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