Citation
Developing a citizen budget : lessons from COlorado for the City of Louisville

Material Information

Title:
Developing a citizen budget : lessons from COlorado for the City of Louisville
Creator:
Quinn, Kathleen
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of Public Administration)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
School of Public Affairs, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Public Administration
Committee Chair:
Martell, Christine
Committee Members:
Medina, Pamela

Notes

General Note:
Fall 2018

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
Copyright Kathleen Quinn. Permission granted to University of Colorado Denver to digitize and display this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
Running head: BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville
Kathleen Quinn
University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs
This client-based project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Administration in the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver Denver, Colorado
Fall
2018


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
II
Capstone Project Disclosures
This client-based project was completed on behalf the City of Louisville and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor Christine Martell, PhD and second faculty reader Pamela Medina, PhD. This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not included in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final appendix. Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
II
Acknowledgements
The capstone project is aptly named as it is the cumulation of two years of education, work, and study within the Master of Public Administration program. My experience in the program has been transformative and I have several people to whom I owe my gratitude.
First, I would like to thank the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver for putting together a rigorous and practical program. The faculty in this program are innovative in their teaching methods and inspire their students to ask questions of the status quo and become outstanding public servants in their community.
Thank you to Dr. Martell, to who I owe much of my personal and professional development in this program. Thank you for sparking my interest in public finance and fueling it by offering several opportunities for career growth. I am lucky to finish the program with a passion and focus for a career local government finance, and that is thanks to you.
Thanks to Dr. Medina, my second reader for this paper. Your courses taught me the importance of public participation and providing for true citizen voice in the public policy process. Thank you for the energy you bring to teaching and the care you show for each of your students.
Additionally, thank you to the City of Louisville, for your interest in increasing citizen engagement in government, and for your helpful feedback and willingness to work with me through this process. As a Louisville resident, I feel honored to work with you in this capacity.
Finally, thank you to my family for their constant support and encouragement to pursue higher education. A special thanks to my fiance, Connor, who has been patient, supportive, and kept me smiling through the most challenging parts of the program.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
4
Executive Summary
Citizen participation in the budget process increases citizen trust in government and perceived government performance. While the public budget document is a tool for government transparency and accountability to citizens, it is often so technical and complex that it becomes difficult for the ordinary citizen to understand how budgetary decisions connect to community outcomes. The City of Louisville is seeking to increase citizen interest and engagement in the budget process by developing and disseminating a Citizen Budget (CB) and communicating key performance indicators (KPIs) to citizens.
The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of best practices from the literature on developing a CB and communicating KPIs and its impact on citizen participation and perception of government performance. The study then turns to the current budget engagement landscape in Colorado and seeks to answer the following questions: to what extent do Colorado municipalities demonstrate best practices of both CBs and KPIs? What can Louisville learn from peer municipalities about CBs and KPIs?
The study sampled 45 mid-size to large cities in Colorado and found that more than half of these cities use some form of budget transparency tool, and 13 of these cities produce a Citizen Budget external to the budget document. The researcher developed a rubric to evaluate best practices in each of the 13 cities producing a CB, and these best practices informed a sample CB template for the City of Louisville.
Additionally, this research reviewed the communication of KPIs across Colorado municipalities. While 62 percent of cities sampled use KPIs in budget decisions, only six cities, or 13 percent make efforts to communicate these measures in a meaningful way for citizens.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
5
The study found that while the Colorado municipalities sampled excel at displaying revenue and expenditure information in a way that promotes understanding, they exhibit much weaker performance in providing information about the purpose of the document, the budget process, or opportunities for citizen engagement. Additionally, while a majority of Colorado municipalities are using KPIs to improve internal decision-making and performance, very few cities are sharing this information in a meaningful way with citizens.
The study informed the following recommendations for the City of Louisville:
1) Communication using a CB and KPIs is the first step of a larger participatory framework.
2) Make KPIs interesting to citizens by providing information on government responsiveness or benchmarking to neighboring jurisdictions or national standards ofperformance.
3) Citizens are the intended audience for CBs. Therefore, soliciting and incorporating citizen perspectives and feedback is vital to the document’s effectiveness.
4) Don 7 be afraid to lead. Harnessed with the information in the report that follows, the City of Louisville has a unique opportunity to become an exemplary model of citizen engagement in the budget process for Colorado.
Other than being an inherent characteristic of good democratic governance, efforts to increase citizen engagement and understanding of the budget process is a worthwhile practice that leads to increased citizen trust, higher perceived levels of government performance, greater citizen satisfaction with new policies and programs, and better outcomes for the community.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
6
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements...............................................................ii
Executive Summary..............................................................iv
Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville..1
The Budget Document...........................................................1
Current Practices in the City of Louisville..................................2
Literature Review...............................................................4
The Purpose of a Citizen Budget...............................................4
A Citizen Budget Defined....................................................5
Why Encourage Citizen Participation in Budgeting?.............................5
What is Effective Citizen Participation?......................................6
Key Performance Indicators in Budgeting.......................................8
Why Do Cities Measure Performance?............................................9
How do Cities Communicate KPIs to Citizens?..................................10
What are Best Practices in Developing and Distributing Citizen Budgets?......12
Developing a Citizens Budget.................................................12
Parts of a Citizen Budget....................................................12
How are Performance Outcomes Included in Citizen Budgets?....................13
Importance of Design.........................................................14
Distribution and Feedback
14


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
7
Methodology......................................................................15
Research Questions.............................................................15
Research Design................................................................15
Sampling Method................................................................16
Data Analysis..................................................................17
Validity and Reliability.......................................................17
Results..........................................................................18
Colorado Municipalities Using CBs and Communicating KPIs to Citizens...........18
Use of Best Practices in CBs and Communication of KPIs.........................19
What Can the City of Louisville Learn from Other Colorado Municipalities?......20
Discussion.......................................................................23
Recommendations................................................................24
Limitations and Future Research................................................25
Conclusion.......................................................................26
References.......................................................................27
Appendix A. Amstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation............................33
Appendix B. Concept Map of a Citizen Budget and Citizen Participation............34
Appendix C. List of Colorado Cities Included in Sample...........................35
Appendix D. Citizen Budget Evaluation Rubric.....................................36
Appendix E. Colorado Cities’ Budget Transparency Tools Summary Table
38


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
8
Appendix F. Colorado Cities’ Use of KPIs in Budgeting Summary Table...........40
Appendix G. Colorado Citizen Budget Rubric Scores Summary Table...............41
Appendix H. Examples from Peer Cities’ Citizen Budgets........................42
Appendix I. City of Louisville Sample Citizen Budget Template.................50
Appendix J. Master of Public Administration Competencies......................53


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
1
Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville
Citizen participation in the budget process increases citizen trust in government, the perceived performance of government entities, and citizen acceptance of new policies and programs (Yang and Holzer, 2006; Berner, Amos, and Morse, 2011). The technical nature and complexity of the budget document limits citizen engagement. How do municipalities make the budget document more accessible to the public?
This paper addresses an initiative from the City of Louisville, Colorado, City Manager’s Office to create a condensed budget document for a citizen audience and increase the connection between the budget process and citizen priorities and outcomes. The City would also like to learn how to more effectively communicate its performance measures and program budget information in a way that is accessible to the public.
The Budget Document
The budget document contains important information on the allocation of taxpayer resources and the government’s priorities in funding programs and service delivery. It is a way for government to be accountable to citizens and transparent about resource allocation. Budget documents are technical and complex instruments used to present a municipality’s comprehensive financial program. The document in its standard form is written for the internal use of government and is difficult for the ordinary citizen to engage with or understand. If citizens are unable to understand the materials presented in a municipal budget, it limits the accountability and transparency the document provides.
Therefore, local governments are taking actions to connect the budget document to citizen outcomes through performance-based budgeting and increased citizen participation in the budget. For many municipalities this takes the form of increased citizen education and outreach


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
2
through citizen budgets, surveys, citizen budget advisory committees, and enhanced relationships with neighborhood stakeholder groups (Institute for Local Government, 2010).
Current Practices in the City of Louisville
The City of Louisville is a mid-size city in Colorado’s Front Range with a population of about 21,000 (United States Census Bureau, 2018). It is a council-manager city that recognizes the importance of citizens understanding how the budget connects to city priorities and the provision of service delivery. The City has made steps to increase citizen participation in governance. In 1990, the City of Louisville began to host a citizen survey every four years to gain direct feedback on government performance and citizen preference for new and existing programs. In 2015, the City Manager’s Office reorganized the budget with a goal of making it “easier for the public to understand where the City invests their taxes and fees to provide the specific services they use” (City of Louisville, 2016, p. 3). This change required a significant amount of staff effort, and shifted the budget from allocating funding by department, to allocating funding by service areas, or “programs”.
The City of Louisville organizes its budget by ten major program areas and 41 subprograms. Each sub-program has objectives and a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) that measure the performance of the subprogram. The KPIs are organized into three categories: workload, efficiency, and effectiveness. The City Manager’s Office hopes that these indicators will also “make it easier for the City Council to evaluate how efficiently and effectively [the city] is using those resources to achieve the stated objectives of the sub-program” (City of Louisville, 2016, p. 3).
The City of Louisville has a history of striving for excellence in budgeting. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has awarded the City the Distinguished


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
3
Budget Presentation Award 29 times. This award recognizes state and local governments that prepare budget documents of the highest quality and reflect the guidelines established by the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (GFOA, 2018b). Additionally, the 2016 City of Louisville’s Citizen Survey revealed that about 90 percent of residents felt that the overall quality of City services was excellent or good, and 75 percent of citizens felt that the overall performance of the City government was excellent or good. These responses were ranked as “higher” to “much higher” when compared to national and Front Range benchmarks (National Research Center, 2016).
The City Manager’s Office is interested in creating a supplementary budget document to make its budget more accessible to citizens. It would like to communicate that the budget reflects citizen priorities and connects the key performance indicators to positive outcomes in the City. The City is looking to answer the following questions: To what extent do other Colorado municipalities demonstrate best practices of both Citizen Budgets (CBs) and communication of key performance indicators (KPIs)? What can Louisville learn from peer municipalities about CBs and KPIs?
This study includes a review of the current literature on the impacts of citizen participation and performance measures in the municipal budget process, and best practices in developing and disseminating a CB. A review of the literature considers the following questions: What is the purpose of Citizen Budgets? What can the City learn about key performance indicators in budgeting? To what extent and in what ways do CBs report KPIs? What are best practices of developing and disseminating CBs? Best practices informed by the literature will then be compared to current practices in peer municipalities that publish CBs across Colorado. This research informs a template for the City of Louisville to use when developing a CB with the


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
4
goals of increasing citizen knowledge of the budget, its connection to government performance, and ultimately increasing citizen participation in the budget process.
Literature Review
The development and distribution of a Citizen Budget including KPIs crosses between academic literature on the benefits of increased participation in the budget process, and practitioner guidance on best practices and implementation. This literature review first considers the purpose of CBs and performance measures, the outcomes of including citizen participation and performance measures in the budget process, and the definition of “effective” participation. The review then pivots to the practical application and current best practices in developing and disseminating a CB and ideas for the communication of KPIs to citizens.
The Purpose of a Citizen Budget
The budget document is produced as a method of government accountability for taxpayer resources. It is a record of how public taxes, fees, and resources are prioritized by the government for use in programs and service delivery (International Budget Partnership, 2012). This adopted budget is made public to increase the government’s transparency and accountability to its citizens, but often this document is so technical and complex, that it is not useful to the ordinary citizen. A citizen budget document provides an opportunity for the government to explain its budget, and how it connects to citizen priorities in a way that is understood by the broader society (Petrie and Shields, 2010).


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
5
A Citizen Budget Defined. A citizen budget is a document produced by the government external to the primary budget document, that includes significant information about the enacted or proposed budget complied in a way that can be broadly understood by and disseminated to the ordinary citizen (IBP, 2012; Petrie and Shields, 2010). The citizen budget is meant to serve as a “door” to the budget process and provide opportunities for citizens to follow-up with the government and learn more (IBP, 2012). In practice a CB is also called, a budget-in-brief, budget overview, or budget at-a-glance.
Making the budget document easier to understand is considered a best practice within the United States and internationally. The National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (NACSLB), GFOA, International Monetary Fund, International Budget Partnership (IBP) and Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) all cite the development and dissemination of a citizen budget summary as important to increasing budget transparency and accountability to citizens. IBP (2012) characterizes a citizen budget as “step one” as part of a broader “budget literacy” policy. Additionally, the OECD discusses three levels of interaction between government and citizens: informing, consulting, and actively participating (Gramberger, 2001) These three tiers of citizen participation build on each other. A citizen budget is the first step to increased citizen participation and engagement with the budgeting process.
Why Encourage Citizen Participation in Budgeting?
There is consensus on the positive outcomes generated by increased citizen involvement in government, though scholars do not agree on the most effective mechanisms to elicit participation in the budget process (Ebdon and Franklin, 2006). “The budget process identifies and establishes priorities for a community, and it is critical that citizens communicate with public managers and elected officials to let them know what matters most, what services are redundant,


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
6
what services are no longer needed, and what new issues need to be addressed” (Callahan, 2002, p. 298). Thomas (1995) finds that citizen involvement in the decision-making process usually increases the acceptance of decisions and the likelihood of successful implementation. Broad use of participation strategies is associated with lower citizen cynicism towards government (Berman, 1997). Even Ebdon’s “low road” purposes such as education, gaining support, and influencing decisions still increase citizen knowledge and engagement with the process (2006). Finally, Berner, Amos, and Morse (2011) argue that citizen participation in democracy is an inherent good, and therefore public administration should focus on advancing effective participation.
Additionally, the literature addresses the impact of performance measures in budgeting on the level of citizen satisfaction. Yang and Holzer (2006) link performance measurement to improved citizen perceptions of government performance. Labeling it the “performance-trust link” they discuss an “upward spiral of ‘high trust—more resources—excellent perceived government performance—higher trust” (p. 114).
There are several positive outcomes of increased citizen engagement in the budget process, but what methods of participation are most effective?
What is Effective Citizen Participation?
Berner, et al. (2011) find that the definition of “effective” participation varies across stakeholder groups. Elected officials view effective citizen participation as voting and providing input when asked, city staff or practitioners view effective citizen participation as requiring education as a prerequisite for citizen involvement, and citizens define effective participation as being viewed as “partners rather than subjects” (p. 155). These definitions of effective


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
7
participation mirror Amstein’s ladder of citizen participation and range from degrees of tokenism to degrees of citizen power (1969).
Amstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation provided the lens through which many public administration scholars view participation today. It is described as a ladder with non-participatory methods indirectly involving citizens at the bottom, and direct citizen involvement in decision-making at the top. The image of the ladder (included in Appendix A) evokes the idea that government can build on existing participation strategies to increase citizen power. Based on Arnstein’s definition of citizen participation, a citizen budget would be defined as “degrees of tokenism, “as it falls on the “informing” rung. As Amstein describes, “informing citizens of their rights, responsibilities, and options can be the most important first step toward legitimate citizen participation” (p. 219). This echoes the OECD’s three levels of interaction between government and citizens: informing, consulting, and actively participating (Gramberger, 2001). ACB fits with the practitioner’s definition of “effective citizen participation,” but as Arnstein illustrates, this falls on the third rung from the bottom of the ladder of citizen participation (1969).
Citizen participation in the budget process can take several forms. This can include budget education, surveys, establishing a citizen budget advisory committee, hearings, or interactions with community stakeholders (Institute for Local Government, 2010). One of the most common methods of citizen participation in the budget process is the public hearing, which is statutorily required for cities in 40 states (Berner and Smith, 2004). While budget directors find that these hearings are a more effective form of citizen participation, other studies have found that the public budget hearing does not solicit meaningful public input, and the timing of the hearing near the adoption of the budget limits citizen power (Hatcher, 2015; King, Feltey, and Sussel, 1998; Ebdon and Franklin, 2006).


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
8
Increased citizen participation is often viewed as costly, time-consuming, and an added burden for city administrators (Mitchell, 1997). It must balance with increased staff workload and additional resource allocation (Callahan, 2002). Therefore, defining a purpose and outcomes for additional citizen engagement in the budget process is critical to success. Berner and Smith (2004) outline two main goals of citizen participation: inform and involve. The important consideration for governments is not to stop at informing, but to use information and communication “as tools to secure participation from citizens until they become more engaged in the actual decision-making process” (Berner and Smith, 2004, p. 141). CBs and KPIs are two informing tools that when used correctly can help governments to climb the ladder of citizen participation and increase government performance (Arnstein, 1969). Informed citizens know how and when to engage in the budget process and feel empowered to participate in a consulting or partnership role.
Key Performance Indicators in Budgeting
Key performance indicators (KPIs) are another budgeting tool which has gained popularity for its ability to connect government performance to citizen priorities. KPIs were popularized as early as 1911, through Fredrick Taylor’s time and motion studies to improve worker efficiencies. This practice gained traction in the public sector during the “Reinventing Government” movement of the 1990s led by Osborne and Gaebler (1992) and the National Performance Review initiatives at the federal level (Kong, 2005). During the past two decades, measuring KPIs has grown dramatically at the local government level (Ammons, 2013).
The increasing popularity of the collection of KPIs in budgeting is a recommended best practice for governments. GFOA and the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting recommend “budgeting for results and outcomes” as principles for effective budgeting


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
9
(GFOA, 2009; NACSLB, 1998). Kluver (2001) finds that approximately 77 percent of U.S. cities report using performance measurement in budgeting with “very few reported instances of jurisdiction’s having tried [this budgeting practice] but subsequently dropped it” (p. 32).
Kong (2005) defines performance budgeting in its broadest sense as “any reform that attempts to incorporate performance measures in the budget process” (p. 93). This includes any budgeting system that forgoes the traditional line-item or departmental approach and includes: “activity-based budgeting, performance budgeting, outcomes-based budgeting, results-based budgeting, program budgeting” and priority-based budgeting (Kong, 2005, p. 93).
Why Do Cities Measure Performance?
The fundamental reason that governments develop and track key performance indicators (KPIs) is to improve performance (Behn, 2003). Behn (2003) finds that improvement underpins the purpose of all performance measurement at the local government level, other than its purpose of “accountability and increase[d] communications with the public” (p. 588). Scholars have studied the impact of KPIs on management decisions at the department and program level, appropriations decisions, and the public’s perceived trust in government, and have found mixed results (Ho, 2011; Kluvers, 2001, Melkers and Willoughby, 2005).
Incremental budgeting makes appropriation levels “sticky”. Ho (2011) and Kluvers (2001) argue that the use of performance measurement in budgeting has little impact on legislative appropriations decisions, but provides flexibility and information to budget officers, department heads, and program managers about how financial resources are best prioritized within an existing appropriation to improve performance outcomes. Melkers and Willoughby (2005) find that the use of KPIs in budgeting fosters a new attitude toward planning and are essential to managerial decisions and effective in communicating lasting impacts of the budget.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
10
Performance measurement also serves the purpose of promoting agency actions and communicating program value and accomplishments to citizens (Behn, 2003). Yang and Holzer (2004) find a positive link between the use of performance measurement and citizens’ perceptions of government performance. However, Glaser and Denhardt (2000) and Berman (1997) find that citizen perception of government performance is highly subjective and impacted broader economic and social conditions outside of the locus of municipal control. Glaser asserts that “issues of equity and responsiveness are far more critical of affecting the level of trust in government” rather than reporting on improved cost-effectiveness of service delivery (p. 66). When local governments are considering the purpose of communicating KPIs, the types of measures tracked matter, as well as how they are communicated.
How do Cities Communicate KPIs to Citizens?
Cities use KPIs to provide value to three audiences: public managers, elected officials, and citizens (Ammons, 1995). Performance measures provide insights and inform public managers’ decisions, and facilitate legislative oversight of the budget (Ho, 2011). Efforts to use KPIs to appeal to citizens have been less effective. Ammons (1995) offers a revolutionary strategy to communicate performance measures to the public, he suggests to “make performance measurement interesting” (p. 43).
Behn (2003) provides an illustrative example of Ammons’ (1995) assertion by considering a state division of motor vehicles (DMV). He states that the DMV’s mission is vehicle safety, and its outputs in pursuit of this goal are vehicle and driver inspections. “When most citizens think about their division of motor vehicles, however, what is their greatest care? Answer: How long they will have to stand in line” (p. 595). Behn (2003) finds that “time in line” is the relevant KPI to garner public interest and increase public perception of government


