Not the full picture. Built from public records, which leave things out.Older reportDetailsThis is built from public records, which leave a lot out, and some of it may be wrong or out of date. Check the sources, and tell us if you spot a mistake. What this site can't tell you An older report. We have no 2024 report for Hamilton in the Province's latest release, so these pages use its 2022 report. It may simply be filed late. Read by hand. We read Hamilton's own documents for this site in October 2026; the Sources page lists which ones. The comparisons with other places still come from the Province's yearly reports.
Questions · 12 so far
Things worth asking about
We read Hamilton's financial reports and meeting minutes, and compared its numbers with 1 similar Ontario place. These are the things that stood out.
What these are, and what they are not. A question here means a number or practice is unusual, or harder to see than it should be. It does not mean anyone did anything wrong. Most unusual numbers turn out to have ordinary explanations, and every question lists some. The only way to know is to ask.
Worth asking
Worth asking
There may well be a good reason. It is still worth asking what it is.
2022the newest year of audited statements on the city's financial results page; the 2023 and 2024 statements were not available when the 2026 budget was adopted
Every city has its yearly accounts checked by an outside auditor and then publishes them. These "audited financial statements" are how residents, lenders and the Province see whether the books are in order. Hamilton's own finance page still shows 2022 as its newest year. The city's 2026 budget book, adopted in February 2026, says the 2024 statements "have not been completed". It also reports that the credit rating agency S&P Global Ratings lowered Hamilton's rating from AAA to AA+ in October 2025 and named the delay in compiling the 2023 and 2024 statements as a reason. The delay follows the February 2024 ransomware attack, which the city says left its financial and business management systems unrecoverable.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$18.3 millionwhat the city says it spent on response and recovery from the February 2024 attack, up to June 30, 2025
On February 25, 2024, criminals used ransomware (software that locks up a computer system until money is paid) on Hamilton's systems. The city did not pay the ransom of about $18.5 million. It says it spent $18.3 million up to June 30, 2025 on response, recovery and outside experts, and that its insurer denied its claim "based on coverage terms". Since then the city has published three other totals for the rebuild: $47.7 million of approved funding for 21 projects, a $50 million investment in the 2026 budget, and a $65,290 (thousand) capital line in the 2025 budget. The pages do not say how these fit together.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 6 sources
April 2021date of the first Auditor General cyber security audit; the attack followed on February 25, 2024
In April 2021 the city's auditor reported "critical weaknesses" in the city's security and made recommendations. In October 2025 the Auditor General reported that, by the time of the February 2024 attack, those recommendations "remained largely unimplemented". Reasons given were not enough staff, leaders changing often, and no central cyber security program. The city's response said "progress on the 2021 recommendations was limited". The Auditor General also listed strengths, and the city has since created a Chief Information Officer role and hired its first Chief Information Security Officer.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
8 in progress, 12 completedtraffic-safety action items in the city's May 2026 progress table on the inquiry
In 2013 a consultant tested how grippy the Red Hill Valley Parkway road surface was and reported low results to city staff in 2014. Council did not learn of the report until 2019. Council then asked for a judicial inquiry (an independent judge's investigation). Its final report came out on November 29, 2023. The judge found the road's "relatively low" friction was a likely contributor to collisions in the wet, and that the non-disclosure had a cause in a culture inside Public Works that did not require staff to work together. The city turned the 36 recommendations into 37 action items. Its May 2026 update shows eight traffic-safety items still in progress.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 5 sources
$1.4 billionof approved capital works the 2026 budget says have debt funding approved but not yet issued
Cities borrow to pay for roads, buildings and water pipes, and council sets limits on how much of the budget can go to paying that debt back. The 2026 budget book says about $1.4 billion of building work already approved for borrowing has not yet been borrowed. It states the city "will exceed" council's limit on borrowing backed by development charges (fees paid by builders) in 2028 and its limit for tax and rate debt in 2029. It adds that council will "likely" have to revisit its debt policy in this term. The same book says the city stays well inside the Province's separate limit.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$1.2 millionin arrears and rental losses the Auditor General said were unlikely to be fully collected (2024 audit)
