Careful What You Ask For

“I think what we want to see them do is pursue any cost recovery based on that they didn't deliver us a product that could actually meet our needs.”

That quote, published by The Hamilton Spectator and attributed to Councillor Craig Cassar in response to the failures of the Mini Cabin Project, speaks directly to the supplier’s shortcomings.

However, the principle embedded in the councillor’s statement extends beyond the vendor. It is equally relevant to the Mayor, City Council, and senior staff who advanced and accelerated the implementation of the plan.

Hamilton’s troubled $7.9-million outdoor shelter project raises two distinct questions: who had the authority to prevent the breakdown in procurement discipline, and whether council can realistically recover roughly $500,000 in added costs from supplier Microshelters Inc.

The answer to the first question is uncomfortable: responsibility was distributed — and preventable failures occurred at multiple levels.

Council’s Role: Direction Without Guardrails

Council authorized the project and endorsed the mayor’s directive to move quickly to establish winter shelter capacity. While council does not administer procurement, it sets political expectations. When urgency becomes the dominant signal, administrative risk tolerance shifts.

If council wanted safeguards, it could have required periodic procurement reporting, contract vetting thresholds, or third-party due diligence before authorizing full payment. It did not. That omission does not create liability, but it reflects governance risk: speed was prioritized without embedding control mechanisms.

The Mayor’s Directive: Urgency as a Structural Pressure

Mayor Andrea Horwath has emphasized she did not impose a construction deadline. However, the political framing — “before the snow flies” — created operational compression. In public administration, compressed timelines predictably reduce due diligence depth. That does not equate to fault, but it explains the environment in which normal procurement safeguards weakened.

Senior Staff: Procurement and Contract Controls

The auditor general’s findings point most directly at administrative execution:

* Full payment issued “sight unseen.”
* No contract containing warranty protections.
* Limited supplier vetting of a newly formed company.
* Late involvement of legal and public works.
* Insufficient attention to building permit thresholds.

These are internal control failures. Municipal procurement best practice requires staged payments tied to inspection milestones, formalized warranty provisions, and supplier background checks. Those safeguards were either absent or underdeveloped.

This is where the breakdown becomes most concrete. Staff had both authority and obligation to structure the transaction differently.

Building and Technical Oversight

Building officials had reportedly warned that units exceeding 10 square metres would require permits under Canadian standards. The purchased cabins exceeded that threshold, triggering compliance complications. That suggests either internal misalignment or a failure to integrate regulatory advice into procurement decisions.

The Supplier: Misrepresentation and Disclosure

Microshelters disputes wrongdoing. However, the auditor noted altered drawings and deficiencies requiring significant remediation. If it can be demonstrated that the supplier misrepresented specifications, concealed intellectual property concerns, or failed to disclose material compliance gaps, the city may have a claim for negligent misrepresentation or breach of implied warranty.

That is the legal hinge point.

Can Council Demand the Money Back?

Council can demand cost recovery politically. Whether it can obtain recovery legally depends on contract law. Because the city reportedly paid via purchase order without robust contractual protections, recovery is not automatic. To succeed, the city would likely need to establish:

* Breach of contract (failure to meet specifications);
* Misrepresentation (false or misleading technical documentation);
* Or failure to deliver goods fit for purpose.

If the units met the specifications outlined in the purchase order — even if those specifications were poorly drafted — the legal footing becomes weak. Courts do not typically rescue sophisticated buyers from their own procurement deficiencies.

If, however, evidence supports altered engineering drawings or undisclosed non-compliance with Canadian standards, the city’s position strengthens materially.

Accountability or Political Theatre?

Calls for repayment are not inherently political theatre. They are a rational response to a $500,000 remediation cost. But absent clear contractual breaches or demonstrable misrepresentation, public demands may outpace legal viability.

The more difficult truth is this: the auditor’s report describes a systemic governance failure driven by urgency. While the supplier’s conduct remains legally assessable, the city’s own control environment appears to have been the primary vulnerability.

Cameron Kroetsch, Council Lunches, and the Optics of Fiscal Discipline

The debate over taxpayer-funded council lunches at Hamilton City Hall has resurfaced — and this time, Councillor Cameron Kroetsch has added his voice clearly to the discussion.

Kroetsch has stated publicly that he has never participated in the council meal program and agrees it should be eliminated. He says he can afford to buy his own lunch or bring one from home. He also notes that he raised the issue when he was first elected but found little support at the time for formally ending the program.

Now, in the midst of budget season — and in an election cycle — the issue has gained renewed traction.

On one level, this is about optics. Hamilton residents are facing tax increases and ongoing affordability pressures. Council is debating service adjustments, capital constraints, and structural budget challenges. In that context, even relatively small internal expenditures attract scrutiny.

Kroetsch argues that council has spent too much time debating “nickels and dimes” instead of focusing on major structural savings. That observation carries weight.

Hamilton’s fiscal pressures are not driven by lunch costs. They are driven by large-scale expenditures: labour agreements, policing, transit, housing, infrastructure renewal, and long-term capital liabilities. Eliminating a meal program does not materially change the tax levy. It does not close a structural funding gap.

But the issue cannot be dismissed simply because it is small.

Public confidence in municipal governance is built on consistency between messaging and behavior. When residents are asked to accept higher taxes or reduced services, they expect elected officials to demonstrate visible restraint — even in minor matters.

Symbolism, in politics, is not trivial. It shapes trust.

Ending the lunch program would not solve Hamilton’s financial challenges. But it would signal a culture of accountability. It would demonstrate that council understands the tone required during tight fiscal times.

The risk, however, lies in allowing symbolic debates to replace substantive reform. If eliminating lunches becomes the centerpiece of “fiscal prudence,” it becomes political theatre. Real savings require deeper analysis: service reviews, procurement reform, asset management discipline, staffing evaluations, and long-term strategic budgeting.

Kroetsch is correct that structural cost reduction takes time, patience, and political courage. It is not achieved through headlines.

At the same time, residents are justified in expecting that fiscal discipline begins with council itself.

Hamilton’s council does not face a choice between symbolism and substance. It can eliminate the meal program to address optics and public trust. Then it must pivot immediately to the much harder work — the line items that truly drive tax increases.

The lunch debate is not about sandwiches.

It is about culture.

And culture, ultimately, determines whether the public believes council is serious about the stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

Hamilton’s Shelter Urgency Collided with Governance Gaps, Auditor Finds

The City of Hamilton’s Office of the Auditor General has released a blunt assessment of the Barton-Tiffany Temporary Shelter project, concluding that urgency overtook due diligence and that fundamental governance controls were lacking from the outset.

In Report AUD26002, Housing Audits: Barton-Tiffany Temporary Shelters Investigation and Lessons Learned, released February 10, 2026, Auditor General Charles Brown found significant deficiencies in accountability, oversight and risk management. The audit was launched in 2025 following multiple Fraud and Waste Hotline complaints and serves as Phase One of a broader housing services review under the 2023–2026 OAG Work Plan.

The Barton-Tiffany project was conceived during a period of acute pressure to expand shelter capacity. However, according to the audit, the imperative to move quickly eclipsed basic project discipline. The Office of the Auditor General found insufficient research into feasible alternatives, an unstructured and poorly documented vendor search process, and a lack of standard procedures for identifying and vetting suppliers.

More concerning was the absence of a comprehensive risk strategy. The audit determined there was no structured approach to identifying, mitigating or managing project risks. Contract management mechanisms were described as ineffective in controlling costs and deliverables, and the City did not maintain adequate oversight of escalating expenditures.

Perhaps most troubling, the shelter structures delivered did not meet Ontario regulatory standards and required costly modifications. The report points to weaknesses in project planning, alignment of staff expertise with project complexity, and consistent use of contract enforcement tools.