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
11
performance in this agency. KPIs may need to be different than the ones reported for internal agency decision-making, to become meaningful for citizen engagement.
This finding echoes the work of Glaser and Denhardt (2000) who find that citizen perceptions of government performance are driven by equity and responsiveness. Glaser and Denhardt (2000) define responsiveness as, “building trust that government can be counted on to listen to citizens and be trusted to honor citizen values by action on what it hears” (p. 65). KPIs that reflect government responsiveness are immediately relevant and interesting to citizens.
When using KPIs to communicate government performance with citizens, the type of measure and its presentation matters. Ammons (1995) finds that while 77 percent of cities report using KPIs in budgeting, only 23 percent collect measures of efficiency, and only 13 percent collect measures of effectiveness. Measures of efficiency and effectiveness are “higher-order measures” which answer the important questions of “how well” and “how efficiently” rather than simply “how much” (Ammons, 2013; Ammons, 1995, p. 42). Additionally, presenting KPIs relative to a national benchmark or cross-jurisdictional comparison makes these measures more interesting to citizens. While knowing the public library in Loveland, Colorado circulates 467,179 items per-year may not capture citizens attention, citizens may be interested in knowing Loveland’s public library is in the nation’s upper quartile for circulation (Ammons, 1995, p. 43).
The literature finds that communication of KPIs to citizens can increase citizen trust in government, but that the types of KPIs that are important to citizens may differ from the types of KPIs important to public managers and the city council. KPIs are interesting to citizens when it is presented in a way that can draw comparisons to national or cross-jurisdictional benchmarks, and considers questions of government responsiveness, equity, and effectiveness.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
12
What are Best Practices in Developing and Distributing Citizen Budgets?
While scholars of public administration are vocal on the outcomes of increased citizen participation in the budget process, the literature related to best practices for development and distribution of the CB is limited (Berner et al., 2011; Berman, 1997, Arnstein, 1969). Local governments often look to their peers for guidance in developing and disseminating a CB. Developing a Citizens Budget
When developing a CB, local governments must consider the purpose and the audience. The purpose of a CB is to increase budget accessibility and engagement and to connect programs and service delivery to community outcomes. The intended audience is the ordinary citizen within a given municipality.
Citizen input to the development process helps to ensure the information will be useful to the intended audience and not simply thrown away or ignored (Gramberger, 2001). Therefore, feedback informed by citizen surveys or communication with citizens about the CB is important for its future iterations. The Institute for Local Governments (IGL) (2010) also cites the importance of inclusiveness in developing a CB including the use of translated materials if a significant portion of the residents have limited English skills.
Parts of a Citizen Budget
Best practices place citizen input as the “backbone” of CB development. This helps to ensure that the document will be accessible and considered useful by its intended audience. However, Petrie and Shepard (2010) find that CBs should contain a “common core” of information and several practitioner resources agree on this basic skeleton (Petrie and Shepard, 2010; IBP 2012; GFOA, 2018). This structure is outlined in Table 1.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
13
Table 1. Best Practice Outline of a Citizen Budget
Best Practice Outline of a Citizen Budget
Parts of the Citizen Budget Description
Introduction The government’s objective in publishing the guide and a brief description of the budget process, including opportunities for citizen participation.
Basic economic assumptions and revenue collection Describes the government’s economic outlook and expected revenue collection. This details the major revenue sources and anticipated collection trends in a visual way that readers can relate to. This section can also contain information about special revenue sources.
Priorities in allocations and spending Provides a functional understanding of how government revenues are used, and the major program areas for operational spending. Local governments can also choose to include information on capital budgets and debt in this section.
New initiatives and priorities “Most revenue and expenditures reflect a continuation of existing policies and programs” (IBP, 2012, p. 32). Any new programs, initiatives, or revenue sources should be highlighted with estimates of the total fiscal impact and contributions to meeting government and citizen’s objectives.
Improving delivery of services This section is an opportunity to highlight departments’ performance objectives and information on KPIs. This will link performance measures to service delivery and citizen outcomes.
Promoting Understanding Practitioners recommend displaying CB information in a nontechnical way that promotes understanding for the ordinary citizen. This includes defining technical budget terms, using visuals to convey complex data, providing links throughout the document for opportunities to learn more about specific topics.
Contact information for follow up by citizens This relates to the use of the CB as a “door” for citizens to become more involved with the budget process. This should include information about how to find additional information, provide feedback, and ask questions. This should include both internet and non-internet options for increased accessibility to citizens.
How are Performance Outcomes Included in Citizen Budgets?
KPIs displaying key areas of citizen spending interest are recommended for inclusion in
CBs for governments that have the capacity to collect and display this information. The literature is relatively silent on best practices for the communication of KPIs to the public. Washington


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
14
State’s Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) fills this gap by gathering national examples of municipal displays of KPIs.
It is most common for cities to display this information separately from the Citizen Budget in a “performance dashboard” format (MRSC, 2018). These dashboards typically highlight a municipality’s key goals and objectives, what the city is doing in these service areas, and if they are on track for meeting those goals. Performance indicators are displayed in a variety of methods. Often, they are organized by a larger goal such as “transportation” or “livability”. Many cities display individual performance objectives using a stoplight pattern of green, yellow, and red for: goal met, on track, and needs improvement.
Importance of Design
“Graphics reveal data.” (Tufte, 2001, p. 1). The use of visuals helps to encourage engagement. Tufte describes that “excellence in statistical graphics consists of complex ideas communicated with clarity, precision, and efficiency” (2001, p. 1). For this reason, the use of strong visual design is important to citizen’s understanding of the data in the CB. Stephens (2011) review of budget publications in North Carolina’s municipalities found the average CB is two pages long. While the appropriate length of a CB is not defined in the literature, two pages encourages governments to be concise and communicate relevant information efficiently, which increases accessibility to citizens.
Distribution and Feedback
To make the CB available to all citizens, the medium of dissemination is an important consideration. Distributing the document in print form through mailings or a municipal newsletter ensures the information is available to a broad demographic of residents (ILG, 2010). Additionally, including it on the government website makes the information accessible year-


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
15
round and allows for the inclusion of hyperlinks to additional budget information, acting as a “door” to increased citizen learning and engagement with the budget process (IBP, 2012).
Finally, timing is important. The CB is intended to be a citizen guide or summary of the adopted budget. Therefore, it should be released to the public around the time of the adopted or proposed budget. When the CB is released many months after the budget document, it becomes less relevant to citizens, and there are less opportunities for follow-up and feedback on the budget or CB with elected officials and administrators. (Petrie and Shields, 2010).
Methodology
Research Questions
Previous studies on citizen participation and performance management in budgeting have focused on the outcomes of increased participation (Berman, 1997; Callahan, 2002; Melkers and Willoughby, 2005; Heikkila and Roussin, 2007; Ho, 2011; Hatcher, 2015). There is a gap in the literature about the process of developing and distributing CBs. The City of Louisville is seeking guidance on how to better communicate its budget to citizens, in order to connect the budget to actions the City is taking to improve quality of life. For these questions, the City usually looks to its Colorado peers. To what extent do Colorado municipalities demonstrate best practices of both CBs and the communication of KPIs to citizens? What can Louisville learn from other municipalities in this area of budgeting?
Research Design
The research questions are addressed using qualitative methods of content analysis of Colorado municipalities CBs and communication of KPIs. Additionally, Colorado municipalities distributing CBs were called and interviewed about dissemination practices until the researcher reached a saturation point. CBs and budget documents were examined to understand the extent to


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
16
which Colorado municipalities are using best practices informed by the literature. Appendix B features a concept map on the budget process and the role that this research plays in development of the citizen budget.
Sampling Method
The researcher collected primary data using a purposive sampling method. This sampling method is based on the “researcher’s judgement about which units will be most useful or representative” (Babbie, 2014, p. 187). Based on guidance from the City of Louisville, the sample was drawn from peer municipalities in Colorado. The researcher identified 45 Colorado cities with a 2017 population greater than 10,000. Cities with a population less than 10,000 were excluded from this study because it is unlikely that these municipalities have adequate resources to produce CBs and KPIs comparable to larger municipalities. The cities included in this sample range in size from the City of Castle Pines with a 2017 population of 10,523 to the City of Denver with a 2017 population of 704,621 (U.S. Census, 2018). The cities included in this sample exhibit both council-manager forms of government, like the City of Louisville, and mayor-council forms of government. Counties and special districts are excluded from this analysis because these entities have different budget structures and provide services outside the scope of municipalities. The researcher reviewed the budget websites and adopted 2018 budgets for of each of the 45 Colorado cities. This was done to determine if the city publishes a CB external to the budget document, and the extent to which cities use and report KPIs in budgeting.
Thirteen of the sampled cities produce a CB separate from the main budget and post it publicly on the municipality’s website. These are the municipalities that are included in the CB analysis. A full list of cities sampled organized by population size is detailed in Appendix C.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
17
Data Analysis
To evaluate the use of best practices in citizen budgets, the unit of analysis is each city’s CB document. The researcher developed criteria to evaluate each city’s CB and a rubric to standardize the assessment. The criteria are informed by best practices in the literature review. The criteria and rubric are detailed in Appendix D.
The researcher completed a separate analysis to determine the extent to which Colorado municipalities use and report KPIs in budgeting. The unit of analysis was the 2018 adopted budget for each municipality in the sample. The researcher reviewed each city’s budget document for the use of KPIs (workload, efficiency, or effectiveness measures). Cities were placed into three categories. The first category determined if the city referenced the use of performance measures in budgeting. The second category determined if the city reported KPI information in the 2018 adopted budget. The third category recorded cities that communicate KPIs external to the budget document. This information is summarized in Appendix F.
Validity and Reliability
Validity and reliability are important for the study to build on existing research and provide applicable recommendations to the intended audience. The validity of a measure consists of two components: internal and external validity. Internal validity can also be understood as the measure’s accuracy—the extent to which it captures the concept it seeks to investigate (Orcher, 2016). This study examines Colorado cities’ current CBs and communication of KIPs to citizens to measure whether it demonstrates best practices outlined in the practitioner literature. The analysis exhibits a high level of internal validity.
External validity is the level to which the results are generalizable to different populations and contexts, other than those observed for research. The purposive sampling method limits the


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
18
study’s generalizability, but this study is still informative to small-to mid-size municipalities both within Colorado and across the United States. It is reasonable to assume that municipalities of a similar size in the United States have similar resources and budgeting practices when developing a CB. This study is not generalizable to cities with populations much larger than 700,000, smaller than 10,000, or other forms of local government that may employ different budgeting methodologies, but the concepts developed around citizen engagement in budgeting are relevant to all forms of government.
This study is also limited in its generalizability because the sample excludes cities that do not post their CB online, or cities that include the CB within the larger budget document. The focus of the study is on budget accessibility to citizens, and therefore focused on cities that publish these documents online and external to the larger budget document. However, this is a limitation to the data that must be considered within the context of the results. The researcher found that at least four cities include a budget summary within the larger budget document, and these cities are noted in Appendix E.
The reliability of a research design is defined as “whether a particular technique, applied repeatedly to the same object yields the same result each time” (Babbie, 2001, p. 140). The rubric and document analysis process enhance the research design’s reliability. However, the analysis is inherently subjective, and the reliability could be improved by performing a test of inter-coder reliability when reviewing the municipalities’ budget documents.
Results
Colorado Municipalities Using CBs and Communicating KPIs to Citizens
Of the 45 Colorado cities included in the sample, 13 cities, or 29 percent of the sample, developed and distributed a Citizen Budget external to the main budget document. Twenty-three


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
19
cities, or 51 percent of the sample, use some type of budget transparency tool. These include CBs and packaged transparency tools such as Open Gov, Socrata, Balancing Act. Finally, five cities, or 11 percent of the sample use some other proprietary tool to communicate budget information citizens. These included self-developed expenditure transparency tools, and citizen budget videos. A summary table for all cities included in the sample and the type of transparency tool used is included in Appendix E.
This study also considered the extent to which cities collect and communicate KPIs. It found that 62 percent of cities sampled use KPIs in the budget process or budget decisions. Twenty-one Colorado cities, representing 47 percent of the sample, report these indicators publicly in their budget document. Finally, only six cities, 13 percent of the sample, communicate KPIs external to the budget document. The majority of these cities communicate KPIs in the form of a performance measurement dashboard. A summary table of the extent to which Colorado municipalities use and report KPIs in budgeting is included in Appendix F.
Use of Best Practices in CBs and Communication of KPIs
The research design sought to determine the extent to which Colorado municipalities demonstrate the best practices of both CBs and the communication of KPIs. Some key trends emerged from the sample which highlight areas of strength and weakness across cities.
Overall, the 13 Colorado cities that develop citizen budgets follow the best practices informed by the literature. Out of 41 possible points in the rubric, the median overall score was 21, with scores ranging from nine to 30. This score is provided to give a general impression of the overall quality of Colorado CBs and municipalities’ scores for each section of the CB can be found in Appendix G.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
20
There were clear areas of strength and weakness across the identified sections of the CB. Colorado municipalities performed consistently well in detailing expenditure information, the median score was seven out of eight possible points for this rubric section. Additionally, every city with a CB promoted understanding through the use of visuals when displaying revenue and expenditure information.
Areas of weakness included introducing the document’s objective and including information for increased citizen involvement, as well as explaining economic assumptions and trends in revenue collection. The most notable area of weakness was the city’s use of performance indicators when highlighting service delivery. While cities were likely to highlight government performance objectives, the citizen budgets sampled included almost no information on KPIs. Some cities developed a measure of citizen cost per service per day, but overall there were few insights into the return on investment for citizen’s service delivery.
The rubric is not intended to provide an overall ranking of CBs following best practices, but it is able to provide a general overview of Colorado cities’ areas of strength and weakness. Additionally, the top performing cities in each section provide examples of best practices to use in a prototype CB for the City of Louisville. These examples are detailed in Appendix H.
What Can the City of Louisville Learn from Other Colorado Municipalities?
The City of Louisville looks to peer municipalities when developing new budget products. This section highlights best practices exhibited by Colorado municipalities for each section of the CB. Key examples are highlighted in Appendix H and used to inform a prototype CB template for the City of Louisville included in Appendix I.
Introduction. The introduction establishes the government’s objective in publishing the guide, outlines the budget process, and provides opportunities for citizen participation. Only 36


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
21
percent of the Colorado cities producing citizen budgets included all of this information. The strongest examples provide a clear purpose for publishing a separate document, and specific opportunities for citizens to become involved.
Basic Economic Assumptions and Revenue Collection. The median rubric score for this budget section was 4 out of 6 possible points. Most Colorado cities provide revenue information in a visual way. High performing cities in this section addressed the underlying economic assumptions behind revenue collection to enhance citizen knowledge about how revenues are projected, and which revenue sources have the greatest impact on the city budget.
Priorities in Allocations and Spending. Colorado municipalities publishing CBs follow best practices when displaying operational spending information. The median rubric score was 7 out of 8 possible points. Cities use pie charts and tables to provide visual displays of how government revenues are used. Cities that performed well in this section also included information on the capital budget. This is significant because in some cities more than half of the budget is dedicated to capital projects and debt service.
New Initiatives and Priorities. Highlighting significant new investments for the upcoming fiscal year helps to increase citizen’s knowledge of the city’s priorities for the community. Cities displaying best practices highlighted new projects organized under larger city goals and included the fiscal impact to citizens. A majority of cities mentioned new initiatives in the CB, and the median rubric score was 2 out of 4 possible points. Cities that performed well in this section organized new spending by larger priorities such as “public safety” or “affordability” and included the fiscal impact of the new investment.
Service Delivery and KPIs. This section provides an opportunity for the city to highlight key priorities and performance objectives, and information about service delivery improvements


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
22
and its connection to citizen outcomes. For governments that measure performance, this is an opportunity to highlight information about KPIs and progress on reaching city performance objectives and community outcomes outlined by program area in the City’s budget. Colorado cities producing CBs include limited information on performance measures and outcomes. The median, and highest rubric score for this section was 2 out of 8 possible points. Cities receiving a 2 in this section clearly outlined the government’s performance objectives.
This is one area of the citizen budget that cities have a clear opportunity for improvement. None of the cities sampled included traditional KPIs in the CB, and cities including limited performance information displayed it as per capita “cost per day” or large blocks of text describing inputs and outputs. The City of Louisville has an opportunity to be a leader in this area by incorporating KPIs on key priorities and engaging with citizens on government performance.
Promoting Understanding. While not a section of the budget document, this section of the rubric considered each document’s ability to engage citizens and act as a “door” to the budget process. Cities were analyzed for document design and use of visuals, clarity and accessibility of the document for the non-technical reader and inclusion of links or reference to opportunities to learn more. The median rubric score was 3 out of 6 possible points. Nearly every city producing a CB included visual displays of revenue and spending information. Certain cities increased accessibility by using text-boxes throughout the CB to define technical terms. Many cities provided a link to the full budget document and contact information for where to learn more.
Distribution and Feedback. A review of cities’ distribution methods found similarities across cities. All cities in the sample post CBs online, many make a print version available at City Council meetings or upon request, and a few municipalities include it in their citizen


