By Kelly Horn and Nick Anhut

City budgets are more than spreadsheets and policy decisions — they are reflections of community priorities. When done thoughtfully, public engagement can transform budgeting from a technical exercise into a shared civic conversation. When poorly timed or designed, it can lead to frustration, mistrust, and backlash.

Understanding how and when to involve the public is essential for local governments seeking both better decisions and stronger community trust.

What do we mean by community engagement?

Public engagement is a broad term that describes how governments inform residents and invite their input on public decisions. In the context of budgeting, engagement can take many forms — from one-way communication, such as newsletters and websites, to two-way consultation and deeper participation through workshops, advisory committees, and deliberative forums. These efforts help stakeholders understand financial issues, foster involvement, and build consensus.

Why community engagement matters in budgeting

Effective public engagement delivers tangible benefits. It creates greater awareness of how local government works, improves transparency, and strengthens accountability. It also broadens representation by reaching residents who may not typically participate in public meetings.

At its best, engagement builds trust between residents and decision-makers. Just as important, it helps the public understand the factors driving budgets, regulations, and service trade offs, creating more realistic expectations and productive dialogue.

The risks of getting it wrong

Engagement is not without risk. When handled poorly, it can waste staff time, squander resources, and leave participants feeling cynical or ignored.

Research has shown that relying on a single tool — such as a Truth in Taxation hearing — as the primary form of engagement often discourages participation. Without context or meaningful opportunities for feedback, residents may feel frustrated rather than empowered. Truth in Taxation is a statutory transparency requirement, not a substitute for meaningful public engagement.

The result? Emotional but contradictory public input: calls to lower taxes, fix roads immediately, improve parks, and delay projects — all at the same time, and often after key operating and capital budget decisions have already been developed.

Engagement starts with your “why”

Before choosing engagement tools, local governments should first ask what they are trying to accomplish. Is the goal to educate the public? Increase participation? Build partnerships? Gather input to shape decisions?

These answers should shape the engagement strategy, because a one-size-fits-all approach rarely succeeds.

Principles for communicating budget impacts

Successful communication about budgets shares several common traits:

• Honesty and transparency.
• Clear background and education.
• Simple, relatable language.
• Visual explanations that illustrate impacts over time.

Budget information does not need to be oversimplified for public consumption, but it does need to be understandable.

Matching tools to the community

There is no single “best” engagement method. Effective approaches are tailored to the issue, available resources, political context, leadership support, and desired feedback.

Common engagement tools include:

• Newsletters and budget‑in‑brief publications.
• Surveys.
• Open houses and public hearings.
• Workshops and collaborative planning sessions.
• Advisory commissions and task forces.
• Participatory budgeting and, in some cases, referendums.

Each tool has strengths and limitations, and most communities benefit from using several in combination. Engagement strategies should also adapt to major facility and infrastructure investments.

Putting the tools to work

Newsletters offer broad reach but limited feedback. Surveys can capture diverse opinions when thoughtfully designed, while workshops provide deeper dialogue but require more staff support.

Boards and commissions add expertise and continuity, and participatory budgeting gives residents a direct role in decision-making but can be time-intensive.

The key is aligning the tool with the goal and clearly communicating how public input will shape the final budget.

What makes engagement more effective?

Across all engagement methods, a few best practices consistently improve outcomes:

• Promote problem-solving rather than debate.
• Respond constructively to public emotion.
• Ensure accessibility in format and timing.
• Evaluate what worked and what did not.
• Be authentic; residents can sense when engagement is performative.

Rethinking the budget timeline

Traditional budget processes often limit engagement to the end of the cycle. A more effective approach builds participation throughout the process: conducting community surveys early, using advisory commissions and workshops during budget development, creating web content, and sharing clear budget summaries before final decisions are made.

When engagement is intentional, well-timed, and honest about constraints, it strengthens both the budget and the community behind it.

Kelly Horn is a senior fiscal consultant and Nick Anhut is a senior municipal advisor with Ehlers (ehlers-inc.com). Ehlers is a member of the League’s Business Leadership Council (lmc.org/sponsors).