In a public statement accompanying the report, Brown emphasized that the goal was not merely retrospective criticism but institutional learning. “Overall, we found that the imperative of urgency overrode the importance of due diligence and good governance,” he said. The audit outlines 11 recommendations aimed at strengthening future project delivery, including more rigorous planning, structured vendor vetting, improved contract management, and ensuring that project teams possess the appropriate expertise for specialized builds.

The findings raise broader governance questions for council and senior administration. Temporary shelters, while urgent humanitarian responses, are still public infrastructure projects requiring procurement discipline, regulatory compliance and fiscal oversight. The report underscores the risks of bypassing structured controls, even during crises.

As Hamilton continues to grapple with homelessness, encampment pressures and housing system strain, the Barton-Tiffany experience offers a cautionary case study. The challenge for council now is twofold: to ensure that emergency responses remain swift, and to embed the governance safeguards necessary to protect public funds and public trust.

Phase Two of the broader housing audit is expected to further examine systemic practices within Housing Services. Whether the City fully implements the 11 recommendations in AUD26002 may determine whether Barton-Tiffany becomes an isolated misstep — or a recurring governance pattern.

For residents concerned about accountability, the report provides clarity. For City Hall, it provides a test.

Is City Council Out to Lunch?

In Hamilton, a debate over something as ordinary as lunch has turned into a pointed discussion about priorities, optics, and accountability at city hall.

The issue centres on whether councillors and senior staff should continue to be provided with meals during long council meetings. What was once a quiet, administrative practice has now become a public question, raised during budget deliberations and amplified by growing sensitivity around costs, taxes, and trust in local government.

Supporters of ending the practice argue the case is straightforward. Councillors are paid professionals, like most Hamiltonians who bring their own lunches to work or manage without special accommodations. At a time when residents are being asked to absorb higher costs and scrutinize every line of the city budget, free meals at council meetings strike many as a perk that is out of step with public expectations. To them, it is not about the dollar value of the food, but about demonstrating restraint and respect for taxpayers.

Those opposed take a more practical view. Council meetings in Hamilton often run for many hours, sometimes stretching through lunch and into the afternoon or evening. Providing food on site allows meetings to continue without interruption, keeps staff and councillors available, and avoids delays in agendas, delegations, and decision-making.

Yet this debate does not have to be framed as a binary choice between efficiency and optics. There is a reasonable middle ground that addresses both concerns.

First, council could tighten meeting management. Better agenda discipline, clearer time allocations, and firmer chairing would reduce unnecessary overruns and make it entirely reasonable to schedule a proper lunch break. Long meetings are not inevitable; they are often a product of process.

Second, councillors could be expected to handle lunch the same way most working residents do: by bringing their own meals or stepping away during a scheduled break. Allowing a full, clearly defined lunch hour — rather than eating at the dais — would reinforce the notion that council business is important, but not exempt from normal workplace expectations.

Third, concerns about opportunistic lobbying during a lunch break should not be overstated. Councillors are elected to exercise judgment and integrity. The expectation should be that they can step out for lunch without being unduly influenced, just as they are expected to navigate countless other interactions in public and private settings throughout their term.

The controversy has resonated with residents because it taps into a larger concern: whether city council truly understands how its decisions look to the people footing the bill. For many Hamiltonians juggling rising housing costs, transit fares, and utility bills, the symbolism of council-funded lunches carries more weight than the actual expense.

This is not a question of legality or misconduct. The practice has been permitted, and no one is suggesting wrongdoing. Instead, it is a test of judgment. In an era where confidence in institutions is fragile, small decisions can carry outsized meaning.

As Hamilton council continues to debate budgets and governance, the lunch issue has become a proxy for a broader conversation about leadership and example-setting. With modest changes to how meetings are run, council can preserve efficiency, respect taxpayers, and demonstrate that it is willing to hold itself to the same standards it asks of the public.

Invisible Transparency

An email exchange obtained by The Hamiltonian shows that the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 has now filed a new freedom-of-information request on the advice of legal counsel, after receiving no confirmation or response to an earlier request seeking disclosure of a December 3, 2025 staff report to council on the cost of the labour disruption involving HOWEA.

The request, filed by Local 772 business manager Greg Hoath in his capacity as a taxpayer, seeks the release of a report that was presented to council but has not been made public. According to Hoath, the original request received neither acknowledgement nor a substantive response.

In a February 7 email addressed to City Manager Marnie Cluckie and Mayor Andrea Horwath, Hoath wrote that the union had “once again” received no confirmation of receipt and no response to its formal request.

Two days later, Cluckie replied, stating that if the request was made under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it would fall under the authority of the City Clerk’s Office, not the City Manager’s Office. She indicated she would ask the clerk to confirm whether the request had been received and whether a response was pending or already provided.

The reply was courteous and procedural. But the exchange raises broader questions that go beyond one FOI file.

At issue is a council report addressing the financial impact of a labour disruption — information that directly affects taxpayers and was presented to elected officials. The fact that an organized labour group must refile a request, this time with legal advice, to obtain confirmation that its application even exists is likely to fuel concerns about transparency and process inside City Hall.

This is not an isolated incident. As The Hamiltonian has previously reported, the city has faced repeated criticism over delayed disclosures, unclear responsibility for information requests, and a governance culture that often defaults to process explanations rather than outcomes.

FOI legislation exists precisely to prevent this kind of uncertainty. Requests are required to be acknowledged, tracked, and responded to within legislated timelines. When requesters are left unsure whether their submission has been received at all, confidence in the system erodes — particularly when the information sought relates to significant public expenditures.

The city manager’s response also underscores a recurring structural issue at City Hall: fragmentation of responsibility. While technically correct that FOI matters are handled by the clerk, the public — and requesters — reasonably expect senior leadership to ensure the system works, especially when senior officials and the mayor are copied on correspondence.

Transparency is not merely about eventual disclosure. It is about timely acknowledgement, clear communication, and confidence that public institutions are functioning as intended.

For now, the requested report remains unreleased, and a second FOI request is underway. Whether this one proceeds smoothly may say less about legal compliance and more about whether Hamilton’s administration recognizes that accountability is not a clerical exercise — it is a core obligation of public governance.

The Hamiltonian will continue to follow the file.

Hamilton Now: Budget Battles, Recycling Relief & Rising Hardship

Hamilton’s civic and community landscape saw a flurry of developments on Friday, Feb. 6, 2026, as council grappled with budget deliberations, city programs faced pressure from rising costs, and community wellbeing indicators signalled urgent need. City Hall’s General Issues Committee sat for its scheduled 2026 budget amendment meeting, while grassroots concerns around food security and business services increasingly dominated the discourse.

At the heart of Friday’s conversations was the continuation of the City of Hamilton’s 2026 budget process. After Mayor Andrea Horwath released the proposed tax budget earlier in January—calling for a modest 4.25 % residential tax increase and targeted investments in core services, infrastructure and safety—councillors spent the first week of February parsing amendments that reflect public priorities and fiscal realities. This phase of debate is part of a process that started in late 2025 and is expected to conclude with final adoption of the tax budget later this month or in March. 

Budget deliberations have not been smooth. In late January, council members rebuked the mayor’s initial budget plan by a significant margin, voting 11–5 against key elements—a result that sent city staff and local stakeholders back to the drawing board as they endeavoured to reconcile competing priorities.