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
23
newsletter mailed to residents. Smaller cities were more likely to include the CB in mailings or the city newsletter, while larger cities made the document available upon request. Finally, most cities publish the CB document within one to three months after adopting the budget.
Discussion
This study examined the purpose of developing citizen budgets and communicating key performance indicators, and the extent to Colorado municipalities display best practices. This research draws from exemplary peer cities to build a citizen budget template for the City of Louisville incorporating best practices across Colorado.
The results and summary tables in the appendices display the overall trends in best practices across Colorado municipalities. The results highlight two important findings about the use of CBs and KPIs in Colorado and its impact on citizen participation in the budget process.
First, while cities excel at producing revenue and expenditure information in a way that promotes understanding, only 36 percent of CBs provided information about the purpose of the CB, information about the budget process, or opportunities for citizen involvement. Therefore, many Colorado cities are using CBs to inform citizens, but not providing opportunities to move up Amstein’s (1969) ladder of citizen participation to consulting or partnership roles.
Second, the data show that 62 percent of Colorado municipalities are using KPIs to improve internal performance, but only 13 percent of cities are communicating KIPs to citizens in a meaningful way external to the budget document. One explanation for this finding is that KPIs require a significant amount of resources to collect and display in an accurate and effective way. The median city size of cities communicating KPIs outside of the budget document was 108,668, while the median size of cities reporting KPIs within the budget document was 24,234.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
24
Recommendations
This study provided important lessons for the City of Louisville as the City Manager’s Office works to develop a CB. Below are key recommendations for the City to consider as they strive to increase citizen engagement in the budget process:
1) Communication is the First Step of a Larger Participatory Framework Citizens view effective participation as being treated as “partners rather than subjects” (Berner et al., 2011, p. 155). The CB document is an important first step in harnessing citizens with accessible budget information but needs to be followed up with other opportunities to engage in the budget process. The City of Louisville should consider developing a Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, or hosting budget workshops to provide citizens with the opportunity to “question, comment on, and shape a proposed local agency budget” well before the public budget hearing (ILG, 2010).
2) Make KPIs Interesting
The research showed that KPIs require a significant investment of government resources to collect and display. Therefore, when communicating KPIs to citizens, it is cost-effective to make them interesting. Glaser and Denhardt (2002) and Ammons (1995) highlight that several factors influence citizen perception of government performance, but two measures over which the government has most control is responsiveness and equity. Communicate KPIs that citizens will find interesting, such as wait-times, customer service, and efficient service delivery. Additionally, consider benchmarking to neighboring jurisdictions or national standards of performance. This places city performance in context and makes it more meaningful to citizens.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
25
3) Feedback is Important
Citizens are the intended audience for CBs, and therefore incorporating citizen feedback is important to the success of the document. Citizen input helps to ensure the document is relevant to citizens’ needs and will not be simply ignored or thrown away (Gramberger, 2001). It helps to refine the areas of spending, initiatives, or performance measures that citizens are most interested in and helps to prioritize the most important community outcomes. Citizen feedback can be elicited by including contact information and encouraging feedback on the document or incorporating some questions about the CB and communication of KPIs into Louisville’s citizen survey.
4) Don’t Be Afraid to Lead
This study highlighted many of the great practices exhibited by peer municipalities across Colorado. However, the study also identified some areas of weakness across the State in engaging citizens and communicating KPIs outside of the budget document. The City of Louisville has an opportunity to look to best practices, bridge this gap, and become an exemplary model for the State of Colorado. The City of Louisville can look to resources such as the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) in Washington State, the National League of Cities, or the International City/County Management Association for a national perspective of local governments prioritizing citizen participation to become a leader in the State of Colorado. Limitations and Future Research
This study was informed by a review of the literature, practitioner recommendations, and an inventory of how Colorado municipalities are communicating budget and performance information to citizens. A key limitation of this study is that it lacks a broad citizen perspective.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
26
When considering the opportunity for future research on citizen engagement in budgeting, the City of Louisville can benefit from looking to the citizen perspective to determine what information the citizens find relevant to include in a CB and other forms of participation citizens may be interested in pursuing.
As Berner et al. (2001) highlight, citizens have a very different perspective of effective citizen engagement that is not shared by city administrators or elected officials. This study focused on the “supply-side” and did not have the capacity to review the preferences of the CB’s intended audience. An opportunity for additional research is for the City of Louisville to include a question or two on its citizen survey for feedback on the citizen budget and communication of key performance indicators.
Conclusion
Increasing citizen engagement in the budget process requires a thoughtful approach and a significant investment of a municipality’s time and resources. However, this research finds it is a cost-effective endeavor. The literature finds that a well-developed citizen budget and communication of KPIs can increase citizen’s trust and perception of government performance. Informing citizens of budget information in an accessible and transparent way is an important building block for a larger framework of increased citizen participation in governance and viewing citizens as partners in decision-making. This study found that many Colorado cities recognize the importance of this communication. The template and recommendations for the City of Louisville will help the City become a leader in participatory budgeting methods.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
27
References
Ammons, D. N. (1995). Overcoming the Inadequacies of Performance Measurement in Local
Government: The Case of Libraries and Leisure Services. Public Administration Review, 55(1), pp. 37-47. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/976826 Ammons, D. N. (2013). Signs of Performance Measurement Progress Among Prominent City Governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), pp. 507-528. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360401 Arnstein, S.R. (1969). ALadder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34(4), pp. 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Babbie, E. (2014). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Balancing Act. (2018) About. Retrieved from: https://abalancingact.com/about/
Behn, R. (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), pp. 586-606. Retrieved from https://doi-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00322 Berman, E. M. (1997). Dealing with Cynical Citizens. Public Administration Review, 57(2), pp.
105-112. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/977058 Berner, M. M., Amos, J. M., & Morse, R. S. (2011). What Constitutes Effective Citizen Participation in Local Government? Views from City Stakeholders. Public Administration Quarterly, 55(1), pp. 128-163. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/41804544
Berner, M. M., & Smith, S. (2004). The State of the States: A Review of State Requirements for


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
28
Citizen Participation in the Local Government Budget Process. State & Local Government Review, 36(2), pp. 140-150. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4355366
Callahan, K. (2002). The Utilization and Effectiveness of Citizen Advisory Committees in the Budget Process of Local Governments. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, & Financial Management, 14(1), pp. 295-319.
City of Louisville. (2016). 2017-2018 Biennial Operating & Capital Budget.
City of Louisville. (2017). 2017-2018 Biennial Operating & Capital Budget Supplemental Report.
Edbon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), pp. 437-447. Retrieved from https://doi-org. aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j. 1540-6210.2006.00600.x
Folz, D.H., Abdelrazek, R., & Chung, Y. (2009). The Adoption, Use, and Impacts of Performance Measures in Medium-Size Cities. Public Performance & Management Review, 33( 1), pp. 63-87. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/40586754
Ho, T. (2011) PPB in American Local Governments: It’s More than a Management Tool. Public Administration Review, 77(3), pp. 391-401. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23017495
Glaser, M. A. & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). Local Government Performance Through the Eyes of Citizens. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 12(1), pp. 49-73.
Government Finance Officers Association. (2009). Recommended Practice: Budgeting For


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
29
Results and Outcomes (2009) (BUDGET). Retrieved from: http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/CCI_BudgetingforResultsOutcomes.pdf Government Finance Officers Association. (2018). Making the Budget Document Easier to Understand. Retrieved from http://www.gfoa.org/making-budget-document-easier-understand
Government Finance Officers Association. (2018b). Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Program. Retrieved from http://www.gfoa.org/award-programs/distinguished-budget-presentation-award-program-budget-awards-program Gramberger, M. (2001). Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation, and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Retrieved from
https://www.intemationalbudget.org/wp-content/uploads/Citizens-as-Partners-OECD-
Handbook.pdf
Hatcher, W. (2015). The Efficacy of Public Participation in Municipal Budgeting: An
Exploratory Survey of Officials in Government Finance Officers Association’s Award-Winning Cities. Public Administration Quarterly, 39(4), pp. 645-663. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24772910
Heikkila, T. & Roussin, R. I. (2007). Citizen Involvement and Performance Management in Special-Purpose Governments. Public Administration Review, 67(2), pp. 238-249. https://doi-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.Org/10.l 111/j.1540-6210.2007.00710.x Holzer, M. & Yang, K. (2004). Performance Measurement and Improvement: An Assessment of the State of the Art. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(1) pp. 15-31. https://doi-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.0rg/lO.l 177/0020852304041228 International Budget Partnership. (2012). The Power of Making it Simple: A Government Guide


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
30
to Developing Citizens Budgets. Retrieved from
https://www.intemationalbudget.org/publications/the-power-of-making-it-simple-a-
govemment-guide-to-developing-citizens-budgets/
Institute for Local Government. (2010). A Local Officials Guide to Public Engagement in Budgeting. Retrieved from http://www.ca-ilg.org/post/local-officials-guide-public-engagement-budgeting
King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O., (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward
Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 55(4), pp. 317-326. Retrieved from https ://www-jstor-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/977561
Kluvers, R. (2001). An Analysis of Introducing Program Budgeting in Local Government. Public Budgeting and Finance, 2 7(2), pp. 29-45.
https://doiorg.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.Org/10.l 111/0275-1100.00048 Kong, D. (2005). Performance-Based Budgeting: The U.S. Experience. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5, pp. 91-107. https://doi-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/sl 1115-005-1782-6 Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in Government Boards and Commissions. Public Administration Review, 57(2), pp. 160-167. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/977064
Melkers, J. and Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of Performance-Measurement Use in Local
Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), pp. 180-190. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3542552


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
31
Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC). (2018) Performance Measurement. Retrieved from: http://mrsc.org/getdoc/bafdf54c-b9e3-457d-aa4e-7e8840a77b5c/Performance-Measurement. aspx
National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting. (1998). A Framework for Improved State and Local Government Budgeting. Retrieved from http://www.gfoa.org/services/nacslb
National Research Center, Inc. (2016). City of Louisville, CO 2016 Citizen Survey. Retrieved from http://www. 1 ouisvilleco. gov/home/showdocument?id=9175
Open Gov. (2018). About. Retrieved from: https://opengov.com/
Orcher, L.T. (2005). Conducting Research: Social and Behavioral Science Methods. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Petrie, M., & Shields, J. (2010). Producing a Citizen’s Guide to the Budget: Why, What and How? OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2, pp. 75-87. Retrieved from https://www.intemationalbudget.org/publications/producing-a-citizens-guide-to-the-budget-why-what-and-how/
Rivenbark, W.C., & Kelly, J.M. (2003). Management innovation in Smaller Municipal
Government. State and Local Government Review, 35(3), pp. 196-205. Retrieved from https://doi-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.Org/10.l 177/0160323X0303500305
Socrata. (2018). Open Data and Citizen Engagement. Retrieved from: https://socrata.com/
Stephens, J. B. (2011). Creating Effective Citizen Participation in Local Government Budgeting:


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
32
Practical Tips and Examples for Elected Officials and Budget Administrators. Public Management Bulletin. Retrieved from:
https://www.sog.unc.edu/publications/bulletins/creating-effective-citizen-participation-1 ocal -govemment-budgeting-practi cal -tip s-and-exampl es Taylor, F. W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers.
The Center for Priority Based Budgeting. (2018). About. Retrieved from: http://pbbcenter.org/ Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tufte, E. R. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press LLC.
United States Census Bureau. (2018) City and Town Population Totals: 2010-2017. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns.html Venngage. (2018) My Designs. Retrieved from: https://venngage.com/
Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The Performance-Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement. Public Administration Review, 66( 1), pp. 114-126. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/3542659


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
33
Appendix A. Amstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation
8
7
Citizen Control
Delegated Power
Degrees of Citizen Power
6
5
4
3
2
1
Partnership
Placation
Consultation
Informing
Therapy
Manipulation
Degrees of Tokenism
Nonparticipation
Arnstein (1969), p. 217


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
34
Appendix B. Concept Map of a Citizen Budget and Citizen Participation
I----------------------------------
City Resources
Best Practices
Examples from Colorado Peers
1
Budget Document
Citizen Budget/ Communication of Key Performance Indicators
l
O
G
T3
CD
CD
Ph
-a
g
G
s—*
G
CD
a
CD
%
SO
G
w
G
CD
N
o
Citizens


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
35
Appendix C. List of Colorado Cities Included in Sample
City Name July 1, 2017 Population Estimate
Denver 704.621
Colorado Springs 464.474
Aurora 366.623
Fort Collins 165.080
Lakewood 154.958
Thornton 136.978
Arvada 118.807
Westminster 112.812
Pueblo 111.127
Centennial 110.250
Boulder 107.125
Greeley 105.448
Longmont 94.341
Loveland 76.701
Broomfield 68.341
Grand Junction 62.475
Castle Rock 62.276
Commerce City 55.923
Parker 54.202
Littleton 47.734
Brighton 40.562
Northglenn 38.928
Englewood 34.407
Wheat Ridge 31.294
Fountain 29.804
Lafayette 28.328
Windsor 25.330
Erie 24.234
Louisville1 21,128
Golden 20.571
Evans 20.470
Montrose 19.305
Durango 18.465
Canon City 16.539
Greenwood Village 15.721
Johnstown 15.478
Sterling 13.961
Firestone 13.825
Lone Tree 13.566
Fruita 13.294
Steamboat Springs 12.965
Superior 12.951
Federal Heights 12.744
Frederick 12.687
Fort Morgan 11.281
Castle Pines 10.523
1 As the city requesting the study, the City of Louisville was not included in the sample. However, the City is included in this list to provide information on population size relative to the other cities sampled (United States Census Bureau, 2018).


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
36
Appendix D. Citizen Budget Evaluation Rubric The purpose of the rubric is to evaluate the CB for use of the seven basic parts of the citizen budget outlined in the literature review. Each section of the CB will include a set of criteria and the document will be assigned a score for each of the criteria. The scores are: below expectations (0), meets expectations (1), and exceeds expectations (2).
Citizen Budget Rubric
Does Not Meet Expectations (0) Meets Expectations (1) Exceeds Expectations (2)
Introduction
Establishes the government’s objective in publishing the guide. Objective is not established or unclear. Objective is adequately established. Objective is clearly stated and connects to citizen outcomes.
Provides a brief description of the budget process. Does not describe the budget process. Describes the budget process. Clearly and concisely describes the budget process in a way that improves citizen understanding.
Includes opportunities for citizen participation. Does not include information on opportunities for citizen participation. Alludes to opportunities for citizen participation. Directly mentions citizen participation opportunities and includes dates and times to get involved.
Basic Economic Assumptions and Revenue Collection
Describes the economic outlook and underlying assumptions of revenue forecast. Does not include information on economic assumptions. Describes economic assumptions. Describes economic assumptions in clear and concise maimer and connects it to revenue collections.
Details revenue sources and anticipated collection trends. Does not include information on revenue sources or anticipated collection trends. Describes revenue sources but does not address collection trends. Describes revenue sources and collection trends in a clear and concise manner connecting to citizen outcomes.
Displays revenue information in a visual way to promote ease of understanding. Does not include visual display of revenue sources. Provides a visual such as a pie chart or bar graph to display revenue information. Provides visuals such as pie charts and bar graphs, displays additional graphics or cartoons to further engage citizens.
Priorities in Allocations and Spending
Provides a functional understanding of how government revenues are used. Does not include information on how government revenues are used. Describes how government revenues are used. Describes how government revenues are used in a clear and concise manner that promotes understanding.
Details major program areas for operational spending. Does not detail major program areas for operational spending. Adequately details major program areas for operational spending. Details major program areas for operational spending and connects these to specific citizen programs of interest.
Displays spending information in a visual way to promote ease of understanding. Does not include visual display of operational spending. Provides a visual such as a pie chart or bar graph to display spending information. Provides visuals such as pie charts and bar graphs, displays additional graphics or cartoons to further engage citizens.
Includes information on capital budgets and debt. Does not include information on capital budgets and debt. Provides information on capital budgets and debt. Provides information on capital budgets and debt and its connection to citizen outcomes.
New Initiatives and Priorities
Highlights new programs with estimate of total fiscal impact to citizens. Does not highlight new programs with a fiscal impact to citizens. Highlights new programs with estimate of total fiscal impact to citizens. Highlights new programs with estimate of total fiscal impact to


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
37
Citizen Budget Rubric
Does Not Meet Expectations (0) Meets Expectations (1) Exceeds Expectations (2)
citizens and connects programs to citizen outcomes.
Highlights contributions to meeting government and citizen objectives. Does not highlight contributions to meeting government and citizen objectives. Highlights contributions to meeting government and citizen objectives. Highlights contributions to meeting government and citizen objectives and connects to budget programs.
Service Delivery
Highlights government’s performance objectives. Does not highlight government performance objectives. Highlights government’s performance objectives. Highlights government’s performance objectives in a clear and accessible maimer.
Employs the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). Does not use Key Performance Indicators. Employs the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). Employs and explains the use of KPIs in the budget process.
KPIs use “higher-order” measures including efficiency and effectiveness. Does not use Key Performance Indicators. KPIs use “higher-order” measures including efficiency and effectiveness. KPIs rely heavily on outcome measures of efficiency and effectiveness.
Connects performance measures to service delivery and citizen outcomes. Does not use Key Performance Indicators. Connects performance measures to service delivery and citizen outcomes. Connects performance measures to service delivery and citizen outcomes in a clear and concise maimer.
Promoting Understanding
Includes a glossary of commonly used budget terms or defines technical budget terms when used. Does not include a glossary or definitions of technical budget terms. Includes a glossary of commonly used budget terms or defines technical budget terms when used. Defines technical budget terms in a clear and concise manner that promotes citizen understanding.
Includes visual displays of financial information to encourage citizen understanding. Does not include any visual displays of financial information. Includes some visual displays of financial information to encourage citizen understanding. Includes several clear and creative visual displays of financial information to encourage citizen understanding.
Includes links to additional information (if online version) or directs citizens to resources to learn more about the city budget. Does not include links to additional information or direct citizens to resources to learn more about the city budget. Includes links to additional information or directs citizens to resources to learn more about the city budget. Includes several links to additional information and clear direction to resources to become more involved in the city budget process.
Distribution and Feedback
CB is posted on the municipality’s website and is easy to find alongside the budget document. Not posted on the municipality’s website and is easy to find alongside the budget document. Posted on the municipality's website. Posted on the municipality's website and is easy to find alongside the budget document.
Includes contact information for citizens to provide feedback and ask questions about the CB. Does not include contact information for citizens to provide feedback and ask questions about the CB. Includes contact information for citizens to provide feedback and ask questions about the CB. N/A.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
38
Appendix E. Colorado Cities’ Budget Transparency Tools Summary Table
City Name (Colorado) 2017 Pop. Citizen Budget1 Priority Based Budgeting2 Socrata2 Open Gov2 Balancing Act2 Other
Denver 704,621 Yes Yes Proprietary Transparency Tool
Colorado Springs 464,474 Yes Yes
Aurora 366,623 Yes Proprietary Transparency Tool
Fort Collins 165,080 Yes
Lakewood 154,958 Proprietary Transparency Tool
Thornton 136,978
Arvada 118,807
Westminster 112,812
Pueblo 111,127
Centennial3 110,250 Citizen Budget Video
Boulder 107,125 Yes Yes
Greeley 105,448 Yes Yes
Longmont 94,341
Loveland 76,701
Broomfield 68,341 Yes
Grand Junction 62,475
Castle Rock 62,276 Yes Citizen Budget Video
Commerce City 55,923 Yes
Parker 54,202 Yes Yes
Littleton 47,734 Yes
Brighton 40,562 Yes
Northglenn 38,928 Yes
Englewood 34,407 Yes
Wheat Ridge3 31,294 Yes Yes Yes
Fountain 29,804
Lafayette 28,328
Windsor 25,330 Yes
Erie 24,234 Yes
Louisville 21,128 — — — — — —
Golden 20,571 Yes
Evans 20,470
Montrose 19,305 Yes
Durango 18,465
Canon City 16,539
Greenwood Village 15,721
Johnstown 15,478
Sterling 13,961
Firestone 13,825
Lone Tree 13,566 Yes
Fraita 13,294 Yes
Steamboat Springs 12,965
Superior 12,951
Federal Heights 12,744
Frederick 12,687 Citizen Budget Video
Fort Morgan 11,281
Castle Pines 10,523 Yes
Sum of Cities 13 5 4 3 4 6
Percent of Cities 29% 11% 9% 7% 9% 13%
1 Brighton, Wheat Ridge, Superior, and Evans publish budget overviews within the budget document. These were not included in the study because the study considered CBs external to the budget document.
2Brief summaries of Socrata, Open Gov, Priority-Based Budgeting, and Balancing Act are listed below. These descriptions do not provide an evaluation or cost of the tool because the researcher was unable to access that information in the scope of this project.
3 Centennial and Wheat Ridge previously published a CB external to the budget document, but no longer produce one.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
39
Socrata and Open Gov
Socrata and Open Gov are interactive online platforms for government budget and financial information. These platforms provide pre-packaged data visualization tools that provide transparent municipal budget information. Additionally, these tools give local governments the ability to track citizen engagement and interactions with the platform to provide insight on citizens’ interests (Socrata, 2018; Open Gov, 2018).
Priority Based Budgeting
The Center for Priority Based Budgeting is a Colorado-based organization that provides technical and advisory services to local governments to prioritize long-term funding decisions based on a set of community values and objectives. The organization provides a comprehensive review of the government organization to best match resources and community priorities. This process involves engaging government managers, finance officers, civic leaders, and community residents. (Center for Priority Based Budgeting, 2017).
Balancing Act
Balancing Act is a program offered by Engaged Public, a Colorado-based public sector consulting firm, that provides a simple online-transparency tool for local government budgets. This program also uses a customizable simulation to provide citizens with a better understanding of the decisions and statutory constraints that go into developing a balanced budget. This program tracks user interactions with the tool and citizens are allowed to submit their “balanced budgets” to the local government. This provides an opportunity for two-way communication. Citizens gain new understanding of the current budget and its constraints, and the local government is able to track citizen interactions and gain new understanding of citizen priorities (Balancing Act, 2018).


