | $2,847 |
| Other | $4,672 | $3,463 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $0 | $10,754 |
| Highways & Roads | $319 | $930 |
| Public Welfare | $1,521 | $1,858 |
| Health | $456 | $426 |
| Hospitals | $0 | $1,444 |
| Parks & Recreation | $742 | $122 |
| Housing | $3,045 | $6,520 |
| Sewerage | $0 | $129 |
| Utilities | $581 | $2,983 |
| Other | $4,516 | $9,385 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.