Assignments

Public Budgeting & Finance Exercises

These interactive, browser-based tutorials are designed for MPA/Public Administration courses in budgeting and finance. Each exercise is a self-contained HTML application — no software installation required. Students work hands-on in Excel or Google Sheets, then use the tutorial to verify their work, get progressive hints, and explore discussion questions grounded in real-world case studies.

All exercises share a common design: downloadable starter spreadsheets, three levels of progressive hints, quick-check and file-upload verification, answer keys, and guided discussion questions.

Exercise 1: Sales Tax Trend Analysis & Revenue Forecasting

CPI-based inflation adjustment, year-over-year percentage change, 12-month moving averages, trendline graphing

245 rows of monthly sales tax collections (Oct 2001 – Feb 2022)

  1. Inflation Adjustment — converting nominal dollars to real dollars using CPI ratio
  2. Year-over-Year Percentage Change — comparing same month across years
  3. 12-Month Moving Average — smoothing noisy data to reveal trends
  4. Data Visualization — line charts with trendlines
  5. Discussion & Forecasting — predicting future collections and justifying assumptions

This tutorial has multiple versions tailored for different audiences and institutions:

Version Description Link
Main Base version of the tutorial View
ADA Compliance Accessibility-enhanced version Branch
Content Changes Updated content and revisions Branch
Miami Branding Branded for Miami University Branch
Practitioner Tutorial Adapted for working professionals Branch
U of Idaho Branding Branded for University of Idaho Branch
Primary Case Study

Lubbock, TX — Sales Tax Forecasting Gone Wrong, Then Right

Lubbock overestimated sales tax revenue by $5M in FY2025, leading to a hiring freeze and spending cuts. By FY2026, conservative budgeting brought collections 6% above target. Students who complete the moving average and percentage change exercises will recognize exactly how analysts could over- or under-estimate — and the real policy consequences of getting it wrong.

Supplementary

Jefferson City, MO

Exercise 2: Waste Water Cost Schedule Analysis

Fixed/variable cost identification, average and marginal cost calculation, cost curve graphing, pricing strategy analysis

  1. Complete the Cost Schedule — calculate FC, VC, AC, and MC for wastewater treatment
  2. Graph the Cost Curves — visualize AC and MC curves, identify minimum efficient scale
  3. MC Pricing & Total Cost Recovery — evaluate marginal cost pricing efficiency
  4. Cost Recovery Pricing — calculate per-gallon rates using a 15,000-connection base
  5. Discussion Questions — U-shaped costs, MC vs. AC pricing tradeoffs, two-part tariffs
Primary Case Study

Billings, MT — Two-Part Wastewater Rate Structure

Billings (pop. ~120,000) uses a two-part rate structure — a fixed monthly base charge covering infrastructure overhead plus a volumetric per-gallon charge — that directly mirrors the pricing concepts students explore in this exercise. The city “regularly reviews rates to determine whether current rates are generating adequate revenue to cover the cost of providing service.”

Supplementary

Exercise 3: Development Department Budget Trend Analysis

Column totals, year-over-year percentage changes, average growth rates, budget extrapolation, balance analysis

  1. Column Totals — compute totals across 6 fiscal years of actuals plus adopted/revised budgets
  2. Annual Percentage Changes — calculate year-over-year changes for 32 expenditure and 34 revenue line items
  3. Average % Change & Proposed FY8 Budget — extrapolate trends to build a proposed budget
  4. Budget Worksheet & Balance Analysis — determine if development fees cover operating expenditures
  5. Discussion Questions — revenue vs. expenditure trends, target-base budgeting, budget linkages
Primary Case Study

Austin, TX — Development Services Department Fee Revenue vs. Costs

Austin’s Development Services Department handles building permits, plan reviews, and inspections — the same functions in this exercise. During Austin’s building boom (2020–2023), permit fee revenues surged; when construction cooled, revenues dropped while fixed staffing costs remained. The department has faced recurring debates about whether permit fees cover operating costs — precisely the policy question in this exercise.

Supplementary

Exercise 4: Year-End Budget Monitoring & Projections

Three projection formulas (average spending, seasonal, current month), best-estimate selection, variance analysis

  1. Average Spending Formula — YTD / 7 x 12 (assumes uniform monthly spending)
  2. Seasonal & Current Month Formulas — using last year’s pattern and most recent month data
  3. Select Best Estimate — choose the most appropriate formula per line item
  4. Variance & Budget Comparison — compute Adopted Budget minus EOY Estimate
Primary Case Study

Stockton, CA — When Budget Monitoring Fails

Stockton failed to track how actual spending commitments (generous pensions, a $47M arena, rising personnel costs) aligned with sustainable revenue. The gap grew over years until bankruptcy was the only option. The three projection formulas students apply in this exercise are the same type of basic monitoring that would have flagged Stockton’s growing fiscal crisis.

Supplementary

Exercise 5: Budgeting for Debt Service Using Constant Principal

Debt service schedule construction, SUMPRODUCT-based interest, NIC/TIC calculation, I&S tax rate analysis

  1. Compute Interest & Debt Service — build the full annual payment schedule
  2. Calculate Bond Metrics — bond-years, average life, Net Interest Cost (NIC), True Interest Cost (TIC via IRR)
  3. I&S Tax Rate & Debt Capacity — determine a tax rate needed to fund debt service
  4. Visualize the Debt Schedule — chart principal, interest, and total payments over time
Primary Case Study

Harvey, IL — Bond Default and Restructuring

Harvey defaulted on $32M in GO bonds — the exact instrument students model in this exercise. The city’s total debt grew to $164M, far beyond any reasonable I&S rate capacity. When students calculate Year 1 debt service of $1,418,600 for a well-managed $20M bond, they can contrast that with Harvey’s inability to make any payments at all. Every metric students calculate (debt service, NIC, I&S rate) is a metric Harvey’s analysts should have been tracking.

Supplementary