(STACKER) – The federal government directed billions in assistance to local governments during the coronavirus pandemic so they would not have to cut essential services just as residents needed them most. Now those governments are wrestling with the fallout from exceptionally high inflation, including the increasing costs of services, materials, and labor.
Cities and towns throughout the United States vary drastically in terms of how well they are managed and operated on a daily and yearly basis. Cities that work efficiently and effectively usually have stronger economies, lower crime rates, and higher median annual incomes.
Some of the best-run American cities, such as Fargo, North Dakota; Huntington Beach, California; and Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky, offer opportunities for economic growth and education, which in turn increases the quality of services and quality of life for their residents. These best-run cities also tend to attract young professionals and older, more experienced professionals looking to start or advance their careers.
Stacker listed the 50 best-run U.S. cities using 2023 data from WalletHub’s Best- and Worst-Run Cities in America. Cities are ranked by their overall operating efficiency, which is determined by the quality of services and total budget per capita.
Factors used to determine the overall quality of city services comprise weighted average scores in six key categories, including financial stability, education, health, safety, economy, and infrastructure and pollution.
#50. Corpus Christi, Texas
– Quality of city services rank: 88
– Financial stability rank: 75
– Education rank: 39
– Health rank: 91
– Safety rank: 88
– Economy rank: 93
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 136
#49. Colorado Springs, Colorado
– Quality of city services rank: 60
– Financial stability rank: 71
– Education rank: 46
– Health rank: 104
– Safety rank: 59
– Economy rank: 15
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 115
#48. El Paso, Texas
– Quality of city services rank: 45
– Financial stability rank: 119
– Education rank: 15
– Health rank: 59
– Safety rank: 16
– Economy rank: 69
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 116
#47. Fairbanks, Alaska
– Quality of city services rank: 105
– Financial stability rank: 18
– Education rank: 141
– Health rank: 35
– Safety rank: 67
– Economy rank: 106
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 69
#46. Salem, Oregon
– Quality of city services rank: 44
– Financial stability rank: 72
– Education rank: 66
– Health rank: 22
– Safety rank: 64
– Economy rank: 81
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 79
#45. Tulsa, Oklahoma
– Quality of city services rank: 110
– Financial stability rank: 29
– Education rank: 78
– Health rank: 115
– Safety rank: 138
– Economy rank: 60
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 108
#44. Fargo, North Dakota
– Quality of city services rank: 31
– Financial stability rank: 100
– Education rank: 20
– Health rank: 34
– Safety rank: 41
– Economy rank: 71
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 40
#43. Portland, Maine
– Quality of city services rank: 5
– Financial stability rank: 36
– Education rank: 79
– Health rank: 20
– Safety rank: 3
– Economy rank: 18
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 4
#42. Louisville, Kentucky
– Quality of city services rank: 99
– Financial stability rank: 47
– Education rank: 103
– Health rank: 127
– Safety rank: 101
– Economy rank: 105
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 77
#41. Bridgeport, Connecticut
– Quality of city services rank: 92
– Financial stability rank: 138
– Education rank: 117
– Health rank: 3
– Safety rank: 17
– Economy rank: 146
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 62
#40. Phoenix, Arizona
– Quality of city services rank: 46
– Financial stability rank: 35
– Education rank: 93
– Health rank: 61
– Safety rank: 104
– Economy rank: 5
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 67
#39. Topeka, Kansas
– Quality of city services rank: 106
– Financial stability rank: 97
– Education rank: 86
– Health rank: 113
– Safety rank: 117
– Economy rank: 89
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 20
#38. St. Petersburg, Florida
– Quality of city services rank: 18
– Financial stability rank: 94
– Education rank: 6
– Health rank: 74
– Safety rank: 70
– Economy rank: 1
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 33
#37. Worcester, Massachusetts
– Quality of city services rank: 41
– Financial stability rank: 91
– Education rank: 88
– Health rank: 28
– Safety rank: 26
– Economy rank: 111
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 58
#36. Mobile, Alabama
– Quality of city services rank: 108
– Financial stability rank: 55
– Education rank: 61
– Health rank: 141
– Safety rank: 120
– Economy rank: 58
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 43
#35. Greensboro, North Carolina
– Quality of city services rank: 66
– Financial stability rank: 6
– Education rank: 40
– Health rank: 117
– Safety rank: 107
– Economy rank: 84
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 126
#34. Huntington, West Virginia
– Quality of city services rank: 115
– Financial stability rank: 5
– Education rank: 59
– Health rank: 134
– Safety rank: 84
– Economy rank: 128
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 35
#33. Madison, Wisconsin
– Quality of city services rank: 14
– Financial stability rank: 11
– Education rank: 87
– Health rank: 14
– Safety rank: 23
– Economy rank: 102
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 75
#32. Warren, Michigan
– Quality of city services rank: 73
– Financial stability rank: 66
– Education rank: 83
– Health rank: 103
– Safety rank: 10
– Economy rank: 123
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 51
#31. Lewiston, Maine
– Quality of city services rank: 50
– Financial stability rank: 93
– Education rank: 146
– Health rank: 108
– Safety rank: 14
– Economy rank: 12
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 34
#30. Tucson, Arizona
– Quality of city services rank: 95
– Financial stability rank: 90
– Education rank: 101
– Health rank: 69
– Safety rank: 119
– Economy rank: 45
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 99
#29. Columbus, Georgia
– Quality of city services rank: 118
– Financial stability rank: 46
– Education rank: 64
– Health rank: 149
– Safety rank: 98