Embedded within those discussions were broader concerns about how Hamilton’s municipal revenues can sustain essential services without unduly burdening residents and businesses already feeling the strain of inflationary pressures. In particular, councillors debated how to balance infrastructure renewal, social services and transit investments against affordability concerns, especially as core services like waste collection, housing supports, and public safety remain central to everyday life in Hamilton

Recycling Debate Reflects Broader Fiscal Strains

Revenue and service discussions spilled into specific policy proposals that have captured public attention. A notable motion expected to come before the General Issues Committee Friday morning called for an extension of the city-operated blue box recycling program for non-eligible businesses. Under recent provincial changes, recycling pick-up for small and medium commercial properties was to be phased out, shifting full responsibility to individual businesses and private haulers.  

For many small business owners, that shift comes at a particularly fraught financial moment. Operators like those on Dundurn Street and along the West Mountain report that budget cuts and increased costs have stretched margins thin; the added expense of procuring private recycling services could be prohibitive. Councillor Cameron Kroetsch and other advocates are urging council to bridge this gap by extending city recycling services through the end of 2026 and tapping into the city’s tax stabilization reserve to cover an estimated $2.1 million cost. 

This proposal is emblematic of the broader tension in Hamilton politics right now: balancing fiscal responsibility with service continuity. Municipal officials must weigh the long-term sustainability of taxpayer-funded programs against the immediate economic hardships faced by citizens and enterprises alike.

Community Hardship on the Rise

Nowhere are those hardships more visible than in Hamilton’s neighbourhoods struggling with food insecurity. A new analysis released this week highlights that an estimated 29 % of Hamilton households are food insecure-a striking measure of socio-economic stress in a city proud of its strong community fabric. 

This figure—almost a third of families and individuals—puts pressure on local food banks, charities and social services that are already operating near capacity. As winter deepens and utility costs remain high, increased community demand for basic supports is likely to become a touchstone issue in upcoming budget votes.

Community advocates argue that the city’s budgetary choices must reflect these realities. Beyond the headline numbers of infrastructure projects and tax rates, residents are calling for targeted investments in social supports, housing stability initiatives, transportation access, and employment programs that can meaningfully alter these statistics.

Weather and Infrastructure Add to Local Concerns

Beyond fiscal and social policy, Hamilton residents were alerted Friday to a yellow cold weather warning from Environment Canada covering the Halton–Hamilton–Niagara regions. These warnings are issued when temperatures and wind chill values pose a risk to unprotected skin and can strain infrastructure services, particularly for vulnerable populations. 

Last night, municipal crews dealt with the aftermath of a watermain break on Dundurn Street South that forced overnight traffic restrictions and brought fresh attention to the challenges of maintaining aged infrastructure during extreme conditions.  For many residents, such incidents raise questions about the adequacy of capital maintenance budgets and the prioritization of repairs that might prevent similar disruptions.

Heading Into Week Two of Deliberations

As council heads into another round of budget meetings next week, the stakes appear to be escalating. With public sentiment growing more vocal on issues like service continuity, food security and economic fairness, councillors are under pressure to demonstrate responsiveness to community needs while maintaining a balanced fiscal path.

If Friday’s developments are any indication, the Hamilton City Council’s budget debates will continue to shape the city’s policy direction in 2026 and beyond—as Hamiltonians watch closely and prepare to make their voices heard.

Budget scrutiny intensifies

Hamilton City Council continues to wrestle with the 2026 draft budget, with councillors signaling deeper scrutiny after a series of high-profile reversals and clarifications. The temporary inclusion of Stoney Creek Arena for closure — later reversed — has sharpened concerns about transparency, internal review, and how clearly service impacts are being communicated. Councillors are pressing for clearer line-by-line explanations of proposed cuts, reserve usage, and long-term cost pressures tied to infrastructure renewal and policing. Expect more pointed questions ahead of committee votes this week as council tries to reassert its oversight role under the strong-mayor framework.

10 Questions That Councillors Should Ask

Here are 10 questions that ought to be asked by Councillors, concerning the budget. 

1. Affordability 
The budget is framed around “holding the line” at a 4.25% residential tax increase, but what objective affordability metrics (e.g., tax burden as % of median household income) were used in developing this target? How does that compare to inflation and wage growth in Hamilton for 2025/26? 

2. Service Level Impacts
To meet the 4.25% target, where exactly have service levels been reduced or deferred, and what quantifiable service impacts will residents see?  

3. Operating vs Capital Trade-Offs
How much operating budget pressure (inflation, wages, contracted services) is crowding out capital infrastructure investment, and what is the projected impact on the City’s state-of-good-repair backlog over the next 5–10 years?

4. Infrastructure Risk
The budget prioritizes $626M in infrastructure renewal, but what proportion of this is fully funded versus reliant on uncertain external grants? What risk mitigation exists if provincial/federal funding does not come through as expected? 

5. Public Works Cost Drivers
With Public Works seeking a significant increase due to two-way conversion projects and other capital priorities, which projects are mandatory  versus discretionary? What financial contingency exists if priorities shift?

6.  Long-Term Transit Funding
Given ongoing transformation with HSR Next and service changes, how are transit operating costs forecast beyond 2026, and what provisions are in place to avoid service cuts or fare increases if ridership or fuel costs change? 

7. Reserve and Debt Strategy
What is the current status of key reserves (infrastructure, transit, emergency) and how much of those reserves are being drawn down in 2026? Are there planned new borrowing strategies, and what are the long-term implications for debt servicing costs? 

8. Performance and Accountability Measures
What specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) has Administration adopted to monitor the budget’s implementation (e.g., project completion rates, response times for core services, debt ratios) and how will those be reported publicly through the year? 

09. Equity and Vulnerable Populations
How does the budget address equity considerations, especially for low-income households, renters, seniors, Indigenous communities, and persons with disabilities? Are there targeted investments or protections in the operating and capital budgets? What data supports these choices? 

10. Votes

 How many hours have we (city council) spent debating grass cutting and how might those efforts translate into assured votes in the upcoming election? What is the hours spent per vote ratio? 

Note: #10 was facetious- sort of....

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

The System Worked- the Optics Didn’t

The controversy over the proposed closure of Stoney Creek Arena has been widely framed as a failure of leadership or administration. But there is another, more constructive way to read what actually happened: the system worked. 

The arena closure appeared in the draft budget, councillors spotted it, questioned it, and the proposal was ultimately reversed. That sequence — review, challenge, correction — is precisely what council is meant to do. 

Mayor Horwath has said the arena was never intended to be closed and that its inclusion was inconsistent with her direction to protect core community services. Whether one accepts that explanation fully or not, the more important fact is that the budget did not pass quietly or unquestioned. Councillors examined the document, raised concerns publicly, and forced clarification. 

That matters. 

Strong-mayor powers do not eliminate the role of council. Councillors are not passive recipients of a finished product; they are meant to scrutinize, probe, and flag problems. In this case, they did exactly that — and quickly. The error did not survive the review process, and the outcome changed as a result. 

Much has been made of who bears responsibility for the arena appearing in the budget in the first place. That debate is fair, but it risks overshadowing a more important point: the checks and balances functioned as designed. A draft proposal was challenged before final adoption, not after irreversible decisions were made. 

That is not a failure of governance. It is governance. 

Public trust is built not on the idea that mistakes will never occur, but on confidence that mistakes can be caught and corrected. Budgets are complex documents assembled under tight timelines. What matters most is whether elected officials are empowered — and willing — to question what is in front of them.

In this case, they were. 

There is still room for improvement in clarity, communication, and process. Residents reasonably expect fewer surprises when it comes to cherished community assets. But it is also worth acknowledging that accountability did not vanish behind closed doors. It showed up at the council table. 

Rather than viewing this episode as proof the system is broken, it may be more accurate — and more reassuring — to see it as evidence that council oversight still has teeth.