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
40
Appendix F. Colorado Cities’ Use of KPIs in Budgeting Summary Table
City Name 2017 Pop. Considers KPIs Reports KPIs in Communicates KPIs with Citizens in
(Colorado) When Budgeting Budget Document Format Other Than Budget Document
Denver 704,621 Yes Yes
Colorado Springs 464,474 Yes Yes
Aurora 366,623 Yes Yes
Fort Collins 165,080 Yes Yes Performance Measurement Dashboard
Lakewood 154,958 Yes Yes
Thornton 136,978 Yes Yes
Arvada 118,807 Yes Yes Performance Measurement Dashboard
Westminster 112,812 Yes Yes
Pueblo 111,127 Yes No
Centennial 110,250 Yes Yes Performance Measurement Dashboard
Boulder 107,125 Yes No Performance Measurement Dashboard
Greeley 105,448 Yes No
Longmont 94,341 Yes Yes Annual Performance Report
Loveland 76,701 Yes No
Broomfield 68,341 Yes Yes
Grand Junction 62,475 Yes Yes
Castle Rock 62,276 Yes Yes Select Performance Data Highlights
Commerce City 55,923 Yes No
Parker 54,202 No No
Littleton 47,734 Yes Yes
Brighton 40,562 No No
Northglenn 38,928 Yes Yes
Englewood 34,407 Yes Yes
Wheat Ridge 31,294 No No
Fountain 29,804 No No
Lafayette 28,328 No No
Windsor 25,330 Yes Yes
Erie 24,234 No No
Louisville 21,128 — — —
Golden 20,571 No No
Evans 20,470 Yes No
Montrose 19,305 No No
Durango 18,465 Yes Yes
Canon City 16,539 No No
Greenwood Village 15,721 Yes Yes
Johnstown 15,478 No No
Sterling 13,961 No No
Firestone 13,825 No No
Lone Tree 13,566 No No
Fraita 13,294 Yes No
Steamboat Springs 12,965 No No
Superior 12,951 Yes Yes
Federal Fleights 12,744 No No
Frederick 12,687 Yes Yes
Fort Morgan 11,281 Yes No
Castle Pines 10,523 No No
Sum of Cities 28 21 6
Percent of Cities 62% 47% 13%


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
41
Appendix G. Colorado Citizen Budget Rubric Scores Summary Table
City Name (Colorado) 2017 Population Introduction Basic Economic Assumptions and Revenue Collection Priorities in Allocations and Spending New Initiatives and Priorities Service Delivery Promoting Understanding Distribution and Feedback Overall Score
Total Possible Score Per Section 6 6 8 4 8 6 3 41
Aurora 366,623 4 5 8 4 2 4 3 30
Boulder 107,125 6 6 8 3 2 4 1 30
Castle Rock 62,276 5 6 8 4 2 3 2 30
Lone Tree 13,566 2 4 8 2 2 3 3 24
Castle Pines 10,523 2 4 6 3 2 3 3 23
Windsor 25,330 1 4 8 1 1 4 3 23
Colorado Springs 464,474 2 4 8 1 0 3 3 21
Commerce City 55,923 0 5 7 2 0 4 3 21
Median Scores 55,923 2 4 7 2 2 3 3 21
Greeley 105,448 1 3 6 2 1 4 3 20
Littleton 47,734 3 5 6 0 0 3 3 20
Denver 704,621 1 2 4 4 2 3 3 19
Golden 20,571 4 2 5 0 2 4 1 18
Englewood 34,407 0 2 4 0 0 2 1 9


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
42
Appendix H. Examples from Peer Cities’ Citizen Budgets This appendix highlights exemplary language or visuals from Colorado citizen budgets analyzed and is used to inform the template for the City of Louisville that is detailed in Appendix
I. It is organized to follow the rubric format and pulls from several different CBs sampled. Introduction
Purpose. Providing an objective statement focuses the purpose of the document.
Figure 1. City of Lone Tree 2018 Budget Overview Purpose Statement
THE CITY OF LONE TREE BELIEVES IN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT
This overview is intended to provide clear and high-level budget information for citizens and businesses. To read the full budget, please visit cityoflonetree.com/budget.
Budget Process. Cities including this section did so through the display of a budget timeline, or language providing a summary of the timeline.
Figure 2. City of Boulder 2018 Budget Process Timeline
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Prior \ Up< li
ear Budg late and Outlo'
ok
Co
Stuc y
moil But Session enue Up< s
id ;et
and
;ate
st Budge iplement^l
Counc i Review Revenue Ballot
t Is II
i
of
and
lues
Op<
Cap
Studi
Co
Heari
• Council
; an 1
a ruling tal Budg t ly Sessio:
* *
incil Bu< tgs and Ffublic Input
d fet
Seconi
Supi
Statutory for Ado >1 Annual
*
d Budge •] ilemental
*
Deadline ting the Budget
Figure 3. City of Littleton 2018 Budget Process Calendar
Budget Process
The budget process for 2018:
9/11/2017 Council Budget Session
9/12/2017 Council Budget Session
9/13/2017 Council Budget Session
10/3/2017 Public Hearing - First Reading for 2018 Appropriation
10/17/2017 Public Hearing - Second Reading for 2018 Appropriation
12/15/2017 Certification of Mill Levy to County Commissioners


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
43
Opportunities for Engagement. Cities included specific meeting times of Citizen Budget Advisory Committees or offered links to learn about opportunities to get involved.
Figure 4.City of Golden Citizen Budget Advisory Committee Meeting Information
CBAC assists the City in its budget planning, and our meetings are open to all citizens. They take place at 7:30 a.m. on the third Wednesday of each month from March through October, and the second Wednesday in November. For further information, call Ben Goldstein at 303-384-8011, or check the City's website at www.citvofgolden.net.
Figure 5. City of Englewood Budget Advisory Committee Meeting Information
We Need Your Voice!
Meeting Times:
Monthly/3rd Tuesday/Civic Center Facebook:
facebook.com/CityofEnglewoodCO
Figure 6. City of Boulder 2018 Citizen Involvement Information
GET INVOLVED!
Good public processes and engagement are essential to fostering an effective and responsive city government, and the budget process is no exception. Throughout the year, there are multiple opportunities and venues for citizens to get involved in the budget process, including City Council meetings, study sessions, as well as advisory board meetings (including, but not limited to, the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, Water Resources Advisory Board, Transportation Advisory Board, and Planning Board). To learn more about the city’s engagement strategic framework and view a calendar of upcoming opportunities to get involved, visit: https: / /bouldercolorado.gov/engage.
We also invite you to connect with us:
Facebook: \
Twitter: (§).bouldercolorado Instagram: @bouldergov
Basic Economic Assumptions and Revenue Collection
Almost all cities sampled provided information on total revenues and the sources of revenue for the municipality. Exemplary cities included information on top revenue sources influencing total revenues, basic economic assumptions used to project revenues, and whether revenues were higher or lower than previously forecasted. Municipalities such as the Town of Castle Rock also highlight the important consideration that increased revenues often coincide
with an increased demand for services.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
44
“The three largest revenue sources for the city are sales and use taxes, debt issuance and utility rate charges. These three funding sources represent 62.1 percent of the total sources of city funds. City of Boulder, Budget in Brief, 2017.
Figure 7. Town of Castle Rock Basic Economic and Revenue Assumptions
• Annual growth in sales tax revenue is included at 6.2 percent over 2017 forecasted figures. Residential growth is expected to continue to be strong, with 700 single-family units and 634 multifamily units budgeted in 2018. While continued development increases demand factors on Town services, it also provides additional resources to enhance quality of life within the community.
Figure 8. City of Windsor Revenue Projections and Economic Assumptions
Property tax projections for 2018 increased 7.8% from those of 2017, and sales tax estimates are 2.7% above 2017 budget.
The 2018 Budget uses a conservative balanced approach to most revenues by averaging the last three years.
Priorities in Allocations and Spending
Cities performed consistently well providing a functional understanding of operational spending and the programs and services it funds. Exemplary cities in this section included information on capital projects, which makes up more than 50 percent of the budget for many cities sampled.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
45
Figure 9. City of Castle Pines Summary of General Fund Services
Figure 10. Colorado Springs Capital Improvement Program Information
Capital Improvements Program
The 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget is primarily funded by restricted funds (approximately 86%), and funds the construction of a number of major capital improvements throughout the City, including various transportation improvements, facility improvements, park projects and IT infrastructure.
The City has a five-year All Funds CIP Plan for $637.7 million in high priority projects. The five-year plan includes projects such as building renovations, road and bridge replacements, multiple stormwater system improvements, and park system maintenance.
2017 All Funds CIP - $145,973,408
General Bike Tax Fund CIP 0.06% 10.47%
Enterprise
7.18%
TOPS
2.71%
New Initiatives and Priorities
IBP notes that most operating budgets represent a continuation of existing policies and programs (2012). Therefore, when new programs or initiatives are added to the budget, these should be highlighted for the citizen. Exemplary cities in this section highlighted new priorities, connected them to overarching city goals, and included the total fiscal impact to citizens.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
46
Figure 11. City and County of Denver New Spending Priorities and Fiscal Impact
MOBILITY
• $3.2M for Vision Zero, including public awareness campaign & multi-modal improvements
• $2.45M to promote a Bike-Friendly Denver
• $2.5M to build sidewalks on city-owed properties
• $6M to expand Denver’s paving services
• $2.5M for Colfax Bus Rapid Transit and the Colfax Corridor improvements
• $500,000 for 47th and York Safe Crossings Study
Service Delivery and KPIs
The results find that cities did not include meaningful KPIs in the CBs. However, this section highlights cities that are communicating KPI information using performance dashboards or communications external to the budget document. The City of Arvada organizes its performance dashboard under broader city goals such as “vibrant neighborhoods”. The Town of Castle Rock does not provide data on all KPIs, but details KPIs of key citizen interest, such as
public safety.
Figure 12. City of Arvada Community Performance Measurement Dashboard
Vibrant Neighborhoods
Connected & Engaged Citizens; Rich Culture; Attainable Housing
Neighborhood
Engagement
100% COMPLETE
Sustainable Arvada -Water
136
Sustainable Arvada -Fleet
59%
DEC-17 ON TARGET


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
47
Figure 13. Town of Castle Rock KPI Detail on Police Response Time to Priority 1 Calls
Response Times
CRPD's goal is to respond to Priority 1 calls - those in which imminent injury, or damage to property, is likely - in 5 minutes, 53 seconds or less. Here's a look at how they've been doing at that goal over the past few years:
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
380
0 Time (total seconds) 0 Time to Beat
5 minutes, 22 seconds
The average Priority 1 response time in 2017 was 5 minutes, 14 seconds, which exceeded the goal of 5 minutes, 53 seconds.
Promoting Understanding
Cities were analyzed for design of the budget document and use of visuals, clarity and accessibility of the document for the non-technical reader, and the inclusion of links or references for opportunities to learn more. Nearly every city producing a CB included visual displays of revenue and spending information. Cities increased citizen accessibility using text-boxes throughout the CB to define or explain technical parts of the budget. Many cities provided a link to the full budget document in the CB and budget office contact information.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
48
Figure 14. Town of Castle Rock Example of Visual Display of Revenue Information
Revenues
There are a number of major revenue sources that fund significant Town services. These include taxes, charges for services, and impact and system development fees.
Sales taxes are levied at 4% for local retail sales and comprise about 26% of total Town revenues. Property taxes, by comparison, make up less than 1% of total Town revenues. Sales taxes provide services such as police, fire, parks, transportation and general government support. Charges for services, meanwhile, provide water, recreation, golf and development services.
h the chart, the lager unlabeted area represents Licences, tines toreteitures, 56,299,514, and the smaller area Investment earnings, $1,129,028
Figure 15. City of Lone Tree Visual Display of Expenditure Information
TOTAL
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL COURT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS ARTS AND CULTURAL PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$ 6,259,081
$ 332,125
$ 1,070,617
$ 7,733,529
$ 4,844,710
$ 3,482,887
$ 462,500
$ 43,248,833
$ 2,620,000
$ 70,054,283
MUNICIPAL COURT
. 0.5%
Figure 16. City of Golden Example ofText Box to Explain Technical Fee
Utilities ^Utility bill fees are^ used strictly for C Water* 6,398,733 9.2%
$10,091,975 utility operations < Wastewater* 2,478,990 3.6%
14.6% and ^capital replacement. 1, Drainage* 1,214,252 1.8%
Distribution and Feedback
CB distribution methods are discussed in the results section. This section highlights exemplary cities at soliciting citizen feedback. The city of Englewood engaged citizen feedback


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
49
by posing specific “questions for the future” to its readers at the end of the CB, and then providing information on how citizens can get involved.
Figure 17. City of Englewood Questions for Citizen Feedback
Questions for the Future
Are citizens willing to support living in a full service city or, as an alternative, regionalize some of services?
How should the City embark on a development campaign to revitalize infrastructure and raise revenue for police and fire?
How can we revitalize our neighborhoods and promote a better quality of life?


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
50
Appendix I. City of Louisville Sample Citizen Budget Template This section outlines a mock CB template for the City of Louisville. It uses data from the adopted 2019-2020 biennial budget, which provides the most recent comprehensive revenue and expenditure information for the template. The document was created using an infographic maker called Venngage (Venngage, 2018). This template incorporates the best practices from peer Colorado municipalities sampled and is meant to be a guide to stimulate ideas for a CB document developed by the City of Louisville.


Cilu of nouiAullle Us
Citizen Budget 2019
This document provides a transparent look at the City of Louisville's 2019-2020 biennial budget. It displays information on city revenues, expenditures and new investments while showing how the City invests its resources to improve the lives of citizens.
2019 Revenue Sources and Trends
------------------------------------\
Sales & Use Tax, 38%
# Charges for Services, 37%
# Other Taxes, 7%
Property Tax, 6%
Intergovernmental Revenue, 6%
# Licenses and Permits, 2%
# Other, 4%
Revenue Trends
The City is in good fiscal health. The General Fund reserve is projected to be $6.7 million in 2019, or 30% of current operating expenditures. This is double the minimum required unrestricted fund balance.
Sales & Use Tax accounts c=p Charges for Services for 38% of City-wide include: water,
Revenues. The municipal " wastewater, recreation,
tax rate is 3.65% Q and solid waste fees
Total Revenues 2019 Adopted
Sales & Use Tax $21,409,160
Charges for Services $20,798,490
Other Taxes $3,668,580
Property Tax $3,301,600
Intergovernmental Revenue $2,979,050
Licenses & Permits $1,362,810
Other $2,285,160
Total Revenues $55,804,850
2019 Budgeted Expenditures By Program
Total Expenditures 2019 Adopted
Utilities $14,080,190
Transportation $10,148,600
Administration & Support Services $7,137,330
Public Safety & Justice $6,971,100
Recreation $6,516,080
Parks $2,499,260
Cultural Services $2,270,220
Community Design $2,172,300
Open Space & Trails $2,094,300
Economic Prosperity $263,770
Debt Service $4,277,560
Total $58,430,710
# Utilities, 24%
Transportation, 17.5%
# Public Safety & Justice, 12% Administration & Support Services, 12%
# Recreation, 11%
Parks, 4.5%
# Open Space & Trails, 4%
Cultural Services, 4%
Community Design, 4%
# Economic Prosperity, 0.5%
# Debt Service, 7%
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
The City's CIP includes expenditures for buildings, land, parks, water and sewer plants, and other commodities of a significant value that have a useful life of several years. The planning period for the City’s CIP is 6 years. The expenditures for the first year of the program are incorporated into the current year's budget.
The City invested $14 million in 2019 capital projects including:
Street Resurfacing Traffic Signal
Improvements at Key
A
8
Pedestrian Intersections
Click here to view the full version of the City of Louisville 2019-2020 Biennial Budget


Louisville's Performance
The City of Louisville's mission is to provide basic municipal services in a cost-effective manner and maintain the qualities that make Louisville unique. The City measures its performance toward acheiving this mission by using Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in ten program areas. KPIs from each of the program areas are outlined below.
Transportation
50%
of Louisville residents find snow removal to be "excellent or good" Target: 100%
Utilities
91%
of Louisville residents find the water quality to be "excellent or good" Target: 100%
Public Safety & Justice
139
*
City of Louisville crime rate for Part 1 and Part 2 crimes Target: 129
Parks
4 out of 0 Adequacy of Parks in 2018 based on professional review Target: 4
Cultural Services
%
Open Space & Trails
*. 16
Number of trail connections or crossings remaining to be completed Target: 22
68%
of residents find the opportunities to participate in special events and community activities to be "exellent or good" Target: 80%
e
Community Design
4 out of 5
"Ease of Walking" rating based on City Council & Planning Commission evaluation Target: 4.5
Recreation
8,255
7,026
L
2017 2018
1,229
New youth recreation program participants from 2017 to 2018 Target: 13,000
Economic Prosperity
7%
Vacancy rate for retail space in Louisville Target: 15%
Administration & Support Services
78%
^ of residents find the overall performance of the ^ Louisville City Government to be "excellent or good" Target: 100%
Get Involved!
Engagement is essential to building a responsive City government. Citizens can get involved in the budget process by participating in City Council and advisory board meetings and visiting the City's engagement site www.EngageLouisvilleCO.org
City Council Meetings: Every 1st and 3rd Tuesday at 7 PM at Louisville City Hall, 749 Main St.
Check the City's website at
www.LouisvilleCO.gov for the most up-to-date meeting information and upcoming meeting adgendas
Contact:
749 Main St., Louisville, CO 80027 (303)666-6565 Mon.- Fri. 8:30 am - 4:30 pm
lnfo@LouisvilleCO.gov
Have suggestions on how to make this document better? Please reach out to us.