The city owns buildings and land that it rents out under leases and licences. In September 2024 the Auditor General found the systems for tracking them were weak. The audit found "approximately $1.2 million of accumulated arrears and rental losses that are unlikely to be fully collected". Many leases had expired but stayed on a month-to-month basis, sometimes for years. The Auditor General made 35 recommendations and management agreed to all of them. A separate 2025 audit of one lease, at Pier 7, found the rent reasonable but said the plan to rent without a competition should have gone to council first.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
76%of allegations were found to be true in the Auditor General's sample of HR investigations, which the report called unusually high
When an employee complains about a co-worker or manager, the city's Human Resources staff investigate. In August 2026 the Auditor General reported that a sample of these files showed widespread concerns about fairness. The share of allegations found to be true, 76 per cent in the sample, was "unusually high" compared with what research suggests is typical. The Auditor General said this raised concern that complainants' evidence "may in some cases have been accepted with insufficient scrutiny". Management accepted all six recommendations and says it will report to council in January 2027.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
11 recommendationsmade by the Auditor General about the 80-bed temporary Barton-Tiffany shelter project
In 2025 the city set up a temporary outdoor shelter site at Barton and Tiffany streets for up to 80 people. The Auditor General later looked at how the project was run after reports to the Fraud and Waste Hotline. The February 2026 audit found "a lack of accountability, governance and control mechanisms" and "an absence of adequate oversight over project costs". It said the shelter structures "did not meet Ontario regulatory standards and required costly modifications". The Auditor General made 11 recommendations. We could not open the report, so we have no dollar figure.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
29staff conflict-of-interest cases investigated since the hotline launched in 2019, at least, according to the Auditor General
Hamilton's Auditor General runs a Fraud and Waste Hotline for staff, contractors and the public. In its November 2025 annual report the Auditor General said it had investigated "no fewer than 29 instances" of staff conflicts of interest since the hotline began, and that this "continues to be one of the most persistent, serious, and time-consuming types of complaints". It asked council to direct senior leaders to find better ways to teach staff what a conflict of interest is and how to report one. This is about employees, not members of council.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
$230,000 - $263,000estimated overpayments to DARTS over 12 years (2012 to 2023), per the Auditor General
The city pays DARTS, which runs door-to-door rides for people with disabilities, to cover "forgone fares": rides where the passenger was not charged, such as trips to Tiger Cats games. After a hotline report, the Auditor General found overpayments over 12 years (2012 to 2023) were estimated in the range of $230,000 to $263,000. The Auditor General found no evidence of intentional data manipulation. The city accepted all four recommendations.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 2 sources
$65,873,000increase in the 2026 net tax levy (5.3%), against an average home's 3.87% rise (amounts in thousands in the table: 65,873)
The city's 2026 budget lowered the average home's tax increase to 3.87 per cent, or $209. But the total the city raises from property taxes (the "net levy") goes from $1,243,887,000 to $1,309,760,000, a rise of $65,873,000 or 5.3 per cent. The budget book explains the gap: new homes and businesses add to the tax base, which the table shows as "Assessment Growth" of minus 1.70 per cent. The net police budget alone goes up 6.8 per cent.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 4 sources
$2,990,6332026 budgeted cost of the city LRT project office, matched by $2,990,633 of grants and subsidies, for a net levy of nil
The Hamilton light rail line (LRT, a 14-kilometre line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square) is being delivered by Metrolinx, and the city keeps a small project office to support that work. The 2026 budget shows that office costing $2,990,633 and being paid for entirely by grants and subsidies, so it adds nothing to the property tax levy. The city's page also says the early underground work is "Funded by Metrolinx". We did not find, in the budgets we opened, any estimate of what the city will pay each year to help run the line.
Found by reading the city's own documents · 3 sources
2022the newest year of audited statements on the city's financial results page; the 2023 and 2024 statements were not available when the 2026 budget was adopted
Every city has its yearly accounts checked by an outside auditor and then publishes them. These "audited financial statements" are how residents, lenders and the Province see whether the books are in order. Hamilton's own finance page still shows 2022 as its newest year. The city's 2026 budget book, adopted in February 2026, says the 2024 statements "have not been completed". It also reports that the credit rating agency S&P Global Ratings lowered Hamilton's rating from AAA to AA+ in October 2025 and named the delay in compiling the 2023 and 2024 statements as a reason. The delay follows the February 2024 ransomware attack, which the city says left its financial and business management systems unrecoverable.
Why it matters
Without audited statements, nobody outside City Hall can check how much the city owes, owns or really spent in a year. A lower credit rating can also make borrowing cost more, and the city's own budget says it plans to borrow heavily (see the debt question below).