Now, if only council would curb its fixation on grass cutting in an election year…..

And it continues…

Beyond the specifics of arenas and water parks, the budget process has sharpened a larger debate at city hall. Strong-mayor powers were intended to streamline decision-making and improve efficiency. Instead, this budget cycle has left councillors and residents questioning whether authority is being matched with sufficient oversight, clarity, and communication. 

What is City Council Up To?

Hamilton City Council’s current work is focused on finalizing the 2026 budget, scrutinizing major service budgets like policing and libraries, and handling ongoing planning and development decisions, including appeals and zoning updates. These actions reflect broader strategic priorities around sustainable growth, infrastructure, affordability, and community safety. Councillors are also responding to resident input through public meetings, delegation opportunities, and formal committee processes. 

The Barton Street Temporary Housing Model

The Hamiltonian reached out to the city to inquire about the Barton Tiffany Shelter. Enjoy our chat with Michelle Baird, Director, Housing Services Division, City of Hamilton.

The Barton project originated from a mayoral directive in 2024, and the Mayor has since called for a “broader visioning exercise” for the site. As you assess that direction, how is your department weighing investment in temporary shelter models against permanent supportive housing, and is one of the key lessons learned that greater emphasis should be placed on permanent solutions over time-limited shelter interventions?

The Temporary Barton Tiffany Shelter (TBTS) was implemented as an urgent, time-limited response to address immediate health and safety risks associated with encampments, particularly for vulnerable individuals who could not access traditional shelter options. Couples, individuals with pets, and others who needed urgent supports were prioritized where they would otherwise have to make a difficult decision to enter into a shelter. The City acted with urgency and compassion to support people living unsheltered who were facing heightened risks.

While TBTS has provided short-term stability and supported housing transitions for people who were previously living unsheltered, long-term progress depends on sustained investment in permanent affordable and supportive housing, alongside a broader continuum of supports. The City is committed to providing safe, supportive and accessible shelter options for residents experiencing homelessness, and to addressing homelessness with urgency, compassion and fiscal responsibility.

The City is committed to working together with other levels of government, both the Provincial and Federal governments, to address the homelessness, mental health and addiction crises. We are actively seeking eligible Provincial and Federal funding to offset capital costs and reduce pressure on municipal taxpayers.

Within the homelessness system, housing-focused emergency shelter plays a critical role in providing immediate safety and access to services for unhoused community members. Emergency shelters are one type of support, while permanent housing support long-term stability. The TBTS evaluation reinforces the importance of continuing to strengthen pathways to permanent housing while ensuring emergency responses remain available, humane and responsive to community needs.

The Barton Street model has been described as “fantastic", but the site itself as unsuitable long term. Why was this initiative designed as a stand-alone project rather than integrated from the outset into a permanent supportive housing pipeline with clearly defined exit pathways and timelines?

The TBTS project was intentionally designed as a temporary emergency response to the growing crisis of unsheltered homelessness, with a focus on providing immediate safety and support to vulnerable residents, a challenge being experienced not only in Hamilton but across Ontario and Canada. It was initiated under a mayoral directive and approved by Council as part of a broader expansion of emergency shelter capacity, alongside 192 additional temporary shelter beds across the system, to support vulnerable individuals who were otherwise unable to access the existing shelter system, including couples and people with pets. The City continues to invest in affordable and supportive housing and expanding shelter supports, however, emergency shelter(s) continue to play a vital role in order to address immediate needs.

At the time of development, the priority was rapid response, reflecting the City’s commitment to acting with urgency and compassion. Housing-focused supports were embedded on-site from the outset, including case management, health services, and connections to housing resources, to support continuity of care for residents. Lessons learned from the TBTS, both operationally and from a system-planning perspective, will inform how future responses can be more closely aligned with permanent housing pathways, while maintaining a focus on dignity for people experiencing homelessness.

From a system-planning perspective, does your department believe there should continue to be a role for temporary shelter models like Barton, particularly when cost overruns and ongoing operating expenses risk crowding out investment in permanent supportive housing with longer-term impact?

From a system-planning perspective, the City is working to prioritize strengthening pathways to permanent affordable and supportive housing as the foundation for addressing homelessness over the long term. At the same time, the City is focused on continuing to evolve a homelessness response that is responsive and flexible, capable of meeting the needs of vulnerable individuals and unhoused community members at different points in time and adapting to changing conditions within the system.

While supportive housing operational funding has historically been a provincial responsibility, the City of Hamilton has increased its municipal investment in recent years to advance supportive housing operations, while also enhancing intensive case management and rapid rehousing programs, and expanding prevention and diversion efforts, balancing fiscal responsibility with compassion and care.

It is important to note that the City does not approach emergency and permanent housing responses as an either-or choice. Instead, decisions are guided by data, evidence and best practices, with a focus on building a coordinated, housing-focused system where emergency responses are clearly defined in purpose and aligned with long-term housing goals.

As the department lead responsible for decommissioning the Barton site, what is your concrete exit plan for residents and for the property itself, and how will you ensure continuity of care, service access, and housing outcomes as the cabins are phased out in 2027?

The TBTS is temporary by design, and the City is beginning work on a phased approach to decommissioning the site and transitioning housing and homelessness supports, consistent with Council direction. Initial details will be brought forward to Council in late 2026.

This work will be undertaken collaboratively across City departments and with community partners, with a focus on continuity of services and minimizing disruption for residents, particularly vulnerable individuals who rely on stable access to supports. The City’s approach will be guided by system planning and its commitment to providing safe, supportive and accessible options for people experiencing homelessness, as part of broader efforts to strengthen the City’s housing and homelessness response.

Future considerations for the site will be addressed through Council reporting and broader planning processes.

Thank-you Ms. Baird for engaging with Hamiltonians on The Hamiltonian.  

Conserving Our Assumptions re: Conservation Authority Amalgamation

The provincial government’s plan to amalgamate Ontario’s conservation authorities remains unresolved, yet the reaction in Hamilton has already been swift and forceful. Public statements, motions, and commentary have framed the proposal as an immediate threat to local environmental stewardship and municipal autonomy. Councillor Hwang expressd outrage while Clr. Clark described the amalgamation as a mistake, encouraging residents to write letters to express concern. However, with key details still pending from the province, the debate is running ahead of the facts.

The Ontario government has signalled its intention to review and potentially restructure conservation authorities to improve efficiency, reduce administrative duplication, and clarify governance. What has not yet been released are the specific models under consideration, the criteria for amalgamation, financial implications for municipalities, or how watershed-based decision-making would be preserved. In Hamilton’s case, concerns centre on the future of the Hamilton Conservation Authority, its integration with neighbouring authorities, and whether local priorities would be diluted within a larger regional structure. These concerns are legitimate — but they are also, at this stage,  speculative.They also run the risk of being received through a bureaucratic self preservation filter rather than a resident filter.

The risk for Hamilton is not in asking hard questions, but in locking into opposition positions before the full scope of the proposal is known. Conservation authorities are complex entities, balancing flood control, land management, ecological protection, development regulation, and public recreation. Changes to governance could have real consequences — positive or negative — depending on how they are designed. Without access to the province’s detailed framework, assumptions about loss of local control, cost increases, or weakened environmental protection may prove inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading. They are certainly present as premature.

There is also a strategic risk. Premature resistance can reduce credibility when formal consultations begin. Municipalities that appear reflexively opposed may find themselves sidelined in negotiations where evidence-based input, technical expertise, and constructive alternatives carry the most weight. Conversely, a measured response that clearly identifies principles — watershed integrity, local accountability, fiscal transparency, and environmental protection — positions Hamilton to influence outcomes rather than merely react to them.

