Water (Rate) Budget- The Hamiltonian's View

The City of Hamilton’s adoption of its 2026 Water (Rate) Budget reflects a familiar municipal balancing act: the tension between long-term infrastructure stewardship and near-term affordability for residents. On paper, the budget is coherent and defensible. It acknowledges the city’s aging water, wastewater, and stormwater systems and commits to sustained capital reinvestment in assets valued at more than $14.6 billion. From an asset-management perspective, continued rate increases were inevitable.

That said, the final outcome exposes the limits of Council’s ability—or willingness—to fundamentally rethink how these costs are distributed. The approved 7.32 per cent rate increase, higher than the mayor’s proposed 5.82 per cent but lower than the initial 10 per cent forecast, lands in a politically convenient middle ground. While the City emphasizes monthly savings compared to the original forecast, for many households this framing obscures the cumulative impact of repeated annual increases that are now projected to average roughly seven per cent well into the next decade.

The deferral of the Stormwater Management Fee to January 2027 is arguably the most consequential policy decision in this budget. While it offers short-term relief, it also postpones a more structural conversation about fairness—particularly whether stormwater costs should continue to be embedded in water rates rather than allocated based on impervious surface area or land use. Mayor Andrea Horwath’s public dissent underscores this unresolved issue and highlights the absence of a city-wide, progressive funding model that better aligns cost with impact.

Administratively, the budget aligns with established asset-management plans and reflects continuity in approach rather than innovation. As City Manager Marnie Cluckie notes, the plan is “responsible” and “forward-looking,” but it is also incremental. For residents, the key question is not whether Hamilton must invest in its water systems—it must—but whether Council has exhausted all options to do so more equitably. 

The Hamiltonian

City of Hamilton Adopts 2026 Water (Rate) Budget

HAMILTON, ON – The City of Hamilton has adopted the 2026 Water (Rate) Budget, a measured and responsible plan that protects the city’s essential water, wastewater and stormwater systems while keeping affordability at the forefront for residents and businesses.

The adopted budget ensures that as Hamilton grows, its water systems grow and modernize in a reliable, sustainable and financially responsible way. It supports major generational infrastructure projects, climate resilience and the needs of new housing and development, while maintaining safe, high-quality services for Hamiltonians today and in the future.

Mayor Horwath’s proposed Water (Rate) Budget was amended and adopted at the December 10 General Issues Committee, which deferred the launch of the Stormwater Management Fee from July 1, 2026 to January 1, 2027. The Water (Rate) increase has been confirmed at 7.32 per cent as adopted.

The 7.32 per cent overall rate increase keeps the City on track with long-term infrastructure renewal while recognizing the economic pressures residents are facing. For an average household using 200 m³ per year, this represents an estimated additional $6.47 per month ($77.65 annually).

The water rate increase was adjusted from the proposed 5.82 per cent to 7.32 per cent. While this is higher than initially proposed, it has been reduced from an initial forecast of 10 per cent, reflecting efforts to balance affordability with the need for ongoing infrastructure investment. This represents savings of approximately $2.41 per month ($28.90 per year) compared to the initial forecast.

"Although I disagree with the decision taken by the majority of Council to increase the 2026 water rate from 5.82 per cent to 7.32 per cent, and am disappointed by the absence of a fairer, more progressive, and whole-of-Hamilton approach to funding our critical water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure - the lifeblood of our community - their decision will stand," said Mayor Andrea Horwath. "My priority remains clear: protecting our water systems and keeping the needs of Hamiltonians’ front and center."

Supporting major, generational capital projects

Consistent with Council’s priorities and asset management plans, the 2026 Water (Rate) Budget advances major multi-year infrastructure projects critical to Hamilton’s future, including the Woodward Water Treatment Plant, Woodward Wastewater Treatment Plant, Dundas Water Treatment Plant, significant renewal of water and wastewater networks across the city and ongoing upgrades that enhance climate resilience and support new housing supply.

These investments align with the City’s Mission to provide high-quality, cost-conscious public services in a healthy, safe and prosperous community, while renewing and modernizing water, wastewater and stormwater systems in a financially sustainable manner.

Key updates for 2026

The adopted budget includes several important changes that support affordability, fairness and long-term sustainability:

Updated fixed and consumption charges: Effective January 1, 2026, adjusted daily water and wastewater fixed rates and updated tiered consumption rates will ensure continued investment in system reliability and service quality.