It could be because…
The city says the February 2024 attack left its "financial and business management" systems unrecoverable, so the accounts for 2023 and 2024 may have to be rebuilt from other records before an auditor can sign them.
The 2026 budget book was adopted in February 2026. The statements may have been finished or scheduled since, and the budget book is not the place where the city would post them.
S&P also said the city has "adequate financial planning capabilities", so the delay may be about records, not about how the city is managed day to day.
Questions you could ask
On what date will the audited 2023 and 2024 statements be published, and when will the 2025 statements follow?
What exactly is the auditor waiting for: records that must be rebuilt, or a decision on how to treat what was lost?
Has the city told the Province when it will file the Financial Information Return for those years, and what is the date?
What did S&P's downgrade add to the cost of the debt the city plans to issue?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The 2026 budget book says: "As a result, the annual financial statements for 2024 have not been completed and are not available for presentation in this document. The latest fiscal year data for 2023 has been used for comparative purposes throughout the document."
On rating: "On October 24, 2025, City Council received a communication update that S&P Global Ratings (S&P) lowered its long-term issuer credit and senior unsecured debt ratings on the City of Hamilton to 'AA+' from 'AAA'." The city then reports S&P's reason as the "longer-than-expected and persistent lag in data recovery (resulting in the City continuing to experience delay in reconstituting and compiling audited financial statements for 2023 and 2024)", which S&P said "reflects weaknesses in financial and risk management practices compared with those of its peers". The same passage records that S&P noted "adequate financial planning capabilities".
The city's "Financial Results" page lists "2022 City of Hamilton Consolidated Financial Statements" as its newest report and was last changed on July 27, 2023. Earlier years are listed under "Previous Financial Results". We found no later statements on hamilton.ca.
The city's cyber incident notice says "select City systems are unrecoverable due to the cyber incident, including systems that support permitting and licensing, administration of land development applications and approvals, financial and business management, museum collections management, Fire Services records management, utility locates processing, and rent supplement and tracking."
$18.3 millionwhat the city says it spent on response and recovery from the February 2024 attack, up to June 30, 2025
On February 25, 2024, criminals used ransomware (software that locks up a computer system until money is paid) on Hamilton's systems. The city did not pay the ransom of about $18.5 million. It says it spent $18.3 million up to June 30, 2025 on response, recovery and outside experts, and that its insurer denied its claim "based on coverage terms". Since then the city has published three other totals for the rebuild: $47.7 million of approved funding for 21 projects, a $50 million investment in the 2026 budget, and a $65,290 (thousand) capital line in the 2025 budget. The pages do not say how these fit together.
Why it matters
With no insurance payout, the cost falls on property taxes, reserves and borrowing. The 2025 budget says the city raised borrowing to pay for this work, together with other projects.
It could be because…
The totals may measure different things: money already spent, money approved for the 21-project rebuild, and a longer plan that also pays for projects the city would have done anyway.
The insurer's denial may follow the policy's terms. The city obtained an outside legal review, which it says confirmed the denial matched the policy, and it has since renewed its cyber insurance.
A multi-year funding plan spreads the cost over several budgets to soften the effect on any one tax bill.
Questions you could ask
What is the full cost to date, and the expected total, of the attack and the rebuild, in one table the public can follow?
How do the $47.7 million, $50 million and $65.29 million figures relate to each other, and which part replaces what was lost versus new improvements?
How much of the rebuild is paid from reserves, from borrowing, and from the tax levy?
What does the Auditor General's April 2026 review of the incident response and insurance (report AUD21004(d)) say about the denied claim, and which parts can be made public?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The city's July 30, 2025 release says: "From the start of the incident through to June 30, 2025, the City spent $18.3 million CAD on immediate response, system recovery and third-party expert support (Report CM24005(b))." It says the ransom demand was "approximately $18.5 million CAD" and "The City did not pay the ransom". On insurance: "The City's insurer denied the claim based on coverage terms. The City obtained a third-party legal review of the coverage denial. This review confirmed the denial aligned with the policy, and the City did not pursue further legal action."
An earlier report put the cost at: "the City incurred incident-related costs of approximately $5.7 million as of May 28, 2024." The release also says the attack affected "228 unique applications" and that "the City has restored 45 per cent of its total applications".