The broader issue extends beyond Hamilton. Conservation authorities exist to manage natural systems that do not align neatly with municipal boundaries. Any restructuring must reconcile local knowledge with regional coordination. The province will ultimately be judged on whether amalgamation strengthens watershed-based planning or undermines it in pursuit of administrative streamlining.

Until the government releases concrete details, Hamilton’s most responsible posture is informed vigilance. Asking for data is not weakness. Reserving judgment is not surrender. 

The Hamiltonian 

 

Whine Season

Councillors Are Paid to Govern, Not Complain

The release of Hamilton’s proposed 2026 budget has triggered a familiar and increasingly unproductive ritual at City Hall: councillors expressing shock, disappointment, and indignation at cuts that are an inevitable consequence of the budget framework already declared.

Mayor Andrea Horwath has put forward a 2026 budget with a 4.25 per cent property tax increase—lower than the 5.5 per cent originally projected by staff. That reduction necessarily requires trade-offs. Yet much of the council response, as reported by The Hamilton Spectator, has focused less on proposing workable alternatives and more on lamenting process and outcomes after the fact.

This misses a fundamental point of municipal governance.

Councillors are not paid to react emotionally to difficult budgets. They are paid to do the hard work of governing within them.

Under Ontario’s strong-mayor legislation, the mayor is responsible for proposing the budget. Council’s role is clearly defined: review it, propose amendments, and build consensus where possible. That framework may be imperfect, but it is the legal reality councillors operate within. Complaining about that reality—rather than engaging it constructively—does nothing for residents who ultimately foot the bill.

Several councillors criticized the mayor for insufficient collaboration, arguing they learned of specific cuts only hours before a meeting. Ward 5 Councillor Matt Francis objected to the proposed decommissioning of the Stoney Creek Arena ice plant, calling it an ineffective savings of $161,000. Councillor Brad Clark said the process lacked resident input. Councillor Cameron Kroetsch described it as “disrespectful.”

These concerns may be sincerely held. But they are not substitutes for governance.

The mayor has been clear that her door was open throughout the process and that few councillors availed themselves of that opportunity. More importantly, councillors now have a defined 30-day window to do what they are elected and compensated to do: propose credible amendments that align with the declared tax target.

That means making choices, not simply pointing out that choices are hard.

If councillors believe the closure of Stoney Creek Arena is unacceptable, they must identify equivalent savings elsewhere—real savings, not rhetorical ones. If delaying the “HSR Next” transit redesign is shortsighted, they must propose how to fund it without increasing the tax burden. If ending blue box pickup for businesses is harmful, they must explain who pays instead.

This is the work.

Municipal budgets are not exercises in consensus-building alone. They are exercises in prioritization under constraint. Every dollar restored to one program must be removed from another, or collected from taxpayers already facing affordability pressures.

Too often, council debates drift into performative outrage, as though the budget appeared from nowhere and councillors were bystanders rather than participants in a multi-month fiscal cycle. Residents deserve better than that.

Hamilton taxpayers are not paying councillors to “decry” budgets. They are paying them to improve them—within the limits set, using the tools available, and with a clear understanding that leadership sometimes means owning difficult decisions rather than distancing oneself from them.

The 2026 budget process is not over. Councillors still have time to demonstrate seriousness, discipline, and respect for the role they were elected to perform. In short, they need to do better. 

The question is whether they will.

The Hamiltonian

Photo by Unsplash

Media Release: From Fire Chief David Cunliffe

At approximately 11:57 a.m. today (Saturday January 24, 2026) the Hamilton Fire Department received a report of a structure fire at 71 Spadina Avenue between Vineland Avenue and Dunsmure Avenue in the City’s east end. At the same time the caller advised that one occupant was still in the house. The first arriving unit reported smoke showing from a two and a half storey home, with people outside and a confirmation of an occupant still inside.

 Firefighters immediately made entry into the house to initiate search and rescue operations. They located the occupant in a first-floor bedroom that had fire involvement. Firefighters knocked down the fire and extracted the occupant to the exterior of the home, where they were turned over to on scene Paramedics who then transported them to hospital.

 Additional crews who had entered the house and were able to quickly extinguish the remaining fire. At the time of writing, the occupant is listed critical condition. It is estimated that the fire has caused approximately $10,000.00. The cause of the fire is currently not known. The Office of the Fire Marshal has been notified due to the critical condition of the occupant rescued.

David R. (Dave) Cunliffe (he/him)
Fire Chief
Hamilton Fire Department

Starting at the Top: An Assessment of Mayor Andrea Horwath- so far.....

The Hamiltonian recently indicated that we would be commencing our election coverage. While the city is not formally in election mode, taxpayers will soon begin sizing up options as to who should lead the city. In short, the puck is almost ready to be dropped. 

Here are some observations with respect to the Mayor. 

Andrea Horwath has now been mayor long enough for Hamilton residents to judge her not by promise, but by performance. The simplest way to assess her term is to ask three questions: Has she set clear priorities? Has she moved files forward? And have outcomes improved in ways people can feel day to day? On those measures, her record is mixed but substantive: tangible progress on housing approvals, transit planning, and climate initiatives; persistent public frustration on affordability, homelessness, taxes, and safety; and periodic controversies that have complicated her message.

Housing and homelessness

Horwath has made housing and homelessness the defining policy lane of her mayoralty. The city exceeded at least one annual housing-start target and secured provincial incentive funding tied to housing delivery. That matters because it reflects more than rhetoric: approvals, starts, and money attached to performance.

At the same time, “more units in the pipeline” has not yet translated into broad relief from rising rents, low vacancy, or visible street-level disorder. Homelessness remains the most immediate and emotionally charged indicator of city distress. Council’s approach during her term has leaned toward harm reduction, temporary shelter solutions, and protocols that attempt to balance compassion with park and neighborhood impacts. This has left Horwath vulnerable to criticism from both sides: some residents feel the city tolerates encampments too readily; others argue the city still lacks enough safe alternatives and supportive housing to make enforcement fair or effective.

The report of the auditor general that slammed the city’s tiny shelter project for its “lack of accountability, governance and control mechanisms", certainly casts an unfavourable shadow over any progress made on the housing file; particularly with the significant cost overruns in the quantum of millions. 

The Mayor's  willingness to use (or threaten to use) strong-mayor powers in a housing dispute signaled a governing style that is generally collaborative but becomes forceful when she believes council decisions jeopardize core housing objectives. Supporters read this as urgency and leadership. Critics read it as heavy-handed and insufficiently consultative.

Transportation and transit

Horwath’s term has also been consequential on transit, mainly because long-debated plans have moved closer to implementation. The Hamilton LRT file advanced through ongoing preparatory steps toward procurement and construction. Meanwhile, council approved a major redesign of the bus network intended to increase frequency, improve cross-city connectivity, and align with the future LRT. These are structural decisions that could improve mobility and economic access over time.

The downside is timing and disruption: residents often experience transit change as years of planning before benefits show up, and major capital projects bring inconvenience before they bring improved service. Horwath deserves credit for advancing the planning and political alignment, but the most visible wins will likely land after significant construction and operational ramp-up.

Fiscal management and taxes

The city faces genuine pressures: inflation, interest rates, infrastructure needs, and cost growth in boards and services that are difficult to compress quickly. Horwath’s philosophy has largely been to protect services and invest in priorities (housing supports, transit, emergency response) rather than pursue large service cuts to hold down tax increases.

That approach is coherent, but it creates a predictable political trade-off: taxpayers see larger bills now, while many benefits are either long-term (transit, housing supply) or targeted (programs that not everyone uses directly). The fairness question is unavoidable: residents who are stretched financially may feel they are paying more without seeing commensurate improvement in core quality-of-life indicators like cleanliness, safety, and affordability.