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
53
Appendix J. Master of Public Administration Competencies
1. To Lead and Manage in Public Governance
This project focused on the public manager’s role in increasing fiscal transparency and government accountability and engaging citizens in the budget process. This requires understanding the unique role of the budget in public management and understanding and balancing the definition of effective participation from the perspective of both public administrators and citizens.
Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5001- Introduction to Public Administration and Public Service; PUAD 5002—Organizational Management and Behavior; PUAD 5006—Public Service Leadership; PUAD 5625—Local Government Management; PUAD 5626 Local Government Politics and Policy; and PUAD 6600 Colorado State Politics.
2. To Participate and Contribute to the Public Policy Process
This project focused on increasing the accessibility of the budget document for citizens. Central to the project was the ability to understand and apply the tools for engaging citizens in the policy process. This project required the understanding that informing citizens ranks low on Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation and required thoughtfulness around policy recommendations to build a framework for increased citizen participation in the budget process.
Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5001—Introduction to Public Administration and Public Service; PUAD 5005—Policy Process and Democracy; PUAD 5625 Local Government Management; PUAD 5626 Local Government Politics and Policy; and PUAD 5628—Urban Social Problems.
3. To Analyze, Synthesize, Think Critically, Solve Problems, and Make Decisions


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
54
Research on the landscape of Citizen Budgets and communication of key performance indicators in Colorado, and best practices from the literature required proficiency in understanding and navigating social science research methods. Additionally, this project required a competent understanding of public budgets and public finance to be able to analyze and evaluate CBs and KPIs across Colorado and synthesize them into a budget template example for the City of Louisville.
Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5003—Research and Analytic Methods; PUAD 5008—Evidence-Based Decision Making; and PUAD 5503—Public Budgeting and Finance.
4. To Articulate and Apply a Public Service Perspective
The purpose of this project was to assist the City of Louisville in becoming more transparent and accountable to its citizens. This mission aligns with public service values, integrity in governance, and advancing government transparency and accountability. The Citizen Budget and communication of KPIs directly aligns with the public service perspective of actively involving citizens in democratic governance.
Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5001—Introduction to Public Administration and Public Service; PUAD 5006—Public Service Leadership; PUAD 5625— Local Government Management; PUAD 5628—Urban Social Problems; PUAD 6600—Colorado State Politics.
5. To Communicate and Interact Productively with a Diverse and Changing Workforce and Citizenry
The goal of this project was to develop a way to communicate technical budget information to a diverse group of citizens to include additional diverse perspectives in the City of


BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET
55
Louisville’s budget process. This project required the ability to understand and distill scholarly literature on citizen participation and performance measures in budgeting, as well as practitioner literature on best practices in communicating budget information. It required the ability to analyze and evaluate budget information for municipalities across Colorado and synthesize the data in a way that effectively communicates budget information in a template that is accessible to a diverse group of citizens.
Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5001—Introduction to Public Administration; PUAD 5003—Research and Analytic Methods; PUAD 5005—Policy Process and Democracy; and PAUD 5503 Public Budgeting and Finance.


School of Public Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER
Form Name: Submission Time: Browser:
IP Address: Unique ID: Location:
capstone repository permission December 27, 2018 4:55 pm Mozilla rv:11.0 / Windows 199.127.132.134 465494647
39.913398742676, -105.00749969482
Description Area
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY
Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library
Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for on- and off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817
Grant of Permissions
Description Area In reference to the following title(s):
Author (Student Name) Kathleen Quinn
Title (Capstone Project Title) Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville
Publication Date Fall 2018
I am the: Client
Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.


Description Area
This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image-and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software.
This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit.
Signature
Your Name /â–  / i t 1 / ^ Emily Hogan
Date 12/27/18
Email Address ^â– 
ATTENTION
Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Libraryl 100 Lawrence | Denver, CO
80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817


School of Public Affairs
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER
Form Name: Submission Time: Browser:
IP Address: Unique ID: Location:
capstone repository permission December 21, 2018 1:53 pm Chrome 71.0.3578.98 / Windows 165.127.116.92 464642207
39.742698669434, -105.11869812012
Description Area
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY
Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library
Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for on- and off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817
Grant of Permissions
Description Area In reference to the following title(s):
Author (Student Name) Kathleen Quinn
Title (Capstone Project Title) Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville
Publication Date 11/29/2018
I am the: Author (student)
Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.


Description Area
Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate image-and text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit.
Signature
Your Name Kathleen Quinn
Date 12/21/2018
Email Address
ATTENTION
Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to:
Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Libraryl 100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817


Full Text

PAGE 1

Running h ead: BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville Kathleen Quinn University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs Fall 2018

PAGE 2

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET II Capstone Project Disclosure This client based project was completed on behalf t he City of Louisville and supervised by PUAD 5361 Capstone course instructor C hristine Martell, PhD and second faculty reader Pamela Medina, PhD . This project does not necessarily reflect the views of the School of Public Affairs or the faculty readers. Raw data were not inc luded in this document, rather relevant materials were provided directly to the client. Permissions to include this project in the Auraria Library Digital Repository are found in the final appendix . Questions about this capstone project should be directed to the student author.

PAGE 3

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET II Acknowledgements The capstone project is aptly named as it is the cumulation of two years of education, work, and study within the Master of Public Administration program. My experience in the program has been transformative and I have several people to whom I owe my gratitude. First, I would like to thank the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver for putting together a rigorous and practical program. The faculty in this program are innovative in their teaching methods and inspire their students to ask questions of the status quo and become outstanding public servants in their commun ity. Thank you to Dr. Martell, to who I owe much of my personal and professional development in this program. Thank you for sparking my interest in public finance and fueling it by offering several opportunities for career growth. I am lucky to finish the program with a passion and focus for a career local government finance, and that is thanks to you. Thanks to Dr. Medina, my second reader for this paper. Your courses taught me the importance of public participation and providing for true citizen voice in the public policy process. Thank you for the energy you bring to teaching and the care you show for each of your students. Additionally, thank you to the City of Louisville, for your interest in increasing citizen engagement in government, and for your helpful feedback and willingness to work with me through this process. As a Louisville resident, I feel honored to work with you in this capacity. Finally, thank you to my family for their constant support and encouragement to pursue higher education. A special thanks to my fiancé, Connor, who has been patient, supportive, and kept me smiling through the most challenging parts of the program.

PAGE 4

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 4 Executive Summary Citizen participation in the budget process increases citizen trust in government and perceived government performance. While the public budget document is a tool for government transparency and accountability to citizens, it is often so technical and complex that it becomes difficult for the ordinary citizen to understand how budgetary decisions connect to community outcomes. The City of Louisville is seeking to increase citizen interest and engagement in the budget process by developing and disseminating a Citizen Budget (CB ) and communicating key performance indicators (KPIs) to citizens. The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of best practices from the literature on developing a CB and communicating KPIs and its impact on citizen participation and perception of government performance. The study then turns to the current budget engagement landscape in Colorado and seeks to answer the following questions: to what extent do Colorado municipalities demonstrate best practices of both CBs and KPIs? What can Louisville learn from peer municipalities about CBs and KPIs? The study sampled 45 mid size to large cities in Colorado and found that more than half of these cities use some form of budget transparency tool, and 13 of these cities produce a Citizen Budget external to the budget document. The researcher developed a rubric to evaluate best practices in each of the 13 cities producing a CB, and these best practices informed a sample CB template for the City of Louisville. Additionally, this research reviewed the communication of KPIs across Colorado municipalities. While 62 percent of cities sampled use KPIs in budget decisions, only six cities, or 13 percent make efforts to communicate these measures in a meaningful way for citizens.

PAGE 5

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 5 The study found that while the Colorado municipalities sampled excel at displaying revenue and expenditure information in a way that promotes understanding, they exhibit much weaker performance in providing information about the purpose of the document, the budget process, or opportunities for citizen engagement. Additionally, while a majority of Colorado municipalities are using KPIs to improve internal decision making and performanc e, very few cities are sharing this information in a meaningful way with citizens. The study informed the following recommendations for the City of Louisville: 1) Communication using a CB and KPIs is the first step of a larger participatory framework. 2) Make KPIs interesting to citizens by providing information on government responsiveness or benchmarking to neighboring jurisdictions or national standards of performance. 3) Citizens are the intended audience for CBs. Therefore, soliciting and incorporating citizen perspectives and feedback is vital to the effectiveness. 4) be afraid to lead. Harnessed with the information in the report that follows, the City of Louisville has a unique opportunity to become an exemplary model of citizen engageme nt in the budget process for Colorado . Other than being an inherent characteristic of good democratic governance, efforts to increase citizen engagement and understanding of the budget process is a worthwhile practice that leads to increased citizen trust, higher perceived levels of government performance, greater citizen satisfaction with new policies and programs, and better outcomes for the community.

PAGE 6

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 6 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. ii Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... iv Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville .............. 1 The Budget Docume nt ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 Current Practices in the City of Louisville ................................ ................................ ...... 2 Literature Review ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 4 The Purpose of a Citizen Budget ................................ ................................ .................... 4 A Citizen Budget Defined. ................................ ................................ .......................... 5 Why Encourage Citizen Participation in Budgeting? ................................ ...................... 5 What is Effective Citizen Participation? ................................ ................................ ......... 6 Key Performance Indicators in Budgeting ................................ ................................ ...... 8 Why Do Cities Measure Performance? ................................ ................................ ........... 9 How do Cities Communicate KPIs to Citizens? ................................ ........................... 10 What are Best Practices in Developing and Distributing Citizen Budgets? .................. 12 Dev eloping a Citizens Budget ................................ ................................ ....................... 12 Parts of a Citizen Budget ................................ ................................ ............................... 12 How are Performance Outcomes Included in Citizen Budgets? ................................ ... 13 Importance of Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 14 Distribution and Feedback ................................ ................................ ............................ 14

PAGE 7

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 7 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 15 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15 Sampling Method ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 16 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 17 V a lidi t y a nd R e li a bili t y ................................ ................................ ................................ . 17 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 18 Colorado Municipalities Using CBs and Communicating KPIs to Citizens ................. 18 Use of Best Practices in CBs and Communication of KPIs ................................ .......... 19 What Can the City of Louisville Learn from Other Colorado Municipalities? ............. 20 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 23 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 24 Limitations and Future Research ................................ ................................ ................... 25 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 26 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 27 Appendix A. Ladder of Citizen Participation ................................ ................... 33 Appendix B. Concept Map of a Citizen Budget and Citizen Participation ....................... 34 Appendix C. List of Colorado Cities Included in Sample ................................ ................. 35 Appendi x D. Citizen Budget Evaluation Rubric ................................ ............................... 36 Appendix E. Colorado Budget Transparency Tools Summary Table ....................... 38

PAGE 8

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 8 Appendix F. Colorado Use of KPIs in Budgeting Summary Table .......................... 40 Appendix G. Colorado Citizen Budget Rubric Scores Summary Table ............................... 41 Appendix H. Examples from Peer Citizen Budgets ................................ ............... 42 Appendix I. City of Louisville Sample Ci tizen Budget Template ................................ ....... 50 Appendix J. Master of Public Administration Competencies ................................ ............ 53

PAGE 9

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 1 Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville Citizen participation in the budget process increases citizen trust in government, the perceived performance of government entities, and citizen acceptance of new policies and programs (Yang and Holzer, 2006; Berner, Amos, and Morse, 2011). The technical nature and complexity of the budget document limits citizen engagement. How do municipalities make the budget document more accessible to the public? This paper addresses an initiative from the City of Louisville, Colorado, City Office to create a condensed budget document for a citizen audience and increase the connection between the budget process and citizen priorities and outcomes. The City wou ld also like to learn how to more effectively communicate its performance measures and program budget information in a way that is accessible to the public. The Budget Document The budget document contains important information on the allocation of taxpayer resources and the priorities in funding programs and service delivery. It is a way for government to be accountable to citizens and transparent about resource allocation. Budget documents are technical and complex instruments used to present a comprehensive financial program. The document in its standard form is written for the internal use of government and is difficult for the ordinary citizen to engage with or understand. If citizens are unable to understand the m aterials presented in a municipal budget, it limits the accountability and transparency the document provides. Therefore, local governments are taking actions to connect the budget document to citizen outcomes through performance based budgeting and increased citizen participation in the budget. For many municipalities this takes the form of increased citizen education and outreach

PAGE 10

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 2 through citizen budgets, surveys, citizen budget advisory committees, and enhanced relationships with neighborhood stakeholder groups (Institute for Local Government, 2010). Current Practices in the City of Louisville The City of Louisville is a mid size city Front Range with a population of about 21,000 (United States Census Bureau, 2018). It is a council manager city that recognizes the importance of citizens understanding how the budget connects to city priorities and the provision of service delivery. The City has made steps to increase citizen participation in governance. In 1990, the City of Louisville began to host a citizen survey every four years to gain direct feedback on government performance and citizen preference for new and existing programs. In 2015, the City Office reorganized the budget with a goal of making it for the public to understand where the City invests their taxes and fees to provide the specific services they (City of Louisville, 2016, p. 3). This change requi red a significant amount of staff effort, and shifted the budget from allocating funding by department, to allocating funding by service areas, or The City of Louisville organizes its budget by ten major program areas and 41 sub programs. Each sub program has objectives and a series of key performance indicators (KPIs) that measure the performance of the subprogram. The KPIs are organized into three categories: workload, efficiency, and effectiveness. The City Office hopes that these indicators will also it easier for the City Council to evaluate how efficiently and effectively [the city] is using those resources to achieve the stated objectives of the sub (City of Louisville, 2016, p. 3). The City of Louisville has a history of striving for excellence in budgeting. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has awarded the City the Distinguished

PAGE 11

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 3 Budget Presentation Award 29 times. This award recognizes state and local governments that prepare budget documents of the highest quality and reflect the guidelines established by the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (GFOA, 2018b). Additionally, the 2016 City of Citizen Survey revealed that about 90 percent of residents felt that the overall quality of City services was excellent or good, and 75 percent of citizens felt that the overall performance of the City government was excellent or good. These responses were ranked as to when compar ed to national and Front Range benchmarks (National Research Center, 2016). The City Office is interested in creating a supplementary budget document to make its budget more accessible to citizens. It would like to communicate that the budget reflects citizen priorities and connects the key performance indicators to positive outcomes in the City. The City is looking to answer the following questions: To what extent do other Colorado municipalities demonstrate best practices of both Citizen Budg ets (CBs) and communication of key performance indicators (KPIs)? What can Louisville learn from peer municipalities about CBs and KPIs? This study includes a review of the current literature on the impacts of citizen participation and performance measures in the municipal budget process, and best practices in developing and disseminating a CB. A review of the literature considers the following questions: What is the purpose of Citizen Budgets? What can the City learn about key performance indicators in budgeting? To what extent and in what ways do CBs report KPIs? What are best practices of developing and disseminating CBs? Best practices informed by the literature will then be compared to current practices in peer municipalities that publish CBs across Colorado. This research informs a template for the City of Louisville to use when developing a CB with the

PAGE 12

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 4 goals of increasing citizen knowledge of the budget, its connection to government performance, and ultimately increasing citizen participation in the budget process. Literature Review The development and distribution of a Citizen Budget including KPIs crosses between academic literature on the benefits of increased participation in the budget process, and practitioner guidance on b est practices and implementation. This literature review first considers the purpose of CBs and performance measures, the outcomes of including citizen participation and performance measures in the budget process, and the definition of participation. The review then pivots to the practical application and current best practices in developing and disseminating a CB and ideas for the communication of KPIs to citizens. The Purpose of a Citizen Budget The budget document is produced as a method of government accountability for taxpayer resources. It is a record of how public taxes, fees, and resources are prioritized by the government for use in programs and service delivery (International Budget Partnership, 2012). This adopted budget is made public to increase the transparency and accountability to its citizens, but often this document is so technical and complex, that it is not useful to the ordinary citizen. A citizen budget document provides an opportunity for the government to explain its budget, and how it connects to citizen priorities in a way that is understood by the broader society (Petrie and Shields, 2010).

PAGE 13

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 5 A Citizen Budget Defined. A citizen budget is a document produced by the government external to the primary budget document, that includes significant information about the enacted or proposed budget complied in a way that can be broadly understood by and disseminated to the ordinary citizen (IBP, 2012; Petrie and Shields, 2010). The citizen budget is meant to serve as a to the budget process and provide opportunities for citizens to follow up with the government and learn more (IBP, 2012). In practice a CB is also called, a budget in brief, budget overview, or budget at a glanc e. Making the budget document easier to understand is considered a best practice within the United States and internationally. The National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (NACSLB), GFOA, International Monetary Fund, International Budget Partnership (IBP) and Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) all cite the development and dissemination of a citizen budget summary as important to increasing budget transparency and accountability to citizens. IBP (2012) characterize s a citizen budget as part of a broader policy. Additionally, the OECD discusses three levels of interaction between government and citizens: informing, consulting, and actively participating (Gramberger, 2001) These three tiers of citizen participation build on each other. A citizen budget is the first step to increased citizen participation and engagement with the budgeting process. Why Encourage Citizen Participation in Budgeting? There is consensus on the positive outc omes generated by increased citizen involvement in government, though scholars do not agree on the most effective mechanisms to elicit participation in the budget process (Ebdon and Franklin, 2006). budget process identifies and establishes priorities for a community, and it is critical that citizens communicate with public managers and elected officials to let them know what matters most, what services are redundant,

PAGE 14

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 6 what services are no longer needed, and what new issues need (Callahan, 2002, p. 298). Thomas (1995) finds that citizen involvement in the decision making process usually increases the acceptance of decisions and the likelihood of successful implementation. Broad use of participation strategies is associated with lower citizen cynicism towards government (Berman, 1997). purposes such as education, gaining support, and influencing decisions still increase citizen knowledge and engagement with the process (2006). Finally, Berner, Amos, and Morse (2011) argue that citizen participation in democracy is an inherent good, and therefore public administration should focus on advancing effective participation. Additionally, the literature addresses the impact of performance measur es in budgeting on the level of citizen satisfaction. Yang and Holzer (2006) link performance measurement to improved citizen perceptions of government performance. Labeling it the trust they discuss an spiral of trust more resources excellent perceived government performance higher (p. 114). There are several positive outcomes of increased citizen engagement in the budget process, but what methods of participation are most effective? What is Effective Citizen Participation? Berner, et al. (2011) find that the definition of participation varies across stakeholder groups. Elected officials view effective citizen participation as voting and providing input when asked, city staff or practitioners view effective citizen participation as requiring education as a prerequisite for citizen involvement, and citizens define effective participation as being viewed as rather (p. 155). These definitions of effective

PAGE 15

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 7 participation mirror ladder of citizen participation and range from degrees of tokenism to degrees of citizen power (1969). (1969) ladder of citizen participation provided the lens through which many public administration scholars view participation today. It is described as a ladder with non participatory methods indirectly involving citizens at the bottom, and direct citizen involvement in decision making at the top. The image of the ladder (included in Appendix A) evokes the ide a that government can build on existing participation strategies to increase citizen power. Based on definition of citizen participation, a citizen budget would be defined as of tokenism, it falls on the As Arnstein describes, citizens of their rights, responsibilities, and options can be the most important first step toward legitimate citizen (p. 219). This echoes three levels of interaction between government and citizen s: informing, consulting, and actively participating (Gramberger, 2001). A CB fits with the definition of but as Arnstein illustrates, this falls on the third rung from the bottom of the ladder of citizen participation (1969). Citizen participation in the budget process can take several forms. This can include budget education, surveys, establishing a citizen budget advisory committee, hearings, or interactions with community stakeholders (Institute for Loc al Government, 2010). One of the most common methods of citizen participation in the budget process is the public hearing, which is statutorily required for cities in 40 states (Berner and Smith, 2004). While budget directors find that these hearings are a more effective form of citizen participation, other studies have found that the public budget hearing does not solicit meaningful public input, and the timing of the hearing near the adoption of the budget limits citizen power (Hatcher, 2015; King, Feltey , and Sussel, 1998; Ebdon and Franklin, 2006).