The city's "Build Better" page reports, "as of March 2026": "$22.9M of $47.7M approved funding has been spent or committed", across a portfolio of "21 projects", with "5 projects have been completed" and "5 are tracking behind expected progress". It states: "Responding to and recovering from this incident has cost approximately $18.3 million through June 2025. A multi-year funding approach is in place".
The 2026 budget book says the city is "Investing $50 million in technology projects and strategies to help rebuild a better and stronger City which was impacted from the cybersecurity incident".
The 2025 capital budget lists "Cybersecurity Recovery Build Back Stronger Strategy" at 43,580 for 2025, 14,530 for 2026 and 7,180 for 2027, 65,290 in total for 2025 to 2034 (amounts in thousands of dollars, as the budget's capital tables are).
On borrowing: "The increase in debt is required to support the Hamilton Paramedic Service Master Plan, Macassa Lodge B- Wing Expansion, additions to the new Waterdown Fire and Police Station and the Cybersecurity Recovery Build Back Stronger Strategy and amounts to approximately $8.1 million in annual debt charges over a 15-year term or an estimated additional 0.70% residential tax increase."
April 2021date of the first Auditor General cyber security audit; the attack followed on February 25, 2024
In April 2021 the city's auditor reported "critical weaknesses" in the city's security and made recommendations. In October 2025 the Auditor General reported that, by the time of the February 2024 attack, those recommendations "remained largely unimplemented". Reasons given were not enough staff, leaders changing often, and no central cyber security program. The city's response said "progress on the 2021 recommendations was limited". The Auditor General also listed strengths, and the city has since created a Chief Information Officer role and hired its first Chief Information Security Officer.
Why it matters
The audit warned about the problem three years before the attack. Residents and councillors need to know why warnings did not turn into action, so the same thing does not happen with the next list of recommendations.
It could be because…
The Auditor General found that the city had a cyber incident response plan matching a recognised national framework and was actively recruiting security staff.
Hiring cyber security experts is hard for every public body, so the gaps may be about the labour market as well as management.
The Auditor General wrote that efforts to hire outside help after the 2021 audit were started but delayed, so some work was under way.
Questions you could ask
Which of the 2021 recommendations had been completed by February 2024, and which are still open today?
Who was responsible for tracking those recommendations, and how often was council told the status?
When will the remaining three follow-up reports (Phase 2 to 4) be public, and what will be withheld for security reasons?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Auditor General's Phase 1 summary says: "The initial 2021 Audit revealed critical weaknesses in the City's security posture". It says key observations include "Persistent understaffing in key cybersecurity roles", "Frequent leadership turnover", and "Recommendations from the 2021 cybersecurity audit remained largely unimplemented at the time of the breach due to lack of resources, leadership continuity and institutional support". It lists pre-breach strengths including "A Cyber Incident Response Plan which aligned with the National Institute of Standards and Technology's cybersecurity framework".
The city's response quotes the City Manager: "We recognize that progress on the 2021 recommendations was limited, and that reality has driven us to accelerate change." It lists "Realigned the Information Technology (IT) Department to report directly to a newly created Chief Information Officer (CIO)" and "Recruited the City's first Chief Information Security Officer (CISO)".
The city also reports leadership changes: "Made changes to several management-level staffing positions, including terminations." It says "all decisions were made with the long-term interests of the City and our residents in mind." No individual is named in the release.
8 in progress, 12 completedtraffic-safety action items in the city's May 2026 progress table on the inquiry
In 2013 a consultant tested how grippy the Red Hill Valley Parkway road surface was and reported low results to city staff in 2014. Council did not learn of the report until 2019. Council then asked for a judicial inquiry (an independent judge's investigation). Its final report came out on November 29, 2023. The judge found the road's "relatively low" friction was a likely contributor to collisions in the wet, and that the non-disclosure had a cause in a culture inside Public Works that did not require staff to work together. The city turned the 36 recommendations into 37 action items. Its May 2026 update shows eight traffic-safety items still in progress.
Why it matters
By 2018 seven people had died in collisions on the parkway. The inquiry's main message was about how information moves inside the city. Whether those fixes are finished is something residents can check, and the next council will inherit whatever is not.
It could be because…
The judge wrote that nothing in the report "should be viewed as an express or implied criticism of the City's subsequent efforts", and the city repaved the road in 2019 and has since lowered the speed limit.