Public safety and social disorder

Hamilton has faced heightened concern about shootings, hate incidents, and broader social disorder. Horwath’s posture has emphasized prevention and “community safety and well-being” approaches alongside traditional policing. She supported convening and coordination efforts and has also funded emergency services through successive budgets. This is the practical reality of municipal leadership: even mayors who prefer upstream solutions still have to resource police, fire, and paramedics.

Results are mixed. In some periods, shootings and violence have shown signs of easing from prior peaks, but residents’ sense of safety is shaped by high-profile incidents and daily experience at transit stops, parks, and commercial strips. Horwath’s approach may be directionally sound, but the outcomes remain fragile and uneven.

Climate, environment, and growth form

On climate and environmental policy, Horwath has positioned Hamilton as more ambitious: expanding tree planting, supporting home retrofit initiatives, advancing green building standards, and strengthening regional cooperation. She has also been publicly resistant to growth patterns that push outward sprawl when the city argues it can accommodate more housing within the existing urban footprint.

This is an area where municipal action can be real but incremental. Progress is visible in programs and standards; the larger emissions and resilience outcomes depend heavily on industry, transportation patterns, and sustained funding over many years.

Leadership, transparency, and controversies

Horwath’s leadership style has generally been more collaborative and institution-focused than personality-driven. She has been willing to apologize for institutional failures that predate her (notably around infrastructure governance and public trust) and to support reforms. That has helped tone and credibility at City Hall.

However, her term has also included controversies that complicate public confidence. The Mayor says the right things where transparency is concerned, but matching actions with statements is just as important. Residents of Hamilton still are denied information pertaining to how much the city spent managing the water workers strike- tax money. 

The Mayor's interactions with The Hamiltonian have been distant as of late. We will not comment any further, other than to say we will continue to reach out to her with fair questions- even when some of those questions are tough.

Bottom line

Horwath’s tenure to date can be summarized as earnest, policy-heavy, and oriented toward long-term city-building, with measurable movement on housing delivery, transit planning, and climate standards. The central critique is not lack of activity; it is the gap between big structural initiatives and the immediate lived experience of residents facing affordability strain, visible homelessness, and tax fatigue. Some of that disconnect cannot be laid at the Mayor's feet, as it is the nature of longer term solutions. 

If the second half of her term produces clearer, on-the-ground improvements that people can feel (reduced encampment pressure through real shelter capacity, more reliable transit service, credible restraint on tax increases, and sustained reductions in violence), she will be able to argue that early investments and hard decisions were justified. If those daily indicators do not improve, voters may conclude that Hamilton got plans, spending, and process, but not enough results.

Stay tuned...

Tax Facts-Hamilton’s Budget Increases: How the Last Four Elections Compare And What It Means for Taxpayers

Every four years, Hamilton voters elect a new city council. Less visible, but far more impactful on household finances, is what happens to the city budget during each of those terms.

Looking back over the last four municipal election cycles — roughly the past 16 years — Hamilton’s budgets have grown steadily. When adjusted for inflation, the picture becomes clearer and easier to compare both over time and against similar Ontario cities.

First, how Hamilton compares to itself.
Hamilton’s operating budget — the money that pays for day-to-day services like transit, garbage collection, fire, police, parks, and administration — has generally grown at or slightly above inflation over most of the last four terms.

In the late 2000s and early 2010s, operating budget growth was modest. Some years barely kept up with inflation, meaning services expanded very little in real terms. During the mid-2010s, budgets increased more noticeably as council began responding to aging infrastructure, transit pressures, and service demands.

In the most recent term, operating budgets again roughly tracked inflation. In plain terms: the city is spending more dollars, but those dollars buy about the same level of service as before, because costs have risen everywhere.

Capital budgets tell a different story.

Capital budgets pay for long-term items: roads, bridges, transit vehicles, recreation centres, housing projects, and major repairs. For years, Hamilton under-invested in this area. That created the well-known “infrastructure backlog.”

Over the last two terms especially, capital spending has increased faster than inflation. This is not because Hamilton is being extravagant — it is because the city is catching up. Roads that were not fixed a decade ago still need fixing today, and at a higher cost.

Now, how Hamilton compares to similar cities.

When placed beside London, Windsor, Kitchener, and Mississauga, Hamilton sits squarely in the middle.

Windsor kept budget growth very low for many years, sometimes below inflation. That kept taxes down in the short term, but it also meant deferred repairs and tighter services.

Mississauga followed the opposite path. After years of low taxes, its budgets rose sharply in the 2010s as infrastructure aged and growth slowed. Services were maintained, but costs rose quickly once the bill came due.

London and Kitchener took a more balanced approach. Their budgets generally rose slightly above inflation to support growth and service expansion, while avoiding large spikes.

Hamilton’s approach has been closer to London and Kitchener than to either extreme. Budget increases have not been unusually high by Ontario standards, but they have become more noticeable to residents in recent years.

What this means for everyday taxpayers.

For most households, the issue is not whether spending is “reasonable” in theory — it is whether the tax bill feels manageable in practice.

Even when budgets only keep pace with inflation, property tax bills still rise in dollar terms. When capital investment ramps up, those increases become more visible.

In Hamilton, recent tax increases reflect three realities:

– Higher costs due to inflation

– Long-delayed infrastructure repairs

– Growing demands for transit, housing, and social services

None of these pressures are unique to Hamilton. What is different is how openly and clearly they are explained to residents.

The takeaway.

Over the last four elections, Hamilton’s budgets have grown steadily but not exceptionally compared to similar cities. The real challenge is not runaway spending, but the cumulative effect of years of under-investment now coming due all at once.

For taxpayers, that means higher bills today — not because of sudden extravagance, but because past restraint has limits.

Understanding that context matters. It allows residents to debate priorities honestly, rather than reacting only to the final percentage increase on a tax notices.

Photo by Amol Tyagi on Unsplash

With Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Head of New College, York University, Dr. Zachary Spicer.

Enjoy our chat with Friend of The Hamiltonian and Associate Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Head of New College, York University, Dr. Zachary Spicer. 

Do strategic plans, scorecards, and performance frameworks meaningfully improve municipal outcomes, or do they risk becoming symbolic? Has Hamilton seen demonstrable results?

Strategic plans and performance frameworks can improve municipal outcomes, but only under fairly demanding conditions. They matter when they are tied to clear ownership, measurable outcomes, regular public reporting, and real consequences for decision-making, particularly through the budget and senior management performance discussions. Without those elements, they often become symbolic documents that signal intent rather than shape behavior.

In Hamilton’s case, the City has adopted multiple iterations of strategic plans and council priorities over time. Where progress is most defensible is in areas with sustained measurement and reporting across multiple years. Where targets are less clearly operationalized, or where reporting is irregular, it becomes much harder to demonstrate that the frameworks themselves produced improved outcomes rather than simply documenting aspirations. The lesson is not that planning tools are ineffective, but that their impact depends on how tightly they are integrated into governance, budgeting, and accountability processes.

Should Hamilton’s persistently low voter turnout be understood as apathy or as a rational response to municipal governance and engagement?

From an academic perspective, low municipal turnout is better understood as a rational response to institutional design and political context than as simple voter apathy. Municipal elections lack many of the cues that mobilize participation, such as party labels, sustained media coverage, and clear policy differentiation, and voters often perceive limited influence over major outcomes.

In Hamilton, turnout in the mid-30 percent range is consistent with trends in many large Canadian cities. In fact, turnout in Hamilton during the last provincial election was slightly higher than the provincial average. This suggests not disengaged citizens, but a system that imposes high information costs relative to perceived stakes. If municipalities want higher participation, the solution lies less in exhorting voters and more in improving how municipal governments communicate priorities, demonstrate impact, and engage residents between elections rather than only during them.

