A cycle ran nine to twelve budget assemblies plus online idea submission (Mindmixer in Cycle 1, Open City Hall from Cycle 2), delegate orientation and committees, expos, a multi-day vote, Council approval and then implementation and monitoring; the Cycle 1 cycle took eight months, later cycles ten to twelve. Deliberation happened in facilitated small groups at assemblies and in delegate issue committees (six in Cycle 1, ten in Cycle 2, six in Cycle 3, three broad committees plus demographic subcommittees from Cycle 4). Proposal development sat with volunteer budget delegates (115, 111 and 74 in Cycles 1 to 3), supported by trained volunteer facilitators and, from Cycle 4, by City department and public agency representatives sitting on the committees. Vetting grew from a one-page summary in Cycle 1 to a grant-style proposal guide in Cycle 2 and a three-stage review in Cycle 3 (60, then 40, then 26 proposals; 40, 20 and 12 from Cycle 5), with the City Manager and City Attorney making final ballot determinations. Nonprofit implementing partners had to prequalify from Cycle 3 (financial statements, 501(c)3 letter, no deficits, overhead under 30 percent). The rulebook was redrafted before each cycle by the Steering Committee and approved, and sometimes amended, by the City Council. The Participatory Budgeting Project ran Cycle 1 under contract; from Cycle 2 three limited-term City staff in the City Manager's Office took over, with PBP as consultant through Cycle 3. Advocacy for the next pot was never assigned in the rulebook beyond a Resource Development workgroup and two Council liaisons; the pot shrank from $3.28 million to $1 million by Cycle 3.