Some items, such as new procedures for friction testing and a records system, take time to build and test properly.
A judicial inquiry "cannot make findings of civil or criminal liability": its conclusions are about what happened and what to change, not about blame in law.
Questions you could ask
When will each of the items still in progress be finished, and will the next council get a dated list?
What did the inquiry cost the city in total, including the city's own lawyers and the time spent on the privilege dispute? We did not find a total in the documents we could open.
How will the city show that staff reports to council now carry consultant findings, as the inquiry recommended?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The judge wrote: "By 2018, seven people had died in collisions on the RHVP." He wrote that why the report was not shared "had much to do with a culture within Public Works that did not require collaboration among its divisions".
The judge wrote that by 2013 and 2014 the road's friction levels were "relatively low" and that "inadequate skid resistance or friction was a contributing factor to accidents on the RHVP, in concert with other factors." On non-disclosure he wrote: "it is also logical to assume that the failure to disclose the Tradewind Report contributed to accidents and injuries on the RHVP since January 2014." He also wrote: "None of this is to say that low friction was a contributor to any individual collision."
The report says of the city's claims of legal privilege over documents: "The dispute addressed 97 documents, 56 of which were considered unique." The judge appointed to decide "ordered the production of most of the 97 documents at issue", finding the City had waived privilege by setting the inquiry's terms. The report says the dispute "extended the schedule for the public hearings".
The city's progress page says: "The Working Group has identified 37 actionable items from the 36 recommendations in the Inquiry's final report." Its May 2026 table lists, for "Traffic Safety on the Red Hill Valley Parkways and Lincoln M Alexander Parkway", 8 in progress and 12 completed; "Staff Reporting Obligations", 2 in progress and 0 completed; "Consultant Engagements and Assignments", 2 in progress and 2 completed. Items still in progress include "Create new procedure on Friction" and "Implementation of an Electronic Documents and Records Management System including library for consultant documentation."
The judge also wrote: "Nothing in this Report should be viewed as an express or implied criticism of the City's subsequent efforts to improve its policies, practices, and procedures."
$1.4 billionof approved capital works the 2026 budget says have debt funding approved but not yet issued
Cities borrow to pay for roads, buildings and water pipes, and council sets limits on how much of the budget can go to paying that debt back. The 2026 budget book says about $1.4 billion of building work already approved for borrowing has not yet been borrowed. It states the city "will exceed" council's limit on borrowing backed by development charges (fees paid by builders) in 2028 and its limit for tax and rate debt in 2029. It adds that council will "likely" have to revisit its debt policy in this term. The same book says the city stays well inside the Province's separate limit.
Why it matters
The council elected on October 26, 2026 will be the one to decide whether to raise the limit, borrow less, build less or pay more in taxes and water rates. The rating downgrade in 2025 can also make borrowing more expensive.
It could be because…
The city says it will only issue debt when work is nearly complete, and that the limits shown are projections. Projects can slip, so the borrowing may come later or smaller than the plan shows.
The city says its debt payments were 3.2 per cent of its own revenues in 2025, far below the Province's 25 per cent cap, so the limit it expects to pass is its own, stricter one.
Council can change its own limits. Many cities do when growth and water-pipe work take on more debt.
Questions you could ask
What are the two debt limits in dollars or percentages, and by how much does the plan pass each in 2028 and 2029?
What will the council elected in October 2026 be asked to choose between: a higher limit, less borrowing or higher rates?
How much of the $1.4 billion not yet issued is for water and wastewater, and how much is for projects that growth fees are meant to pay?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The 2026 budget book says: "However, approximately $1.4 billion in capital works in progress have been approved for debt funding that has not yet been issued due to timing of completion and cash flow requirements." It continues: "the City will exceed Council's approved DC supported debt limit in 2028 and the approved tax and rate limit in 2029 as illustrated in Figures 12 and 13." and "there will likely be a need to revisit Council's approved debt policy in this term of Council."
The same chapter says: "Planned debt financing in the 2026 to 2035 Capital Financing Plan has increased by $6.7 million compared to the Capital Financing Plan approved last year." It records the S&P downgrade from 'AAA' to 'AA+'.
On the Province's limit: "The City's debt service charges as a percentage of City Own Source Revenue of 3.2% in 2025 and forecasted at 2.8% in 2026 and 3.4% for 2027 are well within the limit of 25%."