PAGE 16

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 8 Increased citizen participation is often viewed as costly, time consuming, and an added burden for city administrators (Mitchell, 1997). It must balance with increased staff workload and additional resource allocation (Callahan, 2002). Therefore, defining a purpose and outcomes for additional citizen engagement in the budget process is critical to success. Berner and Smith (2004) outline two main goals of citizen participation: inform and involve. The important consideration for governments is not to stop at informing, but to use information and communication tools to secure participation from citizens until they become more engaged in the actual decision making (Berner an d Smith, 2004, p. 141). CBs and KPIs are two informing tools that when used correctly can help governments to climb the ladder of citizen participation and increase government performance (Arnstein, 1969). Informed citizens know how and when to engage in the budget process and feel empowered to participate in a consulting or partnership role. Key Performance Indicators in Budgeting Key performance indicators (KPIs) are another budgeting tool which has gained popularity for its ability to connect government performance to citizen priorities. KPIs were popularized as early as 1911, through Fredrick time and motion studies to improve worker efficiencies. This practice gained traction in the public sector during the m ovement of the 1990s led by Osborne and Gaebler (1992) and the National Performance Review initiatives at the federal level (Kong, 2005). During the past two decades, measuring KPIs has grown dramatically at the local government level (Ammons, 2013). The increasing popularity of the collection of KPIs in budgeting is a recommended best practice for governments. GFOA and the National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting recommend for results and as principles for effective budg eting

PAGE 17

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 9 (GFOA, 2009; NACSLB, 1998). Kluver (2001) finds that approximately 77 percent of U.S. cities report using performance measurement in budgeting with few reported instances of having tried [this budgeting practice] but subsequently dropped (p. 32). Kong (2005) defines performance budgeting in its broadest sense as reform that attempts to incorporate performance measures in the budget (p. 93). This includes any budgeting system that forgoes the traditional line item or departmental approach and includes: based budgeting, performance budgeting, outcomes based budgeting, results based budgeting, program and priority based budgeting (Kong, 2005, p. 93). Why Do Cities Measure Performance? The fundamental reason that governments develop and track key performance indicators (KPIs) is to improve performance (Behn, 2003). Behn (2003) finds that improvement underpins the purpose of all performance measurement at the local government level, other than its purpose of and increase[d] communications (p. 588). Scholars have studied the impact of KPIs on management decisions at the department and program level, appropriations decisions, and the pu perceived trust in government, and have found mixed results (Ho, 2011; Kluvers, 2001, Melkers and Willoughby, 2005). Incremental budgeting makes appropriation levels Ho (2011) and Kluvers (2001) argue that the use of performance measurement in budgeting has little impact on legislative appropriations decisions, but provides flexibility and information to budget officers, department heads, and program managers about how financial resources are best prioritized within an existing ap propriation to improve performance outcomes. Melkers and Willoughby (2005) find that the use of KPIs in budgeting fosters a new attitude toward planning and are essential to managerial decisions and effective in communicating lasting impacts of the budget.

PAGE 18

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 10 Performance measurement also serves the purpose of promoting agency actions and communicating program value and accomplishments to citizens (Behn, 2003). Yang and Holzer (2004) find a positive link between the use of performance measurement perceptions of government performance. However, Glaser and Denhardt (2000) and Berman (1997) find that citizen perception of government performance is highly subjective and impacted broader economic and social conditio ns outside of the locus of municipal control. Glaser asserts that of equity and responsiveness are far more critical of affecting the level of trust in rather than reporting on improved cost effectiveness of service delivery (p. 66). When local governments are considering the purpose of communicating KPIs, the types of measures tracked matter, as well as how they are communicated. How do Cities Communicate KPIs to Citizens? Cities use KPIs to provide value to three audiences: public managers, elected officials, and citizens (Ammons, 1995). Performance measures provide insights and inform public decisions, and facilitate legislative oversight of the budget (Ho, 2011). Efforts to use KPIs to appeal to citizens have been less effective. Ammons (1995) offers a revolutionary strategy to communicate performance measures to the public, he suggests to performance measurement (p. 43). Behn (2003) provides an illustrative example of (1995) assertion by considering a state division of motor vehicles (DMV). He states that the vehicle safety, and its outputs in pursuit of this goal are vehicle and driver inspections. most citizens think about their division of motor vehicles, however, what is their greatest care? Answer: How long they will have to stand (p. 595). Behn (2003) finds that in is the relevant KPI to garner public interest and increase public perception of government

PAGE 19

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 11 performance in this agency. KPIs may need to be different than the ones reported for internal agency decision making, to become meaningful for citizen engagement. This finding echoes the work of Glaser and Denhardt (2000) who find that citizen perceptions of government perfor mance are driven by equity and responsiveness. Glaser and Denhardt (2000) define responsiveness as, trust that government can be counted on to listen to citizens and be trusted to honor citizen values by action on what (p. 65). KPIs that reflect government responsiveness are immediately relevant and interesting to citizens. When using KPIs to communicate government performance with citizens, the type of measure and its presentation matters. Ammons (1995) finds that while 77 percent of cities report using KPIs in budgeting, only 23 percent collect measures of efficiency, and only 13 percent collect measures of effectiveness. Measures of efficiency and effectiveness are order which answer the important questions of and rather than simply (Ammons, 2013; Ammons, 1995, p. 42). Additionally, presenting KPIs relative to a national benchmark or cross jurisdictional comparison makes these measures more interesting to citizens. While knowing the public library in Loveland, Colorado circulates 467,179 items per year may not capture citizens attention, citizens may be interested in knowing public library is in the upper quartile for circulation (Ammons, 1995, p. 43). The literature finds that communication of KPIs to citizens can increase citizen trust in government, but that the types of KPIs that are important to citizens may differ from the types of KPIs important to public managers and the city council. KPIs are interesting to citizens when it is presented in a way that can draw comparisons to national or cross jurisdictional benchmarks, and considers questions of government responsiveness, equity, and effectiveness.

PAGE 20

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 12 What are Best Practices in Developing and Distributing Citizen Budgets? While scholars of public administration are vocal on the outcomes of increased citizen participation in the budget process, the literature related to best practices for development and distribution of the CB is limited (Berner et al., 2011; Berman, 1997, Arnstein, 1969). Local governments often look to their peers for guidance in developing and disseminating a CB. Developing a Citizens Budget When developing a CB, local governments must consider the purpose and the audience. The purpose of a CB is to increase budget accessibility and engagement and to connect programs and service delivery to community outcomes. The intended audience is the ordinary citizen within a given municipality. Citizen input to the develo pment process helps to ensure the information will be useful to the intended audience and not simply thrown away or ignored (Gramberger, 2001). Therefore, feedback informed by citizen surveys or communication with citizens about the CB is important for its future iterations. The Institute for Local Governments (IGL) (2010) also cites the importance of inclusiveness in developing a CB including the use of translated materials if a significant portion of the residents have limited English skills. Parts of a Citizen Budget Best practices place citizen input as the of CB development. This helps to ensure that the document will be accessible and considered useful by its intended audience. However, Petrie and Shepard (2010) find that CBs should contain a of information and several practitioner resources agree on this basic skeleton (Petrie and Shepard, 2010; IBP 2012; GFOA, 2018). This structure is outlined in Table 1.

PAGE 21

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 13 Table 1. Best Practice Outline of a Citizen Budget Best Practice Outline of a Citizen Budget Parts of the Citizen Budget Description Introduction The objective in publishing the guide and a brief description of the budget process, including opportunities for citizen participation. Basic economic assumptions and revenue collection Describes the economic outlook and expected revenue collection. This details the major revenue sources and anticipated collection trends in a visual way that readers can relate to. This section can also contain information about special revenue sources. Priorities in allocations and spending Provides a functional understanding of how government revenues are used, and the major program areas for operational spending. Local governments can also choose to include information on capital budgets and debt in this section. New initiatives and priorities Most revenue and expenditures reflect a continuation of existing policies and (IBP, 2012, p. 32). Any new programs, initiatives, or revenue sources should be highlighted with estimates of the total fiscal impact and contributions to meeting government and objectives. Improving delivery of services This section is an opportunity to highlight performance objectives and information on KPIs. This will link performance measures to service delivery and citizen outcomes. Promoting Understanding Practitioners recommend displaying CB information in a non technical way that promotes understanding for the ordinary citizen. This includes defining technical budget terms, using visuals to convey complex data, providing links throughout the document for opportunities to learn more about specific topics. Contact information for follow up b y citizens This relates to the use of the CB as a for citizens to become more involved with the budget process. This should include information about how to find additional information, provide feedback, and ask questions. This should include both internet and non internet options for increased accessibility to citizens. How are Performance Outcomes Included in Citizen Budgets? KPIs displaying key areas of citizen spending interest are recommended for inclusion in CBs for governments that have the capacity to collect and display this information. The literature is relatively silent on best practices for the communication of KPIs to the public. Washington

PAGE 22

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 14 Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) fills this gap by gathering national examples of municipal displays of KPIs. It is most common for cities to display this information separately from the Citizen Budget in a format (MRSC, 2018). These dashboards typically highlight a key goals and objectives, what the city is doing in these service areas, and if they are on track for meeting those goals. Performance indicators are displayed in a variety of methods. Often, they are organized by a larger goal such as or Many cities display individual performance objectives using a stoplight pattern of green, yellow, and red for: goal met, on track, and needs improvement. Importance of Design reveal (Tufte, 2001, p. 1). The use of visuals helps to encourage engagement. Tufte describes that in statistical graphics consists of complex ideas communicated with clarity, precision, and (2001, p. 1). For this reason, the use of strong visual design is important to understanding of the data in the CB. Stephens (2011) review of budget publications in North municipalities found the average CB is two pages long. While the appropriate length of a CB is not defined in the literature, two pages encourages governments to be concise and communicate relevant information efficiently, which increases accessibility to citizens. Distribution and Feedback To make the CB available to all citizens, the medium of dissemination is an important consideration. Distributing the document in print form through mailings or a municipal newsletter ensures the information is available to a broad demographic of residents (ILG, 2010). Additionally, including it on the government website makes the information accessible year

PAGE 23

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 15 round and allows for the inclusion of hyperlinks to additional budget information, acting as a to increased citizen learning and engagement with the budget process (IBP, 2012). Finally, timing is important. The CB is intended to be a citizen guide or summary of the adopted budget. Therefore, it should be released to the public around the time of the adopted or proposed budget. When the CB is released many months after the budget document, it becomes less relevant to citizens, and there are less opportunities for follow up and feedback on the budget or CB with elected officials and administrators. (Petrie and Shields, 2010). Methodology Research Questions Previous studies on citizen participation and performance management in budgeting have focused on the outcomes of increased participation (Berman, 1997; Callahan, 2002; Melkers and Willoughby, 2005; Heikkila and Roussin, 2007; Ho, 2011; Hatcher, 2015). There is a gap in the literature about the process of developing and distributing CBs. The City of Louisville is seeking guidance on how to better communicate its budget to citizens, in order to connect the budget to actions the City is taking to improve quality of life. For these questions, the City usually looks to its C olorado peers. To what extent do Colorado municipalities demonstrate best practices of both CBs and the communication of KPIs to citizens? What can Louisville learn from other municipalities in this area of budgeting? Research Design The research questions are addressed using qualitative methods of content analysis of Colorado municipalities CBs and communication of KPIs. Additionally, Colorado municipalities distributing CBs were called and interviewed about dissemination practices until the researcher reached a saturation point. CBs and budget documents were examined to understand the extent to

PAGE 24

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 16 which Colorado municipalities are using best practices informed by the literature. Appendix B features a concept map on the budget process and the role that this research plays in development of the citizen budget. Sampling Method The researcher collected primary data using a purposive sampling method. This sampling method is based on the judgement about which units wil l be most useful or (Babbie, 2014, p. 187). Based on guidance from the City of Louisville, the sample was drawn from peer municipalities in Colorado. The researcher identified 45 Colorado cities with a 2017 population greater than 10,000. Cities with a population less than 10,000 were excluded from this study because it is unlikely that these municipalities have adequate resources to produce CBs and KPIs comparable to larger municipalities. The cities included in this sample range in size f rom the City of Castle Pines with a 2017 population of 10,523 to the City of Denver with a 2017 population of 704,621 (U.S. Census, 2018). The cities included in this sample exhibit both council manager forms of government, like the City of Louisville, and mayor council forms of government. Counties and special districts are excluded from this analysis because these entities have different budget structures and provide services outside the scope of municipalities. The researcher reviewed the budget websites and adopted 2018 budgets for of each of the 45 Colorado cities. This was done to determine if the city publishes a CB external to the budget document, and the extent to which cities use and report KPIs in budgeting. Thirteen of the sampled cities produce a CB separate from the main budget and post it publicly on the website. These are the municipalities that are included in the CB analysis. A full list of cities sampled organized by population size is detailed in Appendix C.

PAGE 25

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 17 Data Analysis To evaluate the use of best practices in citizen budgets, the unit of analysis is each CB document. The researcher developed criteria to evaluate each CB and a rubric to standardize the assessment. The criteria are informed by best practices in the literature review. The criteria and rubric are detailed in Appendix D. The researcher completed a separate analysis to determine the extent to which Colorado municipalities use and report KPIs in budgeting. The unit of analysis was th e 2018 adopted budget for each municipality in the sample. The researcher reviewed each budget document for the use of KPIs (workload, efficiency, or effectiveness measures). Cities were placed into three categories. The first category determined if the city referenced the use of performance measures in budgeting. The second category determined if the city reported KPI information in the 2018 adopted budget. The third category recorded cities that communicate KPIs external to the budget document. This information is summarized in Appendix F. Validity and Reliability V a lidi t y and reliability are important for the study to build on existing research and provide applicable recommendations to the intended audience. The validity of a measure consists of two components: internal and external validity. Internal validity can also be understood as the accuracy the extent to which it captures the concept it seeks to investigate (Orcher, 2016). This study examines Colorado current CBs and communication of KIPs to citizens to measure whether it demonstrates best practices outlined in the practitioner literature. The analysis exhibits a high level of internal validity. External validity is the level to which the results are generalizable to different populations and contexts, other than those observed for research. The purposive sampling method limits the

PAGE 26

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 18 generalizability, but this study is still informative to small to mid size municipalities both wit hin Colorado and across the United States. It is reasonable to assume that municipalities of a similar size in the United States have similar resources and budgeting practices when developing a CB. This study is not generalizable to cities with populations much larger than 700,000, smaller than 10,000, or other forms of local government that may employ different budgeting methodologies, but the concepts developed around citizen engagement in budgeting are relevant to all forms of government . This study is also limited in its generalizability because the sample excludes cities that do not post their CB online, or cities that include the CB within the larger budget document. The focus of the study is on budget accessibility to citizens, and therefore focused on cities that publish these documents online and external to the larger budget document. However, this is a limitation to the data that must be considered within the context of the results. The researcher found that at least four cities include a budget summary within the larger budget document, and these cities are noted in Appendix E. The reliability of a research design is defined as a particular technique, applied repeatedly to the same object yields the same result each (Babbie, 2001, p. 140). The rubric and document analysis process enhance the research reliability. However, the analysis is inherently subjective, and the reliability could be improved by performing a test of inter coder reliability when reviewing the budget documents. Results Colorado Municipalities Using CBs and Communicating KPIs to Citizens Of the 45 Colorado cities included in the sample, 13 cities, or 29 percent of the sample, developed and distributed a Citizen Bud get external to the main budget document. Twenty three

PAGE 27

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 19 cities, or 51 percent of the sample, use some type of budget transparency tool. These include CBs and packaged transparency tools such as Open Gov, Socrata, Balancing Act. Finally, five cities, or 11 percent of the sample use some other proprietary tool to communicate budget information citizens. These included self developed expenditure transparency tools, and citizen budget videos. A summary table for all cities included in the sample and the type of transparency tool used is included in Appendix E. This study also considered the extent to which cities collect and communicate KPIs. It found that 62 percent of cities sampled use KPIs in the budget process or budget decisions. Twe nty one Colorado cities, representing 47 percent of the sample, report these indicators publicly in their budget document. Finally, only six cities, 13 percent of the sample, communicate KPIs external to the budget document. The majority of these cities communicate KPIs in the form of a performance measurement dashboard. A summary table of the extent to which Colorado municipalities use and report KPIs in budgeting is included in Appendix F. Use of Best Practices in CBs and Communication of KPIs The research design sought to determine the extent to which Colorado municipalities demonstrate the best practices of both CBs and the communication of KPIs. Some key trends emerged from the sample which highlight areas of strength and weakness across cities. Overall, the 13 Colorado cities that develop citizen budgets follow the best practices informed by the literature. Out of 41 possible points in the rubric, the median overall score was 21, with scores ranging from nine to 30. This score is provided to give a general impression of the overall quality of Colorado CBs and scores for each section of the CB can be found in Appendix G.

