Omaha, NE vs Seattle, WA
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Seattle, WA outspends Omaha, NE by a wide margin per resident — $34,463 versus $11,180, a 208% 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 Seattle, WA — 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 Seattle, WA carries $1,100 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 Seattle, WA at $3,923.
They also fund themselves differently: other revenue is the largest single revenue source in Omaha, NE at 17% of total revenue, whereas Seattle, WA relies most on intergovernmental transfers at 13%.
Summary
Seattle spends 67.6% more per capita than Omaha ($23,282/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 | $1,831 |
| Sales Tax | $373 | $1,094 |
| Income Tax | $0 | $3,496 |
| Intergovernmental | $2,622 | $9,846 |
| Charges & Fees | $0 | $3,960 |
| Other | $4,672 | $8,544 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Fire Protection | $0 | $210 |
| Highways & Roads | $319 | $0 |
| Education | $0 | $1,461 |
| Public Welfare | $1,521 | $3,439 |
| Health | $456 | $1,131 |
| Hospitals | $0 | $1,871 |
| Parks & Recreation | $742 | $3,923 |
| Housing | $3,045 | $3,727 |
| Sewerage | $0 | $952 |
| Utilities | $581 | $6,489 |
| Other | $4,516 | $11,260 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.