$1.2 millionin arrears and rental losses the Auditor General said were unlikely to be fully collected (2024 audit)
The city owns buildings and land that it rents out under leases and licences. In September 2024 the Auditor General found the systems for tracking them were weak. The audit found "approximately $1.2 million of accumulated arrears and rental losses that are unlikely to be fully collected". Many leases had expired but stayed on a month-to-month basis, sometimes for years. The Auditor General made 35 recommendations and management agreed to all of them. A separate 2025 audit of one lease, at Pier 7, found the rent reasonable but said the plan to rent without a competition should have gone to council first.
Why it matters
Rent that is not collected is money other taxpayers make up. Month-to-month leases on city property can also be below market rate without anyone deciding that in public.
It could be because…
Some of the arrears may belong to non-profit or community tenants where the city chose to be lenient on purpose.
The audit looked at data "as available on December 23, 2022", so some of the problems may have been fixed since.
The 2025 Pier 7 audit found that the rent negotiated was "reasonable", so not every lease problem is a money problem.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $1.2 million has been collected or formally written off since September 2024?
How many of the 35 recommendations are complete, and where is the status report to council?
How many leases are still on a month-to-month basis, and who decides their rent?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The Auditor General's release says: "The audit found approximately $1.2 million of accumulated arrears and rental losses that are unlikely to be fully collected." It lists "A large number of leases that had expired but were maintained on month-to-month status for a long period of time, including for many years" and says "The audit included 35 recommendations". It adds: "there were 366 lease agreements" in the data reviewed.
The city's response says: "The City acknowledges these concerns and has already begun implementing process improvements to address them." It lists "Improving cross-departmental accountabilities", "Appointing lead oversight to ensure governance and accountability" and "Implementing enhanced systems for data tracking and financial reporting", and says the city "will report to Council on its progress".
The Pier 7 audit release says: "the audit determined that the terms of the lease were reasonable overall" but "the proposed use of a single source procurement should have been proactively presented to Council for decision prior to entering negotiations." The Auditor General made "four recommendations".
76%of allegations were found to be true in the Auditor General's sample of HR investigations, which the report called unusually high
When an employee complains about a co-worker or manager, the city's Human Resources staff investigate. In August 2026 the Auditor General reported that a sample of these files showed widespread concerns about fairness. The share of allegations found to be true, 76 per cent in the sample, was "unusually high" compared with what research suggests is typical. The Auditor General said this raised concern that complainants' evidence "may in some cases have been accepted with insufficient scrutiny". Management accepted all six recommendations and says it will report to council in January 2027.
Why it matters
Fair investigations protect both people who complain and people complained about. Council and the public rely on the process to be neutral, and the new council will receive the January 2027 report.
It could be because…
Complaints that reach a formal investigation may be stronger than average, so a higher rate may not mean unfairness on its own.
The Auditor General looked at a sample of files, not every file, and describes the weaknesses as being in the process and framework.
The city accepted every recommendation and has already started training and extra review of reports.
Questions you could ask
How many investigation files were in the sample, and how many were found to have procedural problems?
Will people whose investigations were affected be told, and will any earlier outcomes be reviewed?
Who will check that the January 2027 report on the six recommendations is complete and public?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The Auditor General's release says: "The OAG found widespread procedural fairness concerns across the sample of files reviewed." It says "the substantiation rate ... which was 76% in the sample, was unusually high" and that the audit "identified indicators that suggested a lack of neutrality in HR investigations". It adds: "The OAG has made six recommendations".
The city's statement says: "Management has accepted all six of the Auditor General's recommendations and has already begun implementing corrective measures", including "Enhanced oversight and review of investigation reports before finalization". It says: "Staff will report back to Council in January 2027 on full implementation."
11 recommendationsmade by the Auditor General about the 80-bed temporary Barton-Tiffany shelter project
In 2025 the city set up a temporary outdoor shelter site at Barton and Tiffany streets for up to 80 people. The Auditor General later looked at how the project was run after reports to the Fraud and Waste Hotline. The February 2026 audit found "a lack of accountability, governance and control mechanisms" and "an absence of adequate oversight over project costs". It said the shelter structures "did not meet Ontario regulatory standards and required costly modifications". The Auditor General made 11 recommendations. We could not open the report, so we have no dollar figure.
