9 Cuts or 12?
In an effort to help contain property tax increases, the City of Hamilton has reduced its grass-cutting schedule from 12 cuts per season to 9. The rationale is straightforward: three fewer cuts translate into measurable cost savings.
The decision has sparked considerable discussion on social media, with some councillors emphasizing that they did not support the reduction and suggesting they may seek to revisit the issue if public complaints continue.
It is an easy debate to get drawn into. After all, overgrown grass is visible. Residents see it. They experience it. They talk about it.
Yet the focus on whether Hamilton should cut grass nine times or twelve risks diverting attention from much larger questions about municipal management, accountability, and priorities.
The financial impact of the city allowing itself to fall victim to a major cyberattack that reportedly cost taxpayers millions of dollars dwarfs the savings generated by reducing grass-cutting schedules. One could reasonably argue that the losses associated with the cyberattack would have funded enhanced grass maintenance for years.
According to publicly available information, Mayor Andrea Horwath's total compensation in 2024, including board and agency remuneration, was approximately $271,181.49.
City Manager Marnie Cluckie's compensation is significantly higher, reflecting her role as the municipality's chief administrative officer responsible for thousands of employees and a multi-billion-dollar organization. Recent public-sector salary disclosures have placed her compensation in the range of approximately $330,000 to more than $400,000 annually when salary and taxable benefits are included.
Combined, those figures exceed $670,000 annually.
Compensation itself is not the issue. Municipal leadership carries enormous responsibility and should be compensated accordingly. The more important question is accountability.
To date, questions remain regarding the City's performance management framework. The Hamiltonian has repeatedly asked how many City employees currently have signed performance agreements or performance contracts in place. Despite multiple inquiries, a clear and comprehensive answer has not been provided. We have also asked why a formal performance contract is not in place for the City Manager.
Similarly, questions have been raised regarding how performance expectations are measured, monitored, and enforced throughout the municipal organization.
These are not minor issues. They go directly to the heart of how taxpayer dollars are managed and how results are evaluated.
Yet much of the public conversation continues to revolve around whether Hamilton should receive nine grass cuts or twelve.
As Hamilton enters an election year, residents deserve a broader discussion—one that examines not only service levels, but also accountability, transparency, organizational performance, and fiscal stewardship.
The debate should not simply be about the height of the grass.
It should be about the standards to which City Hall holds itself.
Hamilton deserves nothing less. At the ballot, ask yourself if there is adequate accountability for the spending of your tax dollars.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome. Please abide by the blog's policy on posting. This blog facilitates discussion from all sides of issues. Opposite viewpoints are welcome, provided they are respectful. Name calling is not allowed and any posts that violate the policy, will not be authorized to appear. This blog also reserves the right to exclude comments that are off topic or are otherwise unprofessional. This blog does not assume any liability whatsoever for comments posted. People posting comments or providing information on interviews, do so at their own risk.
This blog believes in freedom of speech and operates in the context of a democratic society, which many have fought and died for.
Views expressed by commentators or in articles that appear here, cannot be assumed to be espoused by The Hamiltonian staff or its publisher.