Adopted budget
$138.9M
FY2026
GovMatrix City Score
Aliso Viejo gets a plain-language judgment backed by traceable evidence.
The score is not a single opaque number. It rolls up fiscal stability, spending allocation, transparency, procurement risk, anomaly signals, and public burden into one citizen-friendly readout.
Peer group: small CA municipalitiesComparison quality: StrongModel: score_v2
WestminsterAnaheimIrvineNewport BeachLaguna NiguelPlacentiaSan ClementeAliso ViejoCypressSanta AnaSearch another city
Budget per resident
$2,692
Public-burden framing, not raw-dollar framing
Top vendor share
16.8%
Procurement concentration in tracked payments
Displayed score
66
/100
Watchlist
Confidence: Limited
Top-level judgment
Mixed fundamentals with enough outlier signals to justify active public scrutiny.
GovMatrix compares Aliso Viejo against small CA municipalities and compresses the displayed score when source confidence is lower.
Confidence adjustment
Raw model score: 76.4
Limited source coverage means the score is heavily compressed toward neutral and should be treated as directional.
Main reasons
Some evidence is still low-confidence
0 source documents still need review, which limits precision.
Budget growth remains near peer range
5.0% year-over-year growth is not a major outlier within the peer set.
Financial Stability
71
/100
Stable reserves and 5.0% budget growth shape this pillar.
Spending Efficiency
95
/100
18.6% administrative overhead and consulting growth drive this score.
Transparency
31
/100
0/1 documents are parsed into the current dataset.
Vendor Risk
94
/100
16.8% top-vendor share and 0 no-bid contracts affect this pillar.
Trend / Anomaly
82
/100
Technology Programs is the biggest growth area at 11.4%.
Public Burden
83
/100
$2,692 per resident frames the current adopted budget.
AI explanation layer
Deterministic facts first, language second
In one sentence
Mixed fundamentals with enough outlier signals to justify active public scrutiny.
Benchmarked against 6 nearest jurisdictions using population, geography, and source coverage.
What stands out
Reserve trend: Stable
Reserve direction is used as the durability proxy in the current financial stability model.
Budget-to-actual variance: 5.9%
Higher variance can indicate planning drift or year-end pressure.
Top vendor share: 16.8%
West Coast Fleet Services LLC accounts for the largest share of tracked payments.
Questions residents should ask
What reserve policy is the city targeting, and why did reserves not improve this year?
Reserve direction is one of the clearest signals residents can ask about in open session.
Which categories drove the biggest gap between plan and actual spending?
Budget-to-actual drift is where broad totals turn into specific management decisions.
Why does this city spend differently from its nearest peers on administration and contracted work?
A peer comparison forces officials to explain whether the difference is structural or discretionary.
Provenance
Every conclusion should be traceable
Source coverage
0 documents
0 parsed, 0 OCR-only, 0 review-needed
Last updated 2026-03-16
Evidence links
1 findings
Findings are tied to source documents and used to constrain explanations.
Limited source coverage means the score is heavily compressed toward neutral and should be treated as directional.
Budget allocation with context
Toggle between share of tracked spend, per-resident impact, and year-over-year change.
Technology
$1,743,000
41.1% of total
Infrastructure
$1,036,000
24.4% of total
Consulting
$788,500
18.6% of total
Operations
$672,000
15.9% of total
Key normalized metrics
Raw totals are less useful than resident-level and peer-relative framing.
Tracked spend per resident
$82
Sample-based operational lens
Budget growth
5.0%
Year-over-year change in adopted budget
Biggest swing
Technology Programs
Up 11.4% year over year
Vendor and procurement pressure
Concentration is a risk indicator, not an accusation.
Top vendor share: 16.8%
West Coast Fleet Services LLC
59.7% of top-vendor tracked spend • 1 contracts
$2,531,500
Tracked vendor signal
Regional Utility Maintenance
40.3% of top-vendor tracked spend • 1 contracts
$1,708,000
Tracked vendor signal
What deserves a closer look
These are watch indicators surfaced from current payment, contract, and trend data.
No flagged sample payments in the current city slice.
Trend context
Technology Programs increased 11.4%, while One-time Capital Projects moved -3.9%.
Comparison
Compare Aliso Viejo against similar cities
Benchmarking turns a score into a defensible story.
Strong comparison
Population size, geography, and source coverage make this a strong like-for-like comparison.
Aliso Viejo scores 11 points higher than Placentia primarily because it shows leaner spending allocation, lower vendor concentration risk, stronger financial stability.
Aliso Viejo leads by 51 points on spending efficiency.
Aliso Viejo leads by 28 points on vendor risk.
Aliso Viejo leads by 8 points on financial stability.
GovMatrix score
Aliso Viejo: 66/100Placentia: 55/100
Administrative overhead
Aliso Viejo: 18.6%Placentia: 41.2%
Top vendor share
Aliso Viejo: 16.8%Placentia: 28.0%
Budget growth YoY
Aliso Viejo: 5.0%Placentia: 3.2%
Budget per resident
Aliso Viejo: $2,692Placentia: $2,522
Confidence
Aliso Viejo: LimitedPlacentia: Limited
| Metric | Aliso Viejo | Placentia |
|---|---|---|
| GovMatrix score | 66/100 | 55/100 |
| Administrative overhead | 18.6% | 41.2% |
| Top vendor share | 16.8% | 28.0% |
| Budget growth YoY | 5.0% | 3.2% |
| Budget per resident | $2,692 | $2,522 |
| Confidence | Limited | Limited |
Aliso Viejo66/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 18.6%
Vendor: 16.8%
Budget: 5.0%
Placentia55/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 41.2%
Vendor: 28.0%
Budget: 3.2%
Cypress65/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 24.7%
Vendor: 19.6%
Budget: 5.9%
San Clemente66/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 16.0%
Vendor: 14.0%
Budget: 4.1%