How accountable are city managers to the public, and should Hamilton’s City Manager operate under a formal performance contract?

City managers are primarily accountable to council, not directly to the public, which makes transparency around their objectives and evaluation especially important. In that sense, accountability is indirect: residents hold council accountable, and council in turn oversees senior administration.

I support the idea of a formal performance agreement for Hamilton’s City Manager, provided it is thoughtfully designed. Such an agreement should focus on a small number of clearly defined deliverables tied to council priorities, be accompanied by public reporting on progress, and recognize that not all important outcomes are easily reduced to metrics. The goal should be clarity and trust, not rigid managerialism. Done well, a performance contract can strengthen accountability without politicizing the role. 

How important is organizational culture within city hall, and how does it affect a municipality’s ability to achieve its goals? 

Organizational culture is critical because it determines how strategy is actually executed. Culture shapes whether staff feel empowered to surface problems, collaborate across departments, experiment with new approaches, and report honestly on setbacks. 

A city hall with a risk-averse or siloed culture can struggle to implement even the best-designed strategies. Conversely, a culture that values learning, transparency, and problem-solving can adapt quickly when plans encounter real-world constraints. In practice, culture often matters more than formal strategy because it governs day-to-day decision-making when political direction is ambiguous or contested.

Is there sufficient rigorous scrutiny of municipal governance across Hamilton’s local media landscape?

Municipal governance is generally under-scrutinized relative to its impact on residents’ daily lives. This is less a question of journalistic intent than of capacity. Municipal governments produce a high volume of complex decisions, while local newsrooms, both mainstream and independent, operate with limited resources.

 Independent outlets often add valuable depth and persistence, while mainstream media provide reach and legitimacy, but neither can comprehensively track implementation, performance, and follow-through across all major files. The real gap is sustained accountability journalism: not just reporting decisions when they are announced, but revisiting them months or years later to assess delivery, cost, and outcomes. This can be hard to do. 

What structural reforms could realistically improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence without provincial legislative change? 

First, Hamilton could strengthen its public performance reporting by maintaining a stable, accessible dashboard tied directly to council priorities, with clear ownership and regular updates. This would allow residents to see what is on track, what is delayed, and why. 

Second, the City could move toward proactive disclosure as the default, routinely publishing decision rationales, procurement summaries, and briefing materials wherever legally possible. This reduces friction between residents and government and builds trust through openness. 

Third, Hamilton could institutionalize continuous public engagement, such as standing resident panels or participatory budgeting pilots, so that participation is not limited to elections or one-off consultations. When residents can see how their input connects to real decisions, confidence in municipal governance tends to improve.

The Hamiltonian thanks Dr. Spicer for sharing his insights and engaging with Hamiltonians in The Hamiltonian!

The Mayor's Statement Regarding the 2026 Proposed Budget- The Hamiltonian's View

The Mayor’s statement is optimistic. It emphasizes momentum, discipline, and affordability, and positions the proposed 4.25 per cent tax increase as both restrained and responsive. Beyond the reassuring language, the statement leaves several substantive questions unanswered — questions residents and councillors should be pressing as the budget moves forward.

First, “holding the line” is doing a lot of work here. A 4.25 per cent increase may be lower than earlier staff scenarios, but it still represents a meaningful cost increase for households already facing rising property taxes, utility costs, and inflation-driven pressures. The statement does not explain how “affordability” is being measured from a resident’s point of view rather than a City Hall one.

The Mayor repeatedly cites what “Hamiltonians were clear about,” without specifics about how public input materially changed the budget. What services were scaled back, deferred, or redesigned as a result? What infrastructure projects slowed to a “more realistic pace,” and which ones proceeded unchanged?

The promise to “work smarter” and “find efficiencies” is familiar language. Where exactly will efficiencies be found? Through staffing reductions, service consolidation, delayed projects, or operational restructuring? Residents have heard similar commitments before, often followed by service pressures surfacing later in less visible ways.

The Mayor also highlights that this is the first year she has put a specific budget number forward, presenting it as a disciplined leadership moment. That may be politically significant, but it also shifts responsibility. If this number is a firm ceiling, councillors — not staff — will now bear the burden of explaining what doesn’t get funded, delayed, or expanded. That makes the next 30 days critical, not procedural.

The Mayor’s statement leans heavily on momentum — growth, housing, investment — without addressing the growing concern that Hamilton’s fiscal challenges are increasingly structural rather than cyclical. An aging city with expanding responsibilities cannot rely indefinitely on optimism and incremental restraint. At some point, Council will need to confront whether current service expectations, governance models, and revenue tools are aligned with reality.

In short, the Mayor has set a tone and a number. What remains to be seen is whether this budget truly reflects hard choices, or whether it postpones them — once again — into future years.

Hamilton is indeed moving forward. The question Council must now answer is: forward toward what, and at whose cost?

The Hamiltonian

Statement from Mayor Horwath Regarding the 2026 Proposed Tax Budget

Hamilton has strong momentum. We are attracting investment, supporting small businesses, creating jobs, and building housing - and my commitment is to keep that momentum going, even in uncertain times.

The proposed 2026 tax budget reflects targeted adjustments to the staff proposal and delivers on the commitment I made to Hamiltonians: holding the line on affordability by setting a proposed increase of 4.25% - protecting the services people rely on and continuing responsible investments in our city’s infrastructure.

Residents were clear that affordability is top of mind, that core services need to be protected, that infrastructure investment must continue at a more realistic pace, and that safe neighbourhoods matter. Guided by the Budget Directive I issued in October, this budget focuses on the essentials people rely on every day - fixing roads, renewing aging infrastructure, investing in transit, and supporting community safety - while requiring the city to work smarter, find efficiencies, and ensure tax dollars are used wisely.

Hamilton is both an aging city and a growing city. This budget takes care of what we have today while planning responsibly for growth, housing, and economic opportunity.

This is the first year I have put a budget number forward. Based on what I heard from Hamiltonians, the proposed budget sets a clear limit and provides Council with a strong disciplined starting point.

The budget now moves to the whole of Council for review, where they will have 30 days to review, propose amendments, deliberate and vote on amendments. I look forward to working collaboratively with my Council colleagues to deliver a balanced, responsible budget that reflects residents’ priorities and keeps Hamilton moving forward.

To deliver a hold the line budget doesn’t mean doing less. It means making disciplined, thoughtful choices — choices that meet the needs of today, while continuing to fuel Hamilton’s momentum.

Media Release:Mayor Horwath to present 20 outstanding residents with The Order of Hamilton

HAMILTON, ON – Mayor Andrea Horwath will honour 20 exceptional individuals with the 2025 Order of Hamilton at the Mayor’s New Year’s Levees this week.

The Order of Hamilton celebrates outstanding voluntary contributions by Hamiltonians who have gone above and beyond in building a stronger, more vibrant community.

"The Order of Hamilton is one of the most meaningful ways we recognize the incredible people who make our city stronger everyday,” said Mayor Andrea Horwath. “This year’s recipients reflect the very best of Hamilton – individuals whose generosity, leadership, and commitment to community have made a real and lasting difference. It is an honour to celebrate these tremendous Hamiltonians and to thank them for everything they do to help our city thrive.”

