Tulsa, OK vs Omaha, NE
Side-by-side fiscal comparison · U.S. Census Bureau data (2023)
Omaha, NE outspends Tulsa, OK by a wide margin per resident — $11,180 versus $5,250, a 113% 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 56/100 (grade C) for Tulsa, OK — a 34-point spread that puts the two in different grade territory.
Neither city reports outstanding debt per resident in its current Census filing, which removes debt service as a point of difference between them. Their budgets diverge on where the largest per-resident dollars go: Tulsa, OK leads with health at $762 per resident, while Omaha, NE leads with parks and recreation at $742.
Summary
Omaha spends 53.0% more per capita than Tulsa ($5,930/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 | $0 | $624 |
| Sales Tax | $97 | $373 |
| Intergovernmental | $0 | $2,622 |
| Other | $53 | $4,672 |
Spending Breakdown (Per Capita)
| Police | $628 | $0 |
| Fire Protection | $196 | $0 |
| Highways & Roads | $257 | $319 |
| Public Welfare | $86 | $1,521 |
| Health | $762 | $456 |
| Parks & Recreation | $154 | $742 |
| Housing | $350 | $3,045 |
| Sewerage | $27 | $0 |
| Utilities | $41 | $581 |
| Other | $2,748 | $4,516 |
Compare More Cities
Source: Census Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, 2026.