PAGE 28

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 20 There were clear areas of strength and weakness across the identified sections of the CB. Colorado municipalities performed consistently well in detailing expenditure information, the median score was seven out of eight possible points for this rubric section. Additionally, every city with a CB promoted understanding through the use of visuals when displaying revenue and expenditure information. Areas of weakness included introducing the objective and including information for increased citizen involvement, as well as explaining economic assumptions and trends in revenue collection. The most notable area of weakness of performance indicators when highlighting service delivery. While cities were likely to highlight government performance objectives, the citizen budgets sampled included almost no information on KPIs. Some cities developed a measure of citizen cost per service per day, but overall there were few insights into the return on investment for service delivery. The rubric is not intended to provide an overall ranking of CBs following best practices, but it is able to provide a general overview of Colorado areas of strength and weakness. Additionally, the top performing cities in each section provide examples of best practices to use in a prototype CB for the City of Louisville. These examples are detailed in Appendix H. What Can the City of Louisville Learn from Other Colorado Municipalities? The City of Louisville looks to peer municipalities when developing new budget products. This section highlights best practices exhibited by Colorado mu nicipalities for each section of the CB. Key examples are highlighted in Appendix H and used to inform a prototype CB template for the City of Louisville included in Appendix I. Introduction. The introduction establishes the objective in publishing the guide, outlines the budget process, and provides opportunities for citizen participation. Only 36

PAGE 29

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 21 percent of the Colorado cities producing citizen budgets included all of this information. The strongest examples provide a clear purpose for publishing a separate document, and specific opportunities for citizens to become involved. Basic Economic Assumptions and Revenue Collection. The median rubric score for this budget section was 4 out of 6 possible points. Most Colorado cities provide revenue information in a visual way. High performing cities in this section addressed the underlying economic assumptions behind revenue collection to enhance citizen knowledge about how revenues are projected, and which revenue sources have the greatest impact on the city budget. Priorities in Allocations and Spending. Colorado municipalities publishing CBs follow best practices when displaying operational spending information. The median rubric score was 7 out of 8 possible points. Cities use pie charts and tables to provide visual displays of how government revenues are used. Cities that performed well in this section also included information on the capital budget. This is significant because in some cities more than half of the budget is dedicated to capital projects and debt service. New Initiatives and Priorities. Highlighting significant new investments for the upcoming fiscal year helps to increase knowledge of the priorities for the community. Cities display ing best practices highlighted new projects organized under larger city goals and included the fiscal impact to citizens. A majority of cities mentioned new initiatives in the CB, and the median rubric score was 2 out of 4 possible points. Cities that performed well in this section organized new spending by larger priorities such as or and included the fiscal impact of the new investment. Service Delivery and KPIs. This section provides an opportunity for the city to highlight key priorities and performance objectives, and information about service delivery improvements

PAGE 30

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 22 and its connection to citizen outcomes. For governments that measure performance, this is an opportunity to highlight information about KPIs and progress on reaching city performance objectives and community outcomes outlined by program area in the budget. Colorado cities producing CBs include limited information on performance measures and outcomes. The median, and highest rubric score for this section was 2 out of 8 possible points. Cities receiving a 2 in this section clearly outlined the performance objectives. This is one area of the citizen budget that cities have a clear opportunity for improvement. None of the cities sampled included traditional KPIs in the CB, and cities including limited performance information displayed it as per capita per or large blocks of text describing inputs and outputs. The City of Louisville has an opportunity to be a leader in this area by incorporating KPIs on key priorities and engaging with citizens on government performance. Promoting Understanding. While not a section of the budget document, this section of the rubric considered each ability to engage citizens and act as a to the budget process. Cities were analyzed for document design and use of visuals, clarity and accessibility of the document for the non technical reader and inclusion of links or reference to opportunities to learn more. The median rubric score was 3 out of 6 possible points. Nearly every city producing a CB included visual displays of revenue and spending information. Certain cities increased accessibility by using text boxes throughout the CB to define technical te rms. Many cities provided a link to the full budget document and contact information for where to learn more. Distribution and Feedback. A review of distribution methods found similarities across cities. All cities in the sample post CBs online, many make a print version available at City Council meetings or upon request, and a few municipalities include it in their citizen

PAGE 31

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 23 newsletter mailed to residents. Smaller cities were more likely to include the CB in mailings or the city newsletter, while larger cities made the document available upon request. Finally, most cities publish the CB document within one to three months after adopting the budget. Discussion This study examined the purpose of developing citizen budgets and commu nicating key performance indicators, and the extent to Colorado municipalities display best practices. This research draws from exemplary peer cities to build a citizen budget template for the City of Louisville incorporating best practices across Colorado. The results and summary tables in the appendices display the overall trends in best practices across Colorado municipalities. The results highlight two important findings about the use of CBs and KPIs in Colorado and its impact on citizen participation in the budget process. First, while cities excel at producing revenue and expenditure information in a way that promotes understanding, only 36 percent of CBs provided information about the purpose of the CB, information about the budget proc ess, or opportunities for citizen involvement. Therefore, many Colorado cities are using CBs to inform citizens, but not providing opportunities to move up (1969) ladder of citizen participation to consulting or partnership roles. Second, the data show that 62 percent of Colorado municipalities are using KPIs to improve internal performance, but only 13 percent of cities are communicating KIPs to citizens in a meaningful way external to the budget document. One explanation for this finding is t hat KPIs require a significant amount of resources to collect and display in an accurate and effective way. The median city size of cities communicating KPIs outside of the budget document was 108,668, while the median size of cities reporting KPIs within the budget document was 24,234.

PAGE 32

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 24 Recommendations This study provided important lessons for the City of Louisville as the City Office works to develop a CB. Below are key recommendations for the City to consider as they strive to increase citizen engagement in the budget process: 1) Communication is the First Step of a Larger Participatory Framework Citizens view effective participation as being treated as rather (Berner et al., 2011, p. 155). The CB document is an important first step in harnessing citizens with accessible budget information but needs to be followed up with other opportunities to engage in the budget process. The City of Louisville should consider developing a Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, or hosting budget workshops to provide citizens with the opportunity to comment on, and shape a proposed local agency before the public budget hearing (ILG, 2010). 2) Make KPIs Interesting The research showed that KPIs require a significant investment of government resources to collect and display. Therefore, when communicating KPIs to citizens, it is cost effective to make them interesting. Glaser and Denhardt (2002) and Ammons (1995) highlight that several factors influence citizen perception of government performance, but two measures over which the government has most control is responsiveness and equity. Communicate KPIs that citizens will find interesting, such as wait times, customer service, and efficient service delivery. Additionally, consider benchmarking to neighboring jurisdictions or national standards of performance. This places city performance in context and makes it more meaningful to citizens.

PAGE 33

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 25 3) Feedback is Important Citizens are t he intended audience for CBs, and therefore incorporating citizen feedback is important to the success of the document. Citizen input helps to ensure the document is relevant to needs and will not be simply ignored or thrown away (Gramberger, 2001). It helps to refine the areas of spending, initiatives, or performance measures that citizens are most interested in and helps to prioritize the most important community outcomes. Citizen feedback can be elicited by including contact information and encouraging feedback on the document or incorporating some questions about the CB and communication of KPIs into citizen survey. 4) Be Afraid to Lead This study highlighted many of the great practices exhibited by peer municipalities acros s Colorado. However, the study also identified some areas of weakness across the State in engaging citizens and communicating KPIs outside of the budget document. The City of Louisville has an opportunity to look to best practices, bridge this gap, and become an exemplary model for the State of Colorado. The City of Louisville can look to resources such as the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), the Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) in Washington State, the National League of Cities, or the International City/County Management Association for a national perspective of local governments prioritizing citizen participation to become a leader in the State of Colorado. Limitations and Future Research This study was informed by a review of the literature, practitioner recommendations, and an inventory of how Colorado municipalities are communicating budget and performance information to citizens. A key limitation of this study is that it lacks a broad citizen perspective.

PAGE 34

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 26 When considering the opportunity for future research on citizen engagement in budgeting, the City of Louisville can benefit from looking to the citizen perspective to determine what information the citizens find relevant to include in a CB and other forms of participation citizens may be interested in pursuing. As Berner et al. (2001) highlight, citizens have a very different perspective of effective citizen engagement that is not shared by city administrators or elected officials. This stu dy focused on the did not have the capacity to review the preferences of the intended audience. An opportunity for additional research is for the City of Louisville to include a question or two on its citizen survey for feedback on the citizen budget and communication of key performance indicators. Conclusion Increasing citizen engagement in the budget process requires a thoughtful approach and a significant investment of a time and resources. However, this resear ch finds it is a cost effective endeavor. The literature finds that a well developed citizen budget and communication of KPIs can increase trust and perception of government performance. Informing citizens of budget information in an accessible and transparent way is an important building block for a larger framework of increased citizen participation in governance and viewing citizens as partners in decision making. This study found that many Colorado cities recognize the importance of this communication. The template and recommendations for the City of Louisville will help the City become a leader in participatory budgeting methods.

PAGE 35

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 27 References Ammons, D. N. (1995). Overcoming the Inadequacies of Performance Measurement in Lo cal Government: The Case of Libraries and Leisure Services. Public Administration Review, 55 (1), pp. 37 47. Retrieved fr om: https://www.jstor.or g /stable/976826 Ammons, D. N. (2013). Signs of Performance Measurement Progress Among Prominent City Governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 36 (4), pp. 507 528. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530 9576360401 Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 34 (4), pp. 216 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Babbie, E. (2014). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Balancing Act. (2018) About . Retrieved from: https://abalancingact.com/about/ Behn, R. (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures. Public Administration Review,63 (5), pp. 586 606. Retrieved from https://doi org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111 /1540 6210.00322 Berman, E. M. (1997). Dealing with Cynical Citizens. Public Administration Review, 57 (2), pp. 105 112. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.or g /stable/977058 Berner, M. M., Amos, J. M., & Morse, R. S. (2011). What Constitutes Effective Citizen Participation in Local Government? Views from City Stakeholders. Public Administration Quarterly, 35 (1), pp. 128 163. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.or g /stable/41804544 Berner, M. M., & Smith, S. (2004). The State of the States: A Review of S tate Requirements for

PAGE 36

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 28 Citizen Participation in the Local Government Budget Process. State & Local Government Review, 36 (2), pp. 140 150. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.or g /stable/4355366 Callahan, K. (2002). The Utilization and Effectiveness of Citizen Advisory Committees in the Budget Process of Local Governments. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, & Financial Management, 14 (1), pp. 295 319. City of Louisville. (2016). 2017 2018 Biennial Operating & Capital Budget. City of Louisville. (2017). 2017 2018 Biennial Operating & Capital Budget Supplemental Report. Edbon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen Participation in Budgeting Theory. Public Administration Review,66 (3), pp. 437 447. Retrieved from https://doi org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1540 6210.2006.00600.x Folz, D.H., Abdelrazek, R., & Chung, Y. (2009). The Adoption, Use, and Impacts of Performance Measures in Medium Size Cities. Public Performance & Management Review, 33 (1), pp. 63 87. Retrieved from https://www jstor org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/40586754 Ho, T. (2011) PPB in American Local Governments: More than a Man agement Tool. Public Administration Review, 71 (3), pp. 391 401. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23017495 Glaser, M. A. & Denhardt, R. B. (2000). Local Government Performance Through the Eyes of Citizens. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 12 (1), pp. 49 73. Government Finance Officers Association. (2009). Recommended Practice: Budgeting For

PAGE 37

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 29 Results and Outcomes (2009) (BUDGET) . Retrieved from: http://www.gfoa.org/sites/default/files/CCI_BudgetingforResultsOutcomes.pdf Government Finance Officers Association. (2018). Making the Budget Document Easier to Understand . Retrieved fr om http://www.gfoa.org/making budget document easier understand Government Finance Officers Association. (2018b). Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Program . Retrieved from http://www.gfoa.org/award programs/distinguished budget presentation award program budget awards program Gramberger, M. (2001). Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation, and Public Participation in Policy Making . Retrieved from https://www.int e rnationalbudget.org/wp content/uploads/Citizens as Partners OECD Handbook.pdf Hatcher, W. (2015). The Efficacy of Public Participation in Municipal Budgeting: An Exploratory Survey of Officials in Government Finance Officers Award Winning Cities. Public Administration Quarterly, 39 (4), pp. 645 663. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.or g /stable/24772910 Heikkila, T. & Roussin, R. I. (2007). Citizen Involvement and Performance Management in Special Purpose Governments. Public Administration Review,67 (2), pp. 238 249. https://doi org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/j.1540 6210.2007.00710.x Holzer, M. & Yang, K. (2004). Performance Measurement and Improvement: An Assessment of the State of the Art. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70 (1) pp. 15 31. https://doi org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0020852304041228 International Budget Partnership. (2012). The Power of Making it Simple: A Government Guide

PAGE 38

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 30 to Developing Citizens Budgets . Retrieved from https://www.int e rnationalbudget.org/publications/the power of making it simple a government guide to developing citizens budgets/ Institute for Local Government. (2010). A Local Officials Guide to Public Engagement in Budgeting . Retrieved from http://www.ca ilg.org/post/local officials guide public engagement budgeting King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O., (1998). The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation in Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 58 (4), pp. 317 326. Retrieved from https://www jstor org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/977561 Kluvers, R. (2001). An Analysis of Introducing Program Budgeting in Local Government. Public Budget ing and Finance,21 (2), pp. 29 45. https://doiorg.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/0275 1100.00048 Kong, D. (2005). Performance Based Budgeting: The U.S. Experience. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5 , pp. 91 107. https://doi org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11115 005 1782 6 Mitchell, J. (1997). Representation in Government Boards and Commissions. Public Administration Review, 57 (2), pp. 160 167. Retrieved from https://www jstor org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/977064 Melkers, J. and Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of Performance Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects. Public Administration Review, 6 5 (2), pp. 180 190. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.or g /stable/3542552

PAGE 39

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 31 Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC). (2018) Performance Measurement . Retrieved fr om: http://mrsc.org/getdoc/bafdf54c b9e3 457d aa4e 7e8840a77b5c/Performance Measurement.aspx National Advisory Council on Stat e and Local Budgeting. (1998). A Framework for Improved State and Local Government Budgeting . Retrieved from http://www.gfoa.org/services/nacslb National Research Center, Inc. (2016). City of Louisville, CO 2016 Citizen Survey . Retrieved fr om http://www.louisvilleco.gov/home/showdocument?id=9175 Open Gov. (2018). About. Retrieved from: https://opengov.com/ Orcher, L.T. (2005). Conducting Research: Social and Behavioral Science Methods . Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is T ransforming the Public S ec to r . N e w Y ork: Addison W e sl e y . Petrie, M., & Shields, J. (2010). Producing a Guide to the Budget: Why, What and How? OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2 , pp. 75 87. Retrieved from ht tps://www.int e rnationalbudget.org/publications/producing a citizens guide to the budget why what and how/ Rivenbark, W.C., & Kelly, J.M. (2003). Management innovation in Smaller Municipal Government. State and Local Government Review, 35 (3), pp. 196 205. Retrieved from https://doi org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0160323X0303500305 Socrata. (2018). Open Data and Citizen Engagement . Retrieved from: https://socrata.com/ Stephens, J. B. (2011). Creating Effective Citizen Participation in Local Government Budgeting:

PAGE 40

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 32 Practical Tips and Examples for Elected Officials and Budget Administrators. Public Management Bulletin . Retrieved from: https://www.sog.unc.edu/publi c ation s/bulletins/creating effective citizen participation local government budgeting practical tips and examples Taylor, F. W. (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management . New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers. The Center for Priority Based Budgeting. (2018). About . Retrieved fr om: http://pbbcenter.org/ Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public Participation in Public Decisions: New Skills and Strategies for Public Managers . San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Tufte, E. R. (2001). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information . Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press LLC. United States Census Bureau. (2018) City and Town Population Totals: 2010 2017 . Retrieved fr om https://www.c e nsus.gov/data/tables/2017/demo/popest/total c ities and towns.html V e n n g a g e . (2018) My Designs . Retrieved from: https://venngage.com/ Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The Performance Trust Link: Implications for Performance Measurement. Public Administration Review, 66 (1), pp. 114 126. Retrieved from https://www jstor org.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/stable/3542659

PAGE 41

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 33 Appendix A. Ladder of Citizen Participation Arnstein (1969), p. 217 Citizen Control Delegated Power Partnership Placation Consultation Informing Therapy Manipulation Degrees of Citizen Power Degrees of T o k enism Nonparticipation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

PAGE 42

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 34 City Elected Officials City Administrators Citizens/ Community Stakeholders Budget Document City Resources Citizen Budget/ Communication of Key Performance Indicators Best Practices Examples from Colorado Peers Citizens Appendix B. Concept Map of a Citizen Budget and Citizen Participation Citizen Engagement and Feedback

PAGE 43

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 35 Appendix C. List of Colorado Cities Included in Sample City Name July 1, 2017 Population Estimate Denver 704,621 Colorado Springs 464,474 Aurora 366,623 Fort Collins 165,080 Lakewood 154,958 Thornton 136,978 Arvada 118,807 Westminster 112,812 Pueblo 111,127 Centennial 110,250 Boulder 107,125 Greeley 105,448 Longmont 94,341 Loveland 76,701 Broomfield 68,341 Grand Junction 62,475 Castle Rock 62,276 Commerce City 55,923 Parker 54,202 Littleton 47,734 Brighton 40,562 Northglenn 38,928 Englewood 34,407 Wheat Ridge 31,294 Fountain 29,804 Lafayette 28,328 Windsor 25,330 Erie 24,234 Louisville 1 21,128 Golden 20,571 Evans 20,470 Montrose 19,305 Durango 18,465 Cañon City 16,539 Greenwood Village 15,721 Johnstown 15,478 Sterling 13,961 Firestone 13,825 Lone Tree 13,566 Fruita 13,294 Steamboat Springs 12,965 Superior 12,951 Federal Heights 12,744 Frederick 12,687 Fort Morgan 11,281 Castle Pines 10,523 1 As the city requesting the study, the City of Louisville was not included in the sample. However, the City is included in this list to provide information on population size relative to the other cities sampled (United States Census Bureau, 2018).

PAGE 44

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 36 Appendix D. Citizen Budget Evaluation Rubric The purpose of the rubric is to evaluate the CB for use of the seven basic parts of the citizen budget outlined in the literature review. Each section of the CB will include a set of criteria and the document will be assigned a score for each of the criteria. The scores are: below expectations (0), meets expectations (1), and exceeds expectations (2). Citizen Budget Rubric Does Not Meet Expectations (0) Meets Expectations (1) Exceeds Expectations (2) Introduction Establishes the objective in publishing the guide. Objective is not established or unclear. Objective is adequately established. Objective is clearly stated and connects to citizen outcomes. Provides a brief description of the budget process. Does not describe the budget process. Describes the budget process. Clearly and concisely describes the budget process in a way that improves citizen understanding. Includes opportunities for citizen participation. Does not include information on opportunities for citizen participation. Alludes to opportunities for citizen participation. Directly mentions citizen participation opportunities and includes dates and times to get involved. Basic Economic Assumptions and Revenue Collection Describes the economic outlook and underlying assumptions of revenue forecast. Does not include information on economic assumptions. Describes economic assumptions. Describes economic assumptions in clear and concise manner and connects it to revenue collections. Details revenue sources and anticipated collection trends. Does not include information on revenue sources or anticipated collection trends. Describes revenue sources but does not address collection trends. Describes revenue sources and collection trends in a clear and concise manner connecting to citizen outcomes. Displays revenue information in a visual way to promote ease of understanding. Does not include visual display of revenue sources. Provides a visual such as a pie chart or bar graph to display revenue information. Provides visuals such as pie charts and bar graphs, displays additional graphics or cartoons to further engage citizens. Priorities in Allocations and Spending Provides a functional understanding of how government revenues are used. Does not include information on how government revenues are used. Describes how government revenues are used. Describes how government revenues are used in a clear and concise manner that promotes understanding. Details major program areas for operational spending. Does not detail major program areas for operational spending. Adequately details major program areas for operational spending. Details major program areas for operational spending and connects these to specific citizen programs of interest. Displays spending information in a visual way to promote ease of understanding. Does not include visual display of operational spending. Provides a visual such as a pie chart or bar graph to display spending information. Provides visuals such as pie charts and bar graphs, displays additional graphics or cartoons to further engage citizens. Includes information on capital budgets and debt. Does not include information on capital budgets and debt. Provides information on capital budgets and debt. Provides information on capital budgets and debt and its connection to citizen outcomes. New Initiatives and Priorities Highlights new programs with estimate of total fiscal impact to citizens. Does not highlight new programs with a fiscal impact to citizens. Highlights new programs with estimate of total fiscal impact to citizens. Highlights new programs with estimate of total fiscal impact to

PAGE 45

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 37 Citizen Budget Rubric Does Not Meet Expectations (0) Meets Expectations (1) Exceeds Expectations (2) citizens and connects programs to citizen outcomes. Highlights contributions to meeting government and citizen objectives. Does not highlight contributions to meeting government and citizen objectives. Highlights contributions to meeting government and citizen objectives. Highlights contributions to meeting government and citizen objectives and connects to budget programs. Service Delivery Highlights performance objectives. Does not highlight government performance objectives. Highlights performance objectives. Highlights performance objectives in a clear and accessible manner. Employs the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). Does not use Key Performance Indicators. Employs the use of key performance indicators (KPIs). Employs and explains the use of KPIs in the budget process. KPIs measures including efficiency and effectiveness. Does not use Key Performance Indicators. KPIs use measures including efficiency and effectiveness. KPIs rely heavily on outcome measures of efficiency and effectiveness. Connects performance measures to service delivery and citizen outcomes. Does not use Key Performance Indicators. Connects performance measures to service delivery and citizen outcomes. Connects performance measures to service delivery and citizen outcomes in a clear and concise manner. Promoting Understanding Includes a glossary of commonly used budget terms or defines technical budget terms when used. Does not include a glossary or definitions of technical budget terms. Includes a glossary of commonly used budget terms or defines technical budget terms when used. Defines technical budget terms in a clear and concise manner that promotes citizen understanding. Includes visual displays of financial information to encourage citizen understanding. Does not include any visual displays of financial information. Includes some visual displays of financial information to encourage citizen understanding. Includes several clear and creative visual displays of financial information to encourage citizen understanding. Includes links to additional information (if online version) or directs citizens to resources to learn more about the city budget. Does not include links to additional information or direct citizens to resources to learn more about the city budget. Includes links to additional information or directs citizens to resources to learn more about the city budget. Includes several links to additional information and clear direction to resources to become more involved in the city budget process. Distribution and Feedback CB is posted on the website and is easy to find alongside the budget document. Not posted on the website and is easy to find alongside the budget document. Posted on the municipality's website. Posted on the municipality's website and is easy to find alongside the budget document. Includes contact information for citizens to provide feedback and ask questions about the CB. Does not include contact information for citizens to provide feedback and ask questions about the CB. Includes contact information for citizens to provide feedback and ask questions about the CB. N/A.

