Adopted budget
$135.3M
FY2026
GovMatrix City Score
San Clemente 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
$2,108
Public-burden framing, not raw-dollar framing
Top vendor share
14.0%
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 San Clemente against small CA municipalities and compresses the displayed score when source confidence is lower.
Confidence adjustment
Raw model score: 76.1
Limited source coverage means the score is heavily compressed toward neutral and should be treated as directional.
Main reasons
Reserves are trending upward
San Clemente shows an improving reserve direction versus recent years.
Some evidence is still low-confidence
0 source documents still need review, which limits precision.
Budget growth remains near peer range
4.1% year-over-year growth is not a major outlier within the peer set.
Financial Stability
79
/100
Improving reserves and 4.1% budget growth shape this pillar.
Spending Efficiency
94
/100
16.0% administrative overhead and consulting growth drive this score.
Transparency
31
/100
0/1 documents are parsed into the current dataset.
Vendor Risk
78
/100
14.0% top-vendor share and 1 no-bid contracts affect this pillar.
Trend / Anomaly
85
/100
Community Services is the biggest growth area at 9.7%.
Public Burden
91
/100
$2,107 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: Improving
Reserve direction is used as the durability proxy in the current financial stability model.
Budget-to-actual variance: 4.8%
Higher variance can indicate planning drift or year-end pressure.
Top vendor share: 14.0%
Civic Advisory Partners accounts for the largest share of tracked payments.
Questions residents should ask
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.
Operations
$1,470,000
40.8% of total
Technology
$888,000
24.7% of total
Infrastructure
$665,000
18.5% of total
Consulting
$576,000
16.0% of total
Key normalized metrics
Raw totals are less useful than resident-level and peer-relative framing.
Tracked spend per resident
$56
Sample-based operational lens
Budget growth
4.1%
Year-over-year change in adopted budget
Biggest swing
Community Services
Up 9.7% year over year
Vendor and procurement pressure
Concentration is a risk indicator, not an accusation.
Top vendor share: 14.0%
Civic Advisory Partners
59.3% of top-vendor tracked spend • 1 contracts
$2,135,000
Tracked vendor signal
Harbor Data Systems
40.7% of top-vendor tracked spend • 1 contracts
$1,464,000
Tracked vendor signal
What deserves a closer look
These are watch indicators surfaced from current payment, contract, and trend data.
Community Services: San Clemente contract milestone payment
Finance: San Clemente final services invoice
Trend context
Community Services increased 9.7%, while One-time Capital Projects moved -2.5%.
Comparison
Compare San Clemente 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.
San Clemente scores 4 points higher than Laguna Niguel primarily because it shows leaner spending allocation, fewer anomaly signals, stronger financial stability.
San Clemente leads by 14 points on spending efficiency.
San Clemente leads by 11 points on trend / anomaly.
San Clemente leads by 7 points on financial stability.
GovMatrix score
San Clemente: 66/100Laguna Niguel: 62/100
Administrative overhead
San Clemente: 16.0%Laguna Niguel: 24.7%
Top vendor share
San Clemente: 14.0%Laguna Niguel: 25.2%
Budget growth YoY
San Clemente: 4.1%Laguna Niguel: 6.8%
Budget per resident
San Clemente: $2,108Laguna Niguel: $2,263
Confidence
San Clemente: LimitedLaguna Niguel: Limited
| Metric | San Clemente | Laguna Niguel |
|---|---|---|
| GovMatrix score | 66/100 | 62/100 |
| Administrative overhead | 16.0% | 24.7% |
| Top vendor share | 14.0% | 25.2% |
| Budget growth YoY | 4.1% | 6.8% |
| Budget per resident | $2,108 | $2,263 |
| Confidence | Limited | Limited |
San Clemente66/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 16.0%
Vendor: 14.0%
Budget: 4.1%
Laguna Niguel62/100
Status: Watchlist
Admin: 24.7%
Vendor: 25.2%
Budget: 6.8%
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%