$4.59 billion capital investment plan: The 2026 Water (Rate) Budget supports approximately $252 million in infrastructure investments in 2026 and outlines $4.59 billion in investments over the next decade for critical infrastructure renewal and system upgrades.

Responsible long-term financing: The 2026 Water (Rate) Budget balances affordability for current ratepayers with the responsible use of reserves and debt financing to support multi-generational infrastructure investments, keeping more money in residents’ hands.

“This budget reflects extensive work to maintain high-quality water services while being mindful of the financial pressures facing residents and businesses,” said City Manager Marnie Cluckie. “It advances critical long-term infrastructure projects, supports growth and modernizes our water, wastewater and stormwater systems, all while reducing the originally forecast rate increase. It is a responsible, forward-looking plan for Hamilton’s future.”

Visit Hamilton.ca/2026Budget for the full schedule, helpful resources and details on how to register for delegations or listen to presentations.

Quick facts:

The proposed 2026 Water (Rate) Budget was prepared and submitted under Mayoral Directive MDI 2025-01 and was amended and adopted at the December 10, 2025 General Issues Committee. The Mayoral Directive guides staff to develop responsible, sustainable budgets aligned with the City’s long-term plans, financial strategies and asset management requirements.

Hamilton manages $14.6 billion in water, wastewater and stormwater assets which provide the community with safe drinking water and safely manages the treatment and disposal of wastewater and stormwater back into the local environment. This includes the Woodward Water and Wastewater Treatment plants as well as stormwater ponds and channels throughout the city.

The City maintains 5,266 km of pipe networks and more than 250 facilities.

The 2026–2035 capital forecast totals $4.6 billion in planned investments.

Annual rate increases forecast at approximately 7 per cent from 2027–2033, then moderating to about 5 per cent in 2034–2035.

Long-term financing relies on balanced use of debt, reserve contributions and staged rate adjustments.

Additional Resources:

Web page: Water (Rate) Budget

Web page: 2026 Tax & Water (Rate) Budget

Web page: Budget 101

The House of Horwath- FAQ

It seems that Mayor Andrea Horwath’s West Avenue North rental property continues to garner interest on social media as well as main stream media. As such, here are answers to common questions that have arisen:

Q: What is the issue involving Mayor Andrea Horwath’s rental property?

A: The issue concerns a residential property on West Avenue North in Hamilton that is personally owned by Andrea Horwath and occupied by her former common-law partner. The property has been the subject of emergency orders issued by the City of Hamilton due to concerns about its structural condition and safety.

Q: Is this a personal dispute or a municipal enforcement matter?

A: It is both, but through separate processes. There is an ongoing civil dispute between the property owner and the occupant. Separately, the City has taken enforcement action under the Building Code Act based on safety concerns. The court has emphasized that these processes are legally distinct.

Q: Why did the City issue an emergency demolition order in early December?

A: The City issued an emergency order citing serious structural deficiencies that it believed posed an immediate risk to occupants and the public. The initial order required the property to be vacated and demolished.

Q: Why did a judge overturn the first emergency order?

A: The Ontario Superior Court invalidated the first order because the City relied on a private engineering report rather than an inspection conducted by a municipal building official, which the judge found did not meet the procedural requirements of the Building Code Act. The ruling focused on process, not on whether the building was safe.

Q: Did the court say the house was safe to live in?

A: No. The court did not rule on the safety or habitability of the property. It ruled only that the City had not followed the correct statutory process when issuing the first emergency order.

Q: Why did the City issue a second emergency order so quickly?

A: Following the court decision, the City issued a new emergency order requiring the occupant to vacate the property. Unlike the first order, the second one does not mandate demolition and allows for repairs or demolition at the owner’s discretion.

Q: Is the second emergency order legally valid?

A: As of publication, the second order remains in effect. Whether it meets all statutory requirements has not yet been tested in court. The City has not publicly detailed the inspections or assessments supporting the new order.

Q: Has Mayor Horwath used her position to influence the City’s actions?

A: There is no public evidence establishing that the Mayor directed or influenced City staff in their enforcement actions. The Mayor’s office has stated that she is acting as a private property owner in this matter. However, the overlap between personal ownership and municipal authority has raised public questions about transparency and process. The Hamiltonian frowns on those who are casting judgment without evidence. 

Q: Why is this matter drawing so much public attention?