PAGE 46

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 38 Appendix E. Colorado Budget Transparency Tools Summary Table City Name (Colorado) 2017 Pop. Citizen Budget 1 Priority Based Budgeting 2 Socrata 2 Open Gov 2 Balancing Act 2 Other Denver 704,621 Yes Yes Proprietary Transparency Tool Colorado Springs 464,474 Yes Yes Aurora 366,623 Yes Proprietary Transparency Tool Fort Collins 165,080 Yes Lakewood 154,958 Proprietary Transparency Tool Thornton 136,978 Arvada 118,807 Westminster 112,812 Pueblo 111,127 Centennial 3 110,250 Citizen Budget Video Boulder 107,125 Yes Yes Greeley 105,448 Yes Yes Longmont 94,341 Loveland 76,701 Broomfield 68,341 Yes Grand Junction 62,475 Castle Rock 62,276 Yes Citizen Budget Video Commerce City 55,923 Yes Parker 54,202 Yes Yes Littleton 47,734 Yes Brighton 40,562 Yes Northglenn 38,928 Yes Englewood 34,407 Yes Wheat Ridge 3 31,294 Yes Yes Yes Fountain 29,804 Lafayette 28,328 Windsor 25,330 Yes Erie 24,234 Yes Louisville 21,128 ------Golden 20,571 Yes Evans 20,470 Montrose 19,305 Yes Durango 18,465 Cañon City 16,539 Greenwood Village 15,721 Johnstown 15,478 Sterling 13,961 Firestone 13,825 Lone Tree 13,566 Yes Fruita 13,294 Yes Steamboat Springs 12,965 Superior 12,951 Federal Heights 12,744 Frederick 12,687 Citizen Budget Video Fort Morgan 11,281 Castle Pines 10,523 Yes Sum of Cities 13 5 4 3 4 6 Percent of Cities 29% 11% 9% 7% 9% 13% 1 Brighton, Wheat Ridge, Superior, and Evans publish budget overviews within the budget document. These were not included in the study because the study considered CBs external to the budget document. 2 Brief summaries of Socrata, Open Gov, Priority Based Budgeting, and Balancing Act are listed below. These descriptions do not provide an evaluation or cost of the tool because the researcher was unable to access that information in the scope of this project. 3 Centennial and Wheat Ridge previously published a CB external to the budget document, but no longer produce one.

PAGE 47

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 39 Socrata and Open Gov Socrata and Open Gov are interactive online platforms for government budget and financial information. These platforms provide pre packaged data visualization tools that provide transparent municipal budget information. Additionally, these tools give local governments the ability to track citizen engagement and interactions with the platform to provide insight on (Socrata, 2018; Open Gov, 2018). Priority Based Budgeting The Center for Priority Based Budgeting is a Colorado based organization that provides technical and advisory services to local governments to prioritize long term funding decisions based on a set of community values and objectives. The organization provides a comprehensive review of the government organization to best match resources and community priorities. This process involves engaging government managers, finance officers, civic leaders, and community residents. (Center for Priority Based Budgeting, 2017). Balancing Act Balancing Act is a program offered by Engaged Public, a Colorado based public sector consulting firm, that provides a simple online transparency tool for local government budgets. This program also uses a customizable simulation to provide citizens with a better understandi ng of the decisions and statutory constraints that go into developing a balanced budget. This program tracks user interactions with the tool and citizens are allowed to submit their to the local government. This provides an opportunity for two way communication. Citizens gain new understanding of the current budget and its constraints, and the local government is able to track citizen interactions and gain new understanding of citizen priorities (Balancing Act, 2018).

PAGE 48

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 40 Appendix F. Colorado Use of KPIs in Budgeting Summary Table City Name (Colorado) 2017 Pop. Considers KPIs When Budgeting Reports KPIs in Budget Document Communicates KPIs with Citizens in Format Other Than Budget Document Denver 704,621 Yes Yes Colorado Springs 464,474 Yes Yes Aurora 366,623 Yes Yes Fort Collins 165,080 Yes Yes Performance Measurement Dashboard Lakewood 154,958 Yes Yes Thornton 136,978 Yes Yes Arvada 118,807 Yes Yes Performance Measurement Dashboard Westminster 112,812 Yes Yes Pueblo 111,127 Yes No Centennial 110,250 Yes Yes Performance Measurement Dashboard Boulder 107,125 Yes No Performance Measurement Dashboard Greeley 105,448 Yes No Longmont 94,341 Yes Yes Annual Performance Report Loveland 76,701 Yes No Broomfield 68,341 Yes Yes Grand Junction 62,475 Yes Yes Castle Rock 62,276 Yes Yes Select Performance Data Highlights Commerce City 55,923 Yes No Parker 54,202 No No Littleton 47,734 Yes Yes Brighton 40,562 No No Northglenn 38,928 Yes Yes Englewood 34,407 Yes Yes Wheat Ridge 31,294 No No Fountain 29,804 No No Lafayette 28,328 No No Windsor 25,330 Yes Yes Erie 24,234 No No Louisville 21,128 ---Golden 20,571 No No Evans 20,470 Yes No Montrose 19,305 No No Durango 18,465 Yes Yes Cañon City 16,539 No No Greenwood Village 15,721 Yes Yes Johnstown 15,478 No No Sterling 13,961 No No Firestone 13,825 No No Lone Tree 13,566 No No Fruita 13,294 Yes No Steamboat Springs 12,965 No No Superior 12,951 Yes Yes Federal Heights 12,744 No No Frederick 12,687 Yes Yes Fort Morgan 11,281 Yes No Castle Pines 10,523 No No Sum of Cities 28 21 6 Percent of Cities 62% 47% 13%

PAGE 49

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 41 Appendix G. Colorado Citizen Budget Rubric Scores Summary Table City Name (Colorado) 2017 Population Introduction Basic Economic Assumptions and Revenue Collection Priorities in Allocations and Spending New Initiatives and Priorities Service Delivery Promoting Understanding Distribution and Feedback Overall Score Total Possible Score Per Section 6 6 8 4 8 6 3 41 Aurora 366,623 4 5 8 4 2 4 3 30 Boulder 107,125 6 6 8 3 2 4 1 30 Castle Rock 62,276 5 6 8 4 2 3 2 30 Lone Tree 13,566 2 4 8 2 2 3 3 24 Castle Pines 10,523 2 4 6 3 2 3 3 23 Windsor 25,330 1 4 8 1 1 4 3 23 Colorado Springs 464,474 2 4 8 1 0 3 3 21 Commerce City 55,923 0 5 7 2 0 4 3 21 Median Scores 55,923 2 4 7 2 2 3 3 21 Greeley 105,448 1 3 6 2 1 4 3 20 Littleton 47,734 3 5 6 0 0 3 3 20 Denver 704,621 1 2 4 4 2 3 3 19 Golden 20,571 4 2 5 0 2 4 1 18 Englewood 34,407 0 2 4 0 0 2 1 9

PAGE 50

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 42 Appendix H. Examples from Peer Citizen Budgets This appendix highlights exemplary language or visuals from Colorado citizen budgets analyzed and is used to inform the template for the City of Louisville that is detailed in Appendix I. It is organized to follow the rubric format and pulls from several different CBs sampled. Introduction Purpose. Providing an objective statement focuses the purpose of the document. Figure 1. City of Lone Tree 2018 Budget Overview Purpose Statement Budget Process . Cities including this section did so through the display of a budget timeline, or language providing a summary of the timeline. Figure 2. City of Boulder 2018 Budget Process Timeline Figure 3. City of Littleton 2018 Budget Process Calendar

PAGE 51

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 43 Opportunities for Engagement. Cities included specific meeting times of Citizen Budget Advisory Committees or offered links to learn about opportunities to get involved. Figure 4.City of Golden Citizen Budget Advisory Committee Meeting Information Figure 5. City of Englewood Budget Advisory Committee Meeting Information Figure 6. City of Boulder 2018 Citizen Involvement Information Basic Economic Assumptions and Revenue Collection Almost all cities sampled provided information on total revenues and the sources of revenue for the municipality. Exemplary cities included information on top revenue sources influencing total revenues, basic economic assumptions used to project revenues, and whether revenues were higher or lower than previously forecasted. Municipalities such as the Town of Castle Rock also highlight the important consideration that increased revenues often coincide with an increased demand for services.

PAGE 52

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 44 three largest revenue sources for the city are sales and use taxes, debt issuance and utility rate charges. These three funding sources represent 62.1 percent of the total sources of city City of Boulder, Budget in Brief, 2017. Figure 7. Town of Castle Rock Basic Economic and Revenue Assumptions Figure 8. City of Windsor Revenue Projections and Economic Assumptions Priorities in Allocations and Spending Cities performed consistently well providing a functional understanding of operational spending and the programs and services it funds. Exemplary cities in this section included information on capital projects, which makes up more than 50 percent of the budget for many cities sampled.

PAGE 53

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 45 Figure 9. City of Castle Pines Summary of General Fund Services Figure 10. Colorado Springs Capital Improvement Program Information New Initiatives and Priorities IBP notes that most operating budgets represent a continuation of existing policies and programs (2012). Therefore, when new programs or initiatives are added to the budget, these should be highlighted for the citizen. Exemplary cities in this section highlighted new priorities, connected them to overarching city goals, and included the total fiscal impact to citizens.

PAGE 54

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 46 Figure 11. City and County of Denver New Spending Priorities and Fiscal Impact Service Delivery and KPIs The results find that cities did not include meaningful KPIs in the CBs. However, this section highlights cities that are communicating KPI information using performance dashboards or communications external to the budget document. The City of Arvada organizes its performance dashboard under broader city goals such as The Town of Castle Rock does not provide data on all KPIs, but details KPIs of key citizen interest, such as public safety. Figure 12. City of Arvada Community Performance Measurement Dashboard

PAGE 55

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 47 Figure 13. Town of Castle Rock KPI Detail on Police Response Time to Priority 1 Calls Promoting Understanding Cities were analyzed for design of the budget document and use of visuals, clarity and accessibility of the document for the non technical reader, and the inclusion of links or references for opportunities to learn more. Nearly every city producing a CB included visual displays of revenue and spending information. Cities increased citizen accessibility using text boxes throughout the CB to define or explain technical parts of the budget. Many cities provided a link to the full budget document in the CB and budget office contact information.

PAGE 56

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 48 Figure 14. Town of Castle Rock Example of Visual Display of Revenue Information Figure 15. City of Lone Tree Visual Display of Expenditure Information Figure 16. City of Golden Example of Text Box to Explain Technical Fee Distribution and Feedback CB distribution methods are discussed in the results section. This section highlights exemplary cities at soliciting citizen feedback. The city of Englewood engaged citizen feedback

PAGE 57

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 49 by posing specific to its readers at the end of the CB, and then providing information on how citizens can get involved. Figure 17. City of Englewood Questions for Citizen Feedback

PAGE 58

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 50 Appendix I. City of Louisville Sample Citizen Budget Template This section outlines a mock CB template for the City of Louisville. It uses data from the adopted 2019 2020 biennial budget, which provides the most recent comprehensive revenue and expenditure informati on for the template. The document was created using an infographic maker ca ll e d V e n n g a g e ( V e n n g a g e , 201 8 ). This t e mpl a te inco r por a tes the b e st pr a c ti ce s f r om p e e r Colorado municipalities sampled and is meant to be a guide to stimulate ideas for a CB document developed by the City of Louisville.

PAGE 59

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 51

PAGE 60

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 52

PAGE 61

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 53 Appendix J. Master of Public Administration Competencies 1. To Lead and Manage in Public Governance This project focused on the public role in increasing fiscal transparency and government accountability and engaging citizens in the budget process. This requires understanding the unique role of the budget in public management and understanding and balancing the definition of effective participation from the perspective of both public administrators and citizens. Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5001 Introduction to Public Administration and Public Service; PUAD 5002 Organizational Management and Behavior; PUAD 5006 Public Service Leadership; PUAD 5625 Local Government Management; PUAD 5626 Local Government Politics and Policy; and PUAD 6600 Colorado State Politics. 2. To Parti cipate and Contribute to the Public Policy Process This project focused on increasing the accessibility of the budget document for citizens. Central to the project was the ability to understand and apply the tools for engaging citizens in the policy process. This project required the understanding that informing citizens ranks low on (1969) ladder of participation and required thoughtfulness around policy recommendations to build a framework for increased citizen participation in the budget process. Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5001 Introduction to Public Administration and Public Service; PUAD 5005 Policy Process and Democracy; PUAD 5625 Local Government Management; PUAD 5626 Local Government Politics and Policy; and PUAD 5628 Urban Social Problems. 3. To Analyze, Synthesize, Think Critically, Solve Problems, and Make Decisions

PAGE 62

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 54 Research on the landscape of Citizen Budgets and communication of key performance indicators in Colorado, and best practices from the literature required proficiency in understanding and navigating social science research methods. Additionally, this project required a competent understanding of public bu dgets and public finance to be able to analyze and evaluate CBs and KPIs across Colorado and synthesize them into a budget template example for the City of Louisville. Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5003 Research and Analytic Methods; PUAD 5008 Evidence Based Decision Making; and PUAD 5503 Public Budgeting and Finance. 4. To Articulate and Apply a Public Service Perspective The purpose of this project was to assist the City of Louisville in becoming more transparent and accountable to its citizens. This mission aligns with public service values, integrity in governance, and advancing government transparency and accountability. The Citizen Budget and communication of KPIs directly aligns with the public service perspectiv e of actively involving citizens in democratic governance. Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5001 Introduction to Public Administration and Public Service; PUAD 5006 Public Service Leadership; PUAD 5625 Local Government Management; PUAD 5628 Urban Social Problems; PUAD 6600 Colorado State Politics. 5. To Communicate and Interact Productively with a Diverse and Changing Workforce and Citizenry The goal of this project was to develop a way to communicate technical budget information to a dive rse group of citizens to include additional diverse perspectives in the City of

PAGE 63

BEST PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING A CITIZEN BUDGET 55 budget process. This project required the ability to understand and distill scholarly literature on citizen participation and performance measures in budgeting, as well as practitioner literature on best practices in communicating budget information. It required the ability to analyze and evaluate budget information for municipalities across Colorado and synthesize the data in a way that effectively communicates budget information in a template that is accessible to a diverse group of citizens. Coursework supporting this competency includes: PUAD 5001 Introduction to Public Administration; PUAD 5003 Research and Analytic Methods; PUAD 5005 Policy Process and Democracy; and PAUD 5503 Public Budgeting and Finance.

PAGE 64

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: December 27, 2018 4:55 pm Browser: Mozilla rv:11.0 / Windows IP Address: 199.127.132.134 Unique ID: 465494647 Location: 39.913398742676, -105.00749969482 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Kathleen Quinn Title (Capstone Project Title) Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville Publication Date Fall 2018 I am the: Client Description Area As client of the copyright holder affirm that the content submitted is identical to that which was originally supervised and that the content is suitable for publication in the Auraria Library Digital Collections.

PAGE 65

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Emily Hogan Date 12/27/18 Email Address ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817

PAGE 66

Form Name: capstone repository permission Submission Time: December 21, 2018 1:53 pm Browser: Chrome 71.0.3578.98 / Windows IP Address: 165.127.116.92 Unique ID: 464642207 Location: 39.742698669434, -105.11869812012 Description Area SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS ELECTRONIC CAPSTONE REPOSITORY Description Area Dear Capstone Author and Capstone Client:The Auraria Library Digital Library Program is a nonprofit center responsible for the collection and preservation of digital resources for education.The capstone project, protected by your copyright, and/or created under the supervision of the client has been identified as important to the educational mission of the University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library.The University of Colorado Denver and Auraria Library respectfully requests non-exclusive rights to digitize the capstone project for Internet distribution in image and text formats for an unlimited term. Digitized versions will be made available via the Internet, for onand off-line educational use, with a statement identifying your rights as copyright holder and the terms of the grant of permissions.Please review, sign and return the follow Grant of Permissions. Please do not hesitate to call me or email your questions.Sincerely,Matthew C. MarinerAuraria LibraryDigital Collections ManagerMatthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303.556.5817 Grant of Permissions Description Area In reference to the following title(s): Author (Student Name) Kathleen Quinn Title (Capstone Project Title) Developing a Citizen Budget: Lessons from Colorado for the City of Louisville Publication Date 11/29/2018 I am the: Author (student) Description Area As copyright holder or licensee with the authority to grant copyright permissions for the aforementioned title(s), I hereby authorize Auraria Library and University of Colorado Denver to digitize, distribute, and archive the title(s) for nonprofit, educational purposes via the Internet or successive technologies.

PAGE 67

Description Area This is a non-exclusive grant of permissions for on-line and off-line use for an indefinite term. Off-line uses shall be consistent either for educational uses, with the terms of U.S. copyright legislation's "fair use" provisions or, by the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library, with the maintenance and preservation of an archival copy. Digitization allows the University of Colorado Denver and/or Auraria Library to generate imageand text-based versions as appropriate and to provide and enhance access using search software. This grant of permissions prohibits use of the digitized versions for commercial use or profit. Signature Your Name Kathleen Quinn Date 12/21/2018 Email Address ATTENTION Description Area Grant of Permissions is provided to: Auraria Digital Library Program / Matthew C. MarinerAuraria Library1100 Lawrence | Denver, CO 80204matthew.mariner@ucdenver.edu303-556-5817