Why it matters
Shelter is urgent, and the city was under pressure to act. The question is whether public money was spent well and what the city learned, since more emergency housing projects are likely.
It could be because…
The Auditor General called the audit a "lessons learned" review and said the goal was for the city to "capitalize on the experiences gained".
People were sleeping outside, so speed may have been a reasonable choice even though it cost more or went around usual steps.
The shelter did open and, as of March 14, 2025, all its units were installed.
Questions you could ask
What was the total cost of the Barton-Tiffany site, and how much of it was modifications to structures that did not meet standards?
Did the city recover any money from the supplier or suppliers, and was a replacement bought?
Where are management's written responses to the 11 recommendations, and when will each be done?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The release says: "The OAG found a lack of accountability, governance and control mechanisms in project execution and an absence of adequate oversight over project costs." It quotes the Auditor General: "Overall, we found that the imperative of urgency overrode the importance of due diligence and good governance." Issues listed include "Delivery of shelter structures that did not meet Ontario regulatory standards and required costly modifications". It adds: "The OAG made 11 recommendations".
The city's shelter page says the site would offer services "for up to 80 residents" and that "As of Friday March 14, 2025, installation of all units is complete".
29staff conflict-of-interest cases investigated since the hotline launched in 2019, at least, according to the Auditor General
Hamilton's Auditor General runs a Fraud and Waste Hotline for staff, contractors and the public. In its November 2025 annual report the Auditor General said it had investigated "no fewer than 29 instances" of staff conflicts of interest since the hotline began, and that this "continues to be one of the most persistent, serious, and time-consuming types of complaints". It asked council to direct senior leaders to find better ways to teach staff what a conflict of interest is and how to report one. This is about employees, not members of council.
Why it matters
Staff decide who gets contracts and how public money is spent. A steady stream of conflict cases suggests the rules are not clear enough or not followed.
It could be because…
More reports can mean more people know how to report, not more wrongdoing. The release says awareness has risen since the hotline launched.
The overall rate of reports found to be true was 32 per cent, so many reports are not confirmed.
The city says it already updated its staff code of conduct training and guidance on outside employment.
Questions you could ask
What did council direct after the Auditor General's recommendation, and when is the May 2026 report-back from senior leaders?
How many of the 29 cases ended in discipline or a changed contract, in a form that names no one?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The release says: "Since the hotline was implemented, the OAG has investigated no fewer than 29 instances of COI and it continues to be one of the most persistent, serious, and time-consuming types of complaints the OAG receives and investigates, despite a new version of the Code of Conduct for Employees approved by Council in 2023." It reports "148 Fraud and Waste reports, with an overall substantiation rate of 32%" for July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025, and that "almost $502,000 has been recovered".
The city's response says it is committed to "addressing challenges related to cyber and vendor imposter fraud, construction material usage, contractor performance and conflicts of interest" and lists "Strengthening financial controls and verification procedures" and "Enhancing contractor oversight and accountability".
The city's response a year earlier lists "Enhancing code of conduct training and introducing clearer guidance for employees on outside employment and conflicts of interest".
$230,000 - $263,000estimated overpayments to DARTS over 12 years (2012 to 2023), per the Auditor General
The city pays DARTS, which runs door-to-door rides for people with disabilities, to cover "forgone fares": rides where the passenger was not charged, such as trips to Tiger Cats games. After a hotline report, the Auditor General found overpayments over 12 years (2012 to 2023) were estimated in the range of $230,000 to $263,000. The Auditor General found no evidence of intentional data manipulation. The city accepted all four recommendations.
Why it matters
The amount is small next to the city's budget, but a payment error that ran for 12 years shows how contract payments were being checked.
It could be because…
The city says the cause was unclear communication about which trips count as "special events", not deliberate over-billing.
The figure is an estimate built from an average of five years, not an exact count.
Questions you could ask
Has the city asked DARTS to repay the overpayments, or agreed to set them against future payments?
What is the new process that decides which trips count as special events?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The release says: "overpayments to DARTS over a 12-year period (2012-2023) are estimated to be in the range of $230,000 - $263,000" and that clear communication of designated special events was "generally lacking". The Auditor General made "four recommendations".
The city's response says: "While the OAG found there was no evidence of intentional data manipulation, it remains a priority for the City to ensure there are more rigorous controls". It says the city is "committed to action all four recommendations".