A: The case has attracted attention because it involves a sitting mayor, municipal enforcement powers, and housing safety issues. For some residents, it raises broader questions about how rules are applied when elected officials are personally involved in enforcement matters.

Q: Has the Mayor commented publicly on the situation?

A: Mayor Horwath has declined to comment publicly on the specifics, citing ongoing legal proceedings. Media inquiries to the City Manager and building officials have also received limited response.

Q: What happens next?

A: The occupant is required to comply with the second emergency order or challenge it legally. Separately, the civil dispute between the property owner and occupant continues. Additional court proceedings or further municipal action remain possible.

Q: What are the key unresolved questions?

A: Outstanding questions include what inspections underpin the second emergency order, how compliance will be enforced if resisted, and whether clearer public disclosure will be provided by the City regarding process and safeguards when elected officials are involved as private property owners.

Q: What are the key unresolved questions?

A: Outstanding questions include what inspections underpin the second emergency order, how compliance will be enforced if resisted, and whether clearer public disclosure will be provided by the City regarding process and safeguards when elected officials are involved as private property owners.

With Pamela Forward- President, Whistleblowing Canada Research Society

Whistleblowing is one of the most vital safeguards of integrity in public institutions, workplaces, and civic life. It is often the mechanism through which wrongdoing, misuse of power, and systemic failures are brought into the light—particularly when internal controls fall short or are compromised. Far from being an act of disloyalty, responsible whistleblowing reflects a deep commitment to accountability, transparency, and the public interest, often undertaken at significant personal risk. To explore why effective whistleblower protections matter, and how they can either succeed or fail in practice, The Hamiltonian is pleased to welcome Pamela Forward, a leading authority on whistleblower policy, governance, and institutional accountability.

Many municipalities now describe whistleblower policies as standard practice. In your view, what distinguishes a genuinely effective whistleblower program from one that exists largely on paper? 

We know from recent research both in Europe, US, Canada and our own work at Whistleblowing Canada that a key component  of a genuinely effective program is sincere, committed and visible leadership and attention to culture starting at implementation.  There should be no gap between what leaders say and what leaders do as it is the behaviour that sends the cues to employees about what leaders really want. Leaders’ behaviours have a powerful impact on cultures. If there is a gap, this signals insincerity and there will be a loss of trust.

Important functions of an effective disclosure system are advisory, investigative and decision-making. The advisory function should include awareness raising regarding the importance of reporting wrongdoing, with leaders frequent and visible involvement and a change management and communication plan.

Another element of the advisory function is training on laws, rights, understanding and preventing reprisals, skills development i.e. communication and conflict resolution.  There should also be access to free legal support and advice, and psychosocial support such as access to career coaching and mental health services. 

The investigative function includes investigation of the wrong-doing and reprisals. The person reporting should be advised of progress in the investigations and not kept in the dark as this compounds anxiety and leads to distrust. There should be no tolerance for reprisals.

Lastly, a decision making function or authority who would take corrective action to remediate and sanction wrongdoing, ensure the protection of those reporting and take action to redress and compensate harm done to reporting persons, and prevent harm by moving the person to another unit during the investigation.

Unfortunately, while we now know how to create effective systems, most previous policies and programs, were modelled at least provincially on the flawed from inception federal  law, the first such law in Canada, the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA). This law was implemented in 2007 and covers only public servants leaving out federally regulated private sector companies.  A 2021 international study identified it has no best practices for such laws.  The one best practice it did have – a statutory obligation to do a review in 5 years due in 2012 -was never done.  This is called  – Disobeying a Statute under the Criminal Code.  The PSDPA is tied with Lebanon as the worst law in the world.

So, given this background, while I am not aware of research regarding municipalities, it is hard to imagine that those searching for examples of what others were doing in Canada would find effective models on which to base their policies.

You have been critical of the use of “good faith” language in whistleblower policies. What do you mean by this, why do you see it as problematic, and what approach should replace it?

Legal experts globally have agreed on twenty best practices for effective, modern whistleblower protection laws and policies. The removal of the  “good faith” requirement is a best practice in modern

Hamilton Now

At the Hall

Draft 2026 Tax Budget and City Planning

City Council and senior staff have released the Draft Staff-Proposed 2026 Tax Budget designed to support municipal services, infrastructure, and affordability priorities while maintaining financial responsibility. This draft reflects preparatory work ahead of formal budget deliberations and aligns with council’s broader fiscal planning for the coming year. 

