Omaha, NE vs Fort Worth, TX
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Fort Worth, TX spends 43% more per resident than Omaha, NE: $15,939 against $11,180. That gap is large enough to show up across most functional budget categories below.
Omaha, NE holds the stronger Fiscal Health Score, 90/100 (grade A) against 63/100 (grade C) for Fort Worth, TX — a 27-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Omaha, NE reports no outstanding debt per resident in its Census filing, while Fort Worth, TX carries $1,921 per resident. Both cities pour the most per-resident dollars into the same function: parks and recreation leads in Omaha, NE at $742 per resident and in Fort Worth, TX at $708.
They also fund themselves differently: other revenue is the largest single revenue source in Omaha, NE at 17% of total revenue, whereas Fort Worth, TX relies most on intergovernmental transfers at 15%.
Summary
Fort Worth spends 29.9% more per capita than Omaha ($4,759/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 | $0 |
| Sales Tax | $373 | $198 |
| Income Tax | $0 | $851 |
| Intergovernmental | $2,622 | $4,002 |
| Charges & Fees | $0 | $3,594 |
| Other | $4,672 | $3,439 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $0 | $156 |
| Highways & Roads | $319 | $317 |
| Public Welfare | $1,521 | $869 |
| Health | $456 | $235 |
| Hospitals | $0 | $1,680 |
| Parks & Recreation | $742 | $708 |
| Housing | $3,045 | $4,217 |
| Sewerage | $0 | $267 |
| Utilities | $581 | $2,674 |
| Other | $4,516 | $4,817 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.