– Economy rank: 110
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 68
#28. Grand Rapids, Michigan
– Quality of city services rank: 24
– Financial stability rank: 64
– Education rank: 26
– Health rank: 48
– Safety rank: 36
– Economy rank: 75
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 12
#27. Albuquerque, New Mexico
– Quality of city services rank: 111
– Financial stability rank: 92
– Education rank: 100
– Health rank: 62
– Safety rank: 144
– Economy rank: 42
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 39
#26. Mesa, Arizona
– Quality of city services rank: 39
– Financial stability rank: 59
– Education rank: 48
– Health rank: 64
– Safety rank: 37
– Economy rank: 7
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 142
#25. Aurora, Illinois
– Quality of city services rank: 23
– Financial stability rank: 116
– Education rank: 19
– Health rank: 25
– Safety rank: 5
– Economy rank: 83
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 109
#24. Billings, Montana
– Quality of city services rank: 101
– Financial stability rank: 51
– Education rank: 105
– Health rank: 125
– Safety rank: 111
– Economy rank: 46
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 106
#23. Cedar Rapids, Iowa
– Quality of city services rank: 28
– Financial stability rank: 28
– Education rank: 69
– Health rank: 75
– Safety rank: 30
– Economy rank: 70
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 94
#22. Virginia Beach, Virginia
– Quality of city services rank: 3
– Financial stability rank: 9
– Education rank: 7
– Health rank: 77
– Safety rank: 8
– Economy rank: 23
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 107
#21. Huntington Beach, California
– Quality of city services rank: 1
– Financial stability rank: 62
– Education rank: 2
– Health rank: 11
– Safety rank: 15
– Economy rank: 26
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 66
#20. Chesapeake, Virginia
– Quality of city services rank: 10
– Financial stability rank: 3
– Education rank: 9
– Health rank: 65
– Safety rank: 20
– Economy rank: 30
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 141
#19. Raleigh, North Carolina
– Quality of city services rank: 13
– Financial stability rank: 12
– Education rank: 73
– Health rank: 26
– Safety rank: 32
– Economy rank: 13
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 89
#18. Baton Rouge, Louisiana
– Quality of city services rank: 135
– Financial stability rank: 44
– Education rank: 108
– Health rank: 129
– Safety rank: 145
– Economy rank: 135
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 135
#17. Bismarck, North Dakota
– Quality of city services rank: 25
– Financial stability rank: 27
– Education rank: 65
– Health rank: 38
– Safety rank: 31
– Economy rank: 95
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 73
#16. Rapid City, South Dakota
– Quality of city services rank: 98
– Financial stability rank: 54
– Education rank: 110
– Health rank: 142
– Safety rank: 94
– Economy rank: 6
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 111
#15. Wichita, Kansas
– Quality of city services rank: 123
– Financial stability rank: 80
– Education rank: 121
– Health rank: 111
– Safety rank: 131
– Economy rank: 76
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 118
#14. Durham, North Carolina
– Quality of city services rank: 30
– Financial stability rank: 7
– Education rank: 41
– Health rank: 27
– Safety rank: 73
– Economy rank: 33
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 138
#13. Manchester, New Hampshire
– Quality of city services rank: 47
– Financial stability rank: 89
– Education rank: 116
– Health rank: 36
– Safety rank: 46
– Economy rank: 62
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 22
#12. Warwick, Rhode Island
– Quality of city services rank: 32
– Financial stability rank: 101
– Education rank: 42
– Health rank: 82
– Safety rank: 2
– Economy rank: 54
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 98
#11. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
– Quality of city services rank: 74
– Financial stability rank: 8
– Education rank: 81
– Health rank: 109
– Safety rank: 96
– Economy rank: 49
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 133
#10. Missoula, Montana
– Quality of city services rank: 62
– Financial stability rank: 115
– Education rank: 68
– Health rank: 57
– Safety rank: 60
– Economy rank: 17
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 82
#9. Las Cruces, New Mexico
– Quality of city services rank: 61
– Financial stability rank: 52
– Education rank: 77
– Health rank: 100
– Safety rank: 52
– Economy rank: 94
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 83
#8. Sioux Falls, South Dakota
– Quality of city services rank: 27
– Financial stability rank: 53
– Education rank: 53
– Health rank: 41
– Safety rank: 44
– Economy rank: 21
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 88
#7. Fort Wayne, Indiana
– Quality of city services rank: 65
– Financial stability rank: 20
– Education rank: 54
– Health rank: 132
– Safety rank: 42
– Economy rank: 41
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 133
#6. Lincoln, Nebraska
– Quality of city services rank: 22
– Financial stability rank: 2
– Education rank: 71
– Health rank: 54
– Safety rank: 19
– Economy rank: 73
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 114
#5. Provo, Utah
– Quality of city services rank: 6
– Financial stability rank: 24
– Education rank: 29
– Health rank: 32
– Safety rank: 9
– Economy rank: 29
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 65
#4. Boise, Idaho
– Quality of city services rank: 9
– Financial stability rank: 43
– Education rank: 30
– Health rank: 44
– Safety rank: 6
– Economy rank: 4
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 92
#3. Nashua, New Hampshire
– Quality of city services rank: 4
– Financial stability rank: 21
– Education rank: 49
– Health rank: 40
– Safety rank: 1
– Economy rank: 36
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 38
#2. Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky
– Quality of city services rank: 42
– Financial stability rank: 56
– Education rank: 14
– Health rank: 79
– Safety rank: 45
– Economy rank: 78
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 128
#1. Nampa, Idaho
– Quality of city services rank: 34
– Financial stability rank: 77
– Education rank: 135
– Health rank: 45
– Safety rank: 7
– Economy rank: 9
– Infrastructure and pollution rank: 110
