As the Atlanta City Council prepares to finalize its 2026 budget, questions arise about the accessibility of the budget-planning process for everyday residents.
With only a handful of budget hearings leading up to the final decision, many citizens feel excluded from this vital governmental function.
A recent examination by Atlanta Civic Circle revealed how cities like Boston and Chicago are engaging residents in budget discussions, and it raises the question: How does Atlanta compare?
Currently, Atlantans can participate in the city’s budget development by reaching out to council members directly or attending just three designated budget hearings.
Additionally, residents can join regular council meetings or Finance and Executive Committee hearings.
However, the time frame for public input is quite limited.
Typically, there is just over a month from the presentation of the proposed budget to its final approval.
This year’s engagement window closed on May 20, after the mayor revealed the proposed budget on April 29.
As noted by City Council Communications Director Zena Lewis, public input options have been sparse this year.
The designated email and phone line for budget feedback received only one email and no voicemails.
Furthermore, there was just one in-person comment and a mere two comments posted on the city’s social media live feed after it concluded.
The dense and complex nature of Atlanta’s proposed budget, which spans 642 pages, may also be a barrier for residents trying to understand how their tax dollars are spent.
For instance, the budget allocates $361 million to the Atlanta Police Department, reflecting a significant increase of more than $54 million from the previous year.
However, the budget lacks detailed breakdowns for specific expenditures like the ambiguous $35 million earmarked for “contracted services.”
Natalyn Archibong, a former city council member, expressed concerns about the inclusivity of these processes.
During her 20 years of service, she noted that while city leaders do hear from certain constituents throughout the year, these voices are often from a self-selecting group that does not accurately represent the broader population’s priorities.
Archibong remarked, “You leave a lot of folks behind,” highlighting the gap in representation and engagement with diverse communities in Atlanta.
In contrast, cities like Boston and Chicago have adopted more proactive strategies to engage their residents year-round in the budget process.
In Chicago, the city has established a structured, citywide public engagement initiative that focuses on accessibility, equity, and transparency, extending beyond just the budget approval timeline.
In partnership with the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Great Cities Institute, Chicago has organized both in-person and online forums throughout 2024, gathering input for its 2025 budget from over 500 residents across various communities.
These engagement efforts include public roundtables, youth-specific events, and provisions for Spanish translations and ASL interpretation.
The city collects resident feedback on essential issues like affordable housing, public transit, and youth services, which directly informs department leaders before the mayor unveils the proposed budget in the fall.
“By involving residents throughout the year, the City gains knowledge that shapes not only the current budget but also informs future programs and measures of progress,” stated Thea Crum, who co-authored the institute’s engagement report.
Additionally, Chicago has implemented participatory budgeting at the ward level since 2009.
This initiative empowers residents in 17 out of 50 wards to decide how to allocate a portion of city funds, amassing over $50 million in community-driven projects since its inception.
According to Crum, the culture of engagement cultivated over the years has resulted in heightened interest and participation in the budgeting process.
Similarly, Boston has institutionalized participatory budgeting through its Office of Participatory Budgeting, actively creating avenues for residents to influence how public funds are used.
The city offers a wealth of budget resources online, including multilingual translations and explanatory materials to help residents understand the budget’s intricacies.
Last year, Boston’s OPB rolled out an initiative titled Ideas in Action, inviting residents to propose ideas for a $2 million allocation.
The initiative led to 789 residents submitting ideas, supplemented by three workshops that attracted 110 participants from diverse neighborhoods.
Afterward, residents were empowered to vote on 14 proposals, with over 4,400 casting ballots to decide which projects would be funded.
Six projects that received the highest votes included initiatives like rental assistance for youth and addressing rat infestations.
Boston has also initiated a youth-centric program, “Youth Lead the Change,” that allocates $1 million annually for individuals aged 14 to 25 to decide on community spending.
In Atlanta, several steps could be taken to enhance constituent participation in the budget process.
District 2 councilmember Amir Farokhi has made strides in this area by launching participatory budgeting initiatives in his district, such as Downtown Decides in 2019, which focused on leftover transportation funds.
This program allowed residents to vote on how to spend $1 million, with nearly 3,500 participating to fund 17 out of 33 proposed projects.
In 2021, Farokhi repeated the initiative in Candler Park, funding $45,000 on parks and arts projects, with over 1,000 voters involved.
Farokhi described participatory budgeting as “one of the easiest ways to increase civic engagement and build trust in government.”
Unfortunately, the concept has yet to widely catch on in other districts beyond Farokhi’s initiatives.
Archibong, a supporter of participatory budgeting, noted the city has previously demonstrated that it can engage and mobilize residents for specific goals, such as improving infrastructure funding through penny sales taxes.
“Participatory budgeting is almost like a gateway, and it shows how something could work,” she stated.
Currently, many residents find that Atlanta’s budget planning process remains relatively inaccessible, with a structure that relies heavily on citizen attendance at City Hall.
Sagirah Jones, head of the Atlanta Planning and Advisory Board, pointed out that while the city charter mandates Neighborhood Planning Units (NPUs) and APAB to influence budget recommendations, these volunteer groups lack formal influence, resources, or funding.
“We don’t have a solution yet,” Jones admitted.
“However, we are preparing to be more proactive in the next budget cycle to provide recommendations on how public engagement can be more effective in Atlanta.”
image source from：https://atlantaciviccircle.org/2025/05/28/analysis-accessible-transparent-atlanta-budget-process/