 Environmental Assessment Completions

Council communications highlight that the City has completed Municipal Class Environmental Assessments (EAs) for key road and transportation corridors, including West 5th Street and Upper Wellington Street. These studies address traffic, active transportation, and stormwater needs, and will inform future infrastructure work. 

 Vacant Unit Tax and Administrative Notices

The City of Hamilton has  opened the Vacant Unit Tax declaration period for 2025. All residential property owners must submit mandatory occupancy declarations by April 15, 2026, to avoid being charged the tax, which is assessed at one percent of the property’s current assessed value if deemed vacant. Late declarations will be accepted until May 15, 2026, with an associated fee. Revenue from this tax is reinvested into affordable housing initiatives in Hamilton.

Ongoing Council Matters and Housing Initiatives

City Hall’s Housing Secretariat operations — endorsed by council — are advancing work on affordable housing through multi-pillar strategies, federal/provincial partnership initiatives and the Housing Accelerator Fund. This reflects council policy priorities in housing development, acquisition and preservation.

 Strategic Planning and Future Infrastructure

Council has previously supported major transit strategy shifts, including the HSR Next transit plan approved unanimously by council, which will restructure Hamilton’s bus network and integrate future rapid transit elements.

• In the months prior, Council approved funding for a full-time police beat dedicated to encampment enforcement as part of broader by-law enforcement strategies. 

• The Lght Rail Transit Sub-Committee has continued work on LRT planning separate from Metrolinx. 

Current Council Priorities and Focus Areas

Council’s agenda presently emphasizes:

* Budget planning and fiscal oversight for 2026

* Completion and adoption of transportation and environmental planning instruments

* Policy communication and transparency with residents

* Operational continuity during the holiday period

* Housing affordability and related partnerships

Preparations are ongoing for the 2026 Hamilton municipal election, with incumbent and prospective candidates evaluating their positions. 

Transparency

City Manager Marnie Cluckie continues to defer the release of the costs of the Water Workers' strike, raising questions about why the delay. Both the union and The Hamiltonian have made a myriad of queries to Ms. Cluckie, and while assurances that the information will be released were made, the information has yet to be provided. 

Public Safety and Ongoing Police Investigations

Hamilton Police are actively investigating a recent shooting incident near Melvin Avenue and Talbot Street. Officers responded early this morning after multiple gunshots were reported; investigators located more than 20 bullet casings, though no injuries or property damage have been confirmed at this stage. Residents in the area are being asked to check home surveillance or dashcam footage between approximately 3:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. and contact police with any information.

This event comes amid continued law enforcement activity in the city, including regular updates on auto theft and other criminal investigations posted by Hamilton Police. 

 Culture and Entertainment

Looking ahead into early 2026, the TD Coliseum will host a Professional Women’s Hockey League (PWHL) takeover tour game, marking a significant sports event for Hamilton.

The House of Horwath- Update

The Hamiltonian contacted legal counsel for Mayor Andrea Horwath with a series of questions concerning a residential property on West Avenue North owned by the Mayor, and the steps taken to require the immediate vacating of the premises.

Her counsel replied as follows: 

"Thank you for reaching out. This is a long-standing legal matter, and my client has been attempting to resolve it through the proper channels for many years. Because it is a personal and ongoing process. We will not be commenting further at this time."

The City of Hamilton has issued a second Building Code Act Section 15.10 emergency order requiring the occupant of the West Avenue North home to immediately vacate the home. This follows a Superior Court ruling that invalidated the city’s initial emergency demolition and eviction orderbecause the city relied on a private engineering report rather than conducting its own independent inspection. The second order, issued December 12, allows for potential repairs and gives the owner the option to demolish if she chooses, but still mandates the property be vacated for safety reasons. 

Superior Court Strikes Down Initial Demolition and Eviction Order
Earlier in the week, a Superior Court justice ruled against the City of Hamilton’s emergency demolition and eviction order targeting the same property owned by Mayor Horwath. The judge held that the City failed to satisfy statutory requirements of the Ontario Building Code Act because it had not completed a municipal inspection and instead relied solely on an engineer’s report commissioned by the property owner. This ruling struck down the earlier order that had sought immediate demolition and removal of the occupant.

Two complaints have been registered with Hamilton’s integrity commissioner concerning Mayor Horwath’s involvement in the enforcement actions a. These complaints allege potential conflicts or code-of-conduct issues tied to the enforcement process.