Current budget figure
$449.2M
FY2025
Promoted from linked city budget documents in GovMatrix storage.
City overview
Newport Beach
Budget, score drivers, procurement context, and source documents in one place.
Peer group: small CA municipalitiesComparison quality: ReasonableModel: score_v2
WestminsterAnaheimIrvineNewport BeachLaguna NiguelPlacentiaSan ClementeAliso ViejoCypressSanta AnaSearch elsewhere
Budget per resident
$5,254
Based on the current budget figure
Top vendor share
29.6%
Share of tracked payments tied to the largest vendors
Jurisdiction score
66
/100
Watchlist
Confidence: High
Top-level judgment
Mixed fundamentals with enough outlier signals to justify active public scrutiny.
GovMatrix compares Newport Beach against small CA municipalities and compresses the displayed score when source confidence is lower.
Confidence adjustment
Raw model score: 65.8
3 machine-readable documents and 1 evidence-linked findings back this score.
Main reasons
Reserves are trending upward
Newport Beach shows an improving reserve direction versus recent years.
Vendor concentration is elevated
29.6% of tracked payments flow to the top vendor, which is above the peer median.
Consulting spend is rising faster than staffing
Outside services growth leads staffing by 13.1 points.
Source coverage is strong
3 documents are parsed and linked into the score context.
Financial Stability
70
/100
Newport Beach shows improving reserves, with the adopted budget changing 6.6% year over year.
Spending Efficiency
66
/100
Administrative overhead is 0.0%, and consulting spend is moving faster than staffing in the current model.
Transparency
87
/100
3 of 4 source documents are parsed cleanly enough to use directly in the dataset.
Vendor Risk
50
/100
The largest vendors account for 29.6% of tracked payments, and 1 no-bid contracts show up in the current records.
Trend / Anomaly
61
/100
Contracted Services is the biggest growth area, up 16.1% from the prior year.
Public Burden
57
/100
The current adopted budget works out to about $5,254 per resident.
Provenance
Every conclusion should be traceable
Source coverage
4 documents
3 parsed, 0 OCR-only, 1 review-needed
Last updated 2026-03-16
Evidence links
1 findings
Findings stay tied to source documents or parsed budget lines.
3 machine-readable documents and 1 evidence-linked findings back this score.
Resident brief
What this budget says
Source-backed summary
Quick read
Mixed fundamentals with enough outlier signals to justify active public scrutiny.
GovMatrix compares Newport Beach against small CA municipalities and compresses the displayed score when source confidence is lower.
What stands out
Peer group: small CA municipalities
Benchmarked against 6 nearest jurisdictions using population, geography, and source coverage.
Reserve trend: Improving
Reserve direction is used as the durability proxy in the current financial stability model.
Budget-to-actual variance: 5.5%
Higher variance can indicate planning drift or year-end pressure.
Composite scores
What needs follow-up
Why did consulting and outside services grow faster than staffing?
mediumThis gets at whether recurring work is being shifted into contracts rather than staffed operations.
What procurement process governed payments to Regional Utility Maintenance?
mediumHigh vendor concentration is not proof of a problem, but it does merit a sourcing explanation.
Which categories drove the biggest gap between plan and actual spending?
mediumBudget-to-actual drift is where broad totals turn into specific management decisions.
Vendor and procurement pressure
Regional Utility Maintenance accounts for the largest share of tracked payments.
Top vendor share: 29.6%
Regional Utility Maintenance
60.3% of top-vendor tracked spend • 1 contracts
$458,200
Pacific Infrastructure Group
39.7% of top-vendor tracked spend • 1 contracts
$301,900
What deserves a closer look
Start with the questions, then review the signals behind them.
Why did consulting and outside services grow faster than staffing?
This gets at whether recurring work is being shifted into contracts rather than staffed operations.
What procurement process governed payments to Regional Utility Maintenance?
High vendor concentration is not proof of a problem, but it does merit a sourcing explanation.
Which categories drove the biggest gap between plan and actual spending?
Budget-to-actual drift is where broad totals turn into specific management decisions.
Utilities: Emergency utility hardening work order
Trend context
Contracted Services increased 16.1%, while Fleet Replacement Timing moved -5.8%.
Budget allocation with context
Toggle between share of budget, per-resident impact, and year-over-year change.
Extracted mix
$0.0B
Tracked category total
Largest visible bucket
Utilities
60.3% of total
Utilities
$458,200
60.3% of total
Infrastructure
$301,900
39.7% of total
Key normalized metrics
Per-resident and coverage-aware framing matters more than raw totals.
Tracked spend per resident
$9
Coverage-adjusted lens
Budget growth
6.6%
Year-over-year change in the latest comparable budget
Coverage confidence
High
3 parsed, 0 OCR-only, 1 review-needed
Peer view
Compare with similar states
Population and evidence depth shape this peer group so the comparison stays useful.
Westminster66/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 24.7%
Vendor: 14.0%
Budget: 3.2%
Laguna Niguel62/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 24.7%
Vendor: 25.2%
Budget: 6.8%
San Clemente66/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 16.0%
Vendor: 14.0%
Budget: 4.1%
Santa Ana70/100
Status: Stable
Admin: 21.0%
Vendor: 22.4%
Budget: -0.7%
Placentia55/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 41.2%
Vendor: 28.0%
Budget: 3.2%
Aliso Viejo66/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 18.6%
Vendor: 16.8%
Budget: 5.0%