All Hamiltonians and members of the media are invited to attend the Levees. Attendees are encouraged to support local food banks by bringing a non-perishable food item.
Levee dates:Cancelled due to inclement weather - Thursday, January 15, 2026 from 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Hamilton City Hall, 71 Main Street W., Hamilton

Friday, January 16, 2026 from 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.
Ancaster Old Town Hall, 310 Wilson Street E., Ancaster

Saturday, January 17, 2026 from 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.
Sackville Hill Seniors Recreation Centre, 780 Upper Wentworth Street, Hamilton
The 2025 Order of Hamilton recipients:

The full list of recipients is below and their biographies are posted online at Hamilton.ca/OrderofHamilton.

Akbar Haidary
Dr. Alexandre (Alex) Sévigny
Chris Davies
Chris Kruter
Debbie Bramer
Dejehan “Luckystickz” Hamilton
Dr. Gary Warner
George Lamparski
Helena Streun
Ikechukwu Agbassi
Jessica Bonilla-Damptey
Joëlle Kabisoso
Kathy Archer
Lloyd Turner
Mark John Stewart
Nagham Azzam Iqbal
Paula Kilburn
Richard Bialachowski
Shirley Bainbridge
Wendy Schneider

Quick Facts:To be eligible, individuals must reside in the City of Hamilton at the time of the award and demonstrate exceptional voluntary contributions to community building and or service. These contributions must exceed their professional responsibilities and have a lasting impact on the City of Hamilton.

Each year, 10 Order of Hamilton recipients are selected by a panel chaired by the Mayor’s Office, with participation from the City Manager and a member of the public. This year, a record 44 nominations were received, each recognizing a truly outstanding Hamiltonian. In recognition of the exceptional calibre of nominees, a special total of 20 individuals will be named to the Order of Hamilton.
Since its inception in 2019, 89 Hamilton residents have been awarded The Order of Hamilton.
Additional Resource:Web page: Order of Hamilton

Clr. Pauls on Strike Costs

Recently, The Hamiltonian contacted each member of City Council, as well as the Mayor, to ask whether they believe Hamilton taxpayers are entitled to know the total cost of the recent water workers’ strike in terms of public funds. Where applicable, we also asked what steps they would take to ensure that taxpayers are fully informed of those costs.

Only one elected official responded.

Councillor Pauls replied as follows:

Dear Hamiltonian,

Councillors asked the City to report on the findings which were disclosed at an in-camera meeting on Dec 3, 2025. The protocol as it exists, is that in-camera discussions are highly confidential, which means that I’m not at liberty to discuss anything that happens in-camera.  

Consultation with the City Solicitor and City Manager has confirmed the following: 

A report related to the costs associated with the HOWEA Labour Disruption was presented and discussed in-camera at the General Issues Committee on December 3, 2025.

The information contained in this report is confidential, in accordance with the labour relations exemption in the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, the City is unable to provide information related to the costs with respect to the recent labour disruption.

Sincerely,

Councillor Esther Pauls

We would like to thank Clr. Pauls for her reply and engaging with Hamiltonians via The Hamiltonian. 

Mayor Andrea Horwath to host 2026 New Year’s Levees

Mayor Andrea Horwath to host 2026 New Year’s Levees

 HAMILTON, ON – Mayor Andrea Horwath is inviting all Hamiltonians and members of the media to attend the annual New Year’s Levees taking place later this week at three community locations. This year’s levees will feature light refreshments and the awarding of the 2025 Order of Hamilton. 

The annual Order of Hamilton awards ceremony recognizes individuals whose voluntary contributions have enhanced the well-being of our community and enriched the City of Hamilton. 

The list of levee dates are as follows:

Thursday, January 15, 2026 from 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.

Hamilton City Hall, 71 Main Street W., Hamilton

 Friday, January 16, 2026 from 6:30 p.m. – 8:30 p.m.

Ancaster Old Town Hall, 310 Wilson Street E., Ancaster

 Saturday, January 17, 2026 from 12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

Sackville Hill Seniors Recreation Centre, 780 Upper Wentworth Street, Hamilton

 Attendees are asked to support local food banks by bringing a non-perishable food item.

 Additional Resource:

www.hamilton.ca/OrderofHamilton

2025 In Review – A Year of Accountability, Scrutiny, and Civic Engagement

In 2025, The Hamiltonian continued to focus on  its role as an independent civic watchdog, Hamilton's Taste-maker and public-interest publisher, focused squarely on transparency, accountability, and the lived experience of Hamiltonians. Over the course of the year, coverage consistently returned to one central question: how effectively are those in power serving the public trust?

This review highlights the major themes, investigations, and editorial moments that defined The Hamiltonian’s work in 2025.

Councillor Kroetsch and his Suspension from the Police Services Board

The Hamiltonian reached out to appropriate authorties arguing that Clr. Kroetsch's suspension was taking too long, effectively restraining his voice on the board. While we cannot claim with certainty that our efforts resulted in the suspension being resolved, there is a strong likelihood that it did just that.

Municipal Accountability and Transparency

Throughout 2025, The Hamiltonian maintained sustained scrutiny of City Hall, particularly around transparency and  decision-making, 

Coverage examined:

• The continued fallout from past transparency failures, including Red Hill Valley Parkway and sewage spill disclosures, and how those precedents shaped current governance culture.

• The use of confidentiality provisions under the Municipal Act, especially in labour relations and post-strike reporting.

• The tension between Freedom of Information requests and the City’s interpretation of exemptions under MFIPPA.

Several articles questioned whether the threshold for secrecy had become too low, arguing that accountability suffers when financial, operational, or performance information remains shielded from public view long after decisions are made.

The Water and Wastewater Labour Disruption

One of the most significant stories of the year was the in-depth coverage of the Hamilton Ontario Water Employees Association (HOWEA) labour disruption and its aftermath. This story appeared to be largely uncovered in other media outlets. 

The Hamiltonian:

• Tracked the financial implications of the strike, including overtime, contracted services, and long-term cost impacts.

• Challenged the lack of detailed public accounting once the strike concluded.

Horse Trading and Mayoral Aspirations?

Every few years, City Hall rediscovers a familiar complaint: power has shifted, and some councillors are unhappy with where it has landed.

In today’s Hamilton Spectator, rookie councillor Rob Cooper characterized Hamilton’s strong mayor framework as “almost like a monarchy,” suggesting councillors are now largely ornamental and that real authority rests solely with the mayor.

That framing, however, is analytically weak.

Strong mayor powers did not eliminate council. They did not remove votes. They did not suspend democracy. What they did was bring an end to a decades-old governance model that many Hamiltonians had grown to distrust: diffuse responsibility, backroom horse-trading, and budget outcomes that ultimately belonged to no one — and therefore to everyone — when things went wrong.

Council still votes. Council can still amend. Council can still override — through a supermajority that reflects consensus rather than convenience. What council can no longer do is retreat behind process while blaming staff, the mayor, or “the system” for outcomes it quietly accepted.

Persistent griping about this shift risks signalling political immaturity rather than principled concern.

Equally noteworthy is Councillor Cooper’s apparent willingness to seed speculation about a possible mayoral run. While he stopped short of an explicit declaration, he did little to dispel the impression, telling The Spectator that his name will be on the ballot — the only question being where that name will appear.

This is where restraint would serve him well.

Hamilton does not elect mayors on frustration alone. It elects mayors on the basis of profile, credibility, coalition-building, and a demonstrated understanding of the city that extends beyond a single ward or a single budget cycle.

Three months on council does not confer that.

There is nothing wrong with ambition. There is, however, something premature about signalling inevitability before earning visibility.

When Councillor Cooper was first elected, The Hamiltonian reached out with an invitation to interview him. At the time, he respectfully declined, citing a desire to become better acquainted with his new role. That was reasonable.

We look forward to having him as a guest in the future, so that Hamiltonians can better understand and assess his perspective. That invitation remains open.