$65,873,000increase in the 2026 net tax levy (5.3%), against an average home's 3.87% rise (amounts in thousands in the table: 65,873)
The city's 2026 budget lowered the average home's tax increase to 3.87 per cent, or $209. But the total the city raises from property taxes (the "net levy") goes from $1,243,887,000 to $1,309,760,000, a rise of $65,873,000 or 5.3 per cent. The budget book explains the gap: new homes and businesses add to the tax base, which the table shows as "Assessment Growth" of minus 1.70 per cent. The net police budget alone goes up 6.8 per cent.
Why it matters
Both numbers are true. The 3.87% is what an average existing home pays more; the 5.3% is how much more the city collects in total. Knowing the difference helps residents read headlines about tax rises.
It could be because…
The city explains the difference as growth in the number of properties, which spreads the levy over more bills.
Police budgets are set by the police board and the city must fund them, so part of the rise is outside council's day-to-day control.
The city says it found $42.6 million in operational savings in departments, so the rise would have been larger without them.
Questions you could ask
How much of the $65.9 million rise is for policing, how much for new services, and how much for replacing reserve money with taxes?
Which of the $42.6 million in savings are one-time and which are permanent?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The budget book says the adopted budget "represents a gross investment of $2.9 billion and a net for tax levy requirement of $1.3 billion, which results in an average residential tax increase of 3.87%. The $65.9 million increase in the 2026 net for tax levy is broken down into three categories".
"The adopted $2.9 billion 2026 Tax Supported Budget resulted in a 3.87%, or $209, increase in property taxes for the average household." Table 1 (budget impact on the average household) shows "Property Tax ($)" $209 and "Property Tax (%)" 3.87% for the average residential impact, based on an average household assessment of $387,100.
Table 2 gives "Total Net for Levy" of 1,243,887 for 2025 (restated) and 1,309,760 for 2026, a change of 65,873 or 5.3% (thousands of dollars). The tax impact rows read "Municipal Net Levy Tax Impact 4.52% 5.07%", "Assessment Growth -1.70% -1.70%" and "Total 3.32% 3.87%". "Hamilton Police Services" shows 223,720 rising to 238,958, up 15,238 or 6.8%.
The city's budget page says the 2026 budget includes "$42.6 million in operational savings and efficiencies in City Departments" and follows the Mayor's direction to "hold the line" on affordability.
$2,990,6332026 budgeted cost of the city LRT project office, matched by $2,990,633 of grants and subsidies, for a net levy of nil
The Hamilton light rail line (LRT, a 14-kilometre line from McMaster University to Eastgate Square) is being delivered by Metrolinx, and the city keeps a small project office to support that work. The 2026 budget shows that office costing $2,990,633 and being paid for entirely by grants and subsidies, so it adds nothing to the property tax levy. The city's page also says the early underground work is "Funded by Metrolinx". We did not find, in the budgets we opened, any estimate of what the city will pay each year to help run the line.
Why it matters
Residents often ask whether the city or the Province pays for LRT. For the project office and the early pipe work, the city's documents say Metrolinx pays. The long-term cost to the city is still unpublished in what we read.
It could be because…
The agreement the city signed with Metrolinx and the Ministry of Transportation in September 2021 may already set who pays what once the line opens, and the figures may be in documents we could not open.
Operating costs usually are not estimated until the opening date is closer.
Questions you could ask
What is the city's estimate of its yearly cost to help operate and maintain the LRT once it opens, and which budget will it come from?
Does the 2021 agreement with Metrolinx and the Ministry say who pays for repairs to city roads and pipes damaged by LRT work?
You can ask during the public part of a council meeting, by writing to the clerk, or by contacting your councillors. How to reach council.
Speak for Hamilton?Send us your answer and we will publish it with this question.
The evidence
The budget says: "The LRT Project Office provides support in accordance with the City's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Metrolinx and the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), which was ratified in September 2021." For 2026 it shows "Total Expenses" of 2,990,633, "Grants & Subsidies" of (2,990,633), "Net Levy" of nil and 3.00 full-time equivalents (dollars as printed).
Light Rail Transit: "The Hamilton LRT project is a 14 km and 17 stop rapid transit line, which runs from McMaster University through the downtown core to Eastgate Square in Stoney Creek."
Can we count your visit? With your OK, we use Google Analytics to see which pages help people. It sets cookies and sends visit data to Google. Nothing loads unless you say yes. Privacy