That's not the right metric though. Cities and suburbs are not comparable in terms of overall experience. The extra services you cite are one of the reasons why.
For one, suburbs are pretty economically difficult for low-earning households. Low earners are more likely to live in cities, therefore cities tend to have more social services.
You need to do an apples-to-apples comparison, which unfortunately is not easy.
The services (schools, police, fire) aren't better in a city. They're more expensive and usually significantly worse.
I mean City of Chicago has lower property tax rates than suburbs (due to the large amount of taxable commercial property in the city).
Tax rate is only half of the calculation so it's a meaningless number on its own. Plus, there's sales tax and other assorted fees.
At least in Illinois, valuations are determined at the county level, and the majority of sales tax is also county-level. All things being equal, more commercial property (and tourism) moves some of the burden to taxpayers outside the city. Comparing Chicago to the neighboring suburb of Oak Park, sales tax in Chicago is 10.25% vs. 10% in Oak Park, but property taxes are nearly double in Oak Park. Maybe things like rental cars or hotels are taxed less, but that's not a big impact.
Of course property tax rates are inversely correlated with property values so it's a bit tricky to compare, but the point is it's not always true that suburbs have lower taxes than the central city. Transportation costs are also typically much lower in cities (transit fares/passes are typically significantly cheaper than car ownership).
Yes, Strong towns loves to say this too despite it being obviously not true.
Infrastructure stuff like roads and pipes and so on is cheap. Usually 10-15% of the budget. The real cost of government is in providing services to people. And those are invariably more expensive in the cities than the suburbs.
Show me even one city in the US that has lower taxes and spends less per Capita than the surrounding suburbs.