Mason and Hamilton sit roughly 20 miles apart in the Cincinnati metro, yet they represent two distinct approaches to suburban life in southwestern Ohio. Mason has evolved into a family-oriented suburb with newer housing stock and corporate office presence, while Hamilton retains its industrial heritage and older residential neighborhoods along the Great Miami River. People compare these cities because they offer fundamentally different tradeoffs: Mason provides access to newer construction and planned communities at a higher entry cost, while Hamilton delivers lower housing barriers and established urban infrastructure. The decision in 2026 isn’t about which city costs less overall—it’s about understanding where cost pressure concentrates for your household and which structure aligns with how you live, commute, and manage day-to-day logistics.
Both cities share the same regional price environment (RPP index of 94), meaning the baseline cost of goods and services is nearly identical. What differs is how housing, transportation, and infrastructure shape the financial experience. A family prioritizing space and newer homes will encounter different friction points in Mason than a couple seeking walkable errands and lower rent in Hamilton. This article explains how those differences show up across housing, utilities, groceries, transportation, and taxes—and which households feel each city’s cost structure most acutely.
Meet the Chens, a family of four debating whether to rent in Mason’s newer apartment complexes or buy a older single-family home in Hamilton’s established neighborhoods. Sarah works remotely three days a week, while Marcus commutes to a Cincinnati office daily. Their two school-age children mean they’re weighing school density, park access, and the logistics of errands against monthly housing obligations and commute time. Their decision hinges not on total cost, but on which city’s cost structure creates less friction for their specific routines.
Housing Costs
Housing represents the starkest structural difference between Mason and Hamilton. Mason’s median home value sits at $375,000, while Hamilton’s is $141,300—a gap driven by housing age, lot size, and neighborhood development patterns. Mason’s housing stock skews toward post-2000 construction in planned subdivisions, often with HOA-managed amenities and larger floor plans. Hamilton’s inventory includes more pre-1980 homes in traditional grid neighborhoods, with smaller lots and varied architectural styles. This isn’t just a price difference; it’s a difference in what you’re buying and how that purchase behaves over time.
Renters face a similar divide. Mason’s median gross rent is $1,685 per month, reflecting newer apartment complexes with in-unit laundry, central air, and modern layouts. Hamilton’s median gross rent is $947 per month, often in older buildings or converted single-family homes where tenants may handle more maintenance directly. The rent gap matters most for households sensitive to monthly cash flow: a single adult or young couple in Hamilton can secure housing for nearly $750 less per month than in Mason, freeing up budget for transportation, savings, or discretionary spending. But that lower rent often comes with trade-offs in unit age, amenities, and energy efficiency—factors that shift cost pressure into utilities rather than eliminating it.
For buyers, the decision is less about monthly payment and more about entry barrier and long-term exposure. A household purchasing in Mason faces higher down payment requirements, higher property taxes on a more expensive home, and often HOA fees that bundle landscaping, snow removal, or neighborhood amenities. A household purchasing in Hamilton enters at a lower price point but may inherit deferred maintenance, older HVAC systems, and less predictable repair costs. First-time buyers with limited savings often find Hamilton more accessible, while families prioritizing move-in-ready homes and newer systems gravitate toward Mason despite the higher entry cost.
| Housing Type | Mason | Hamilton |
|---|---|---|
| Median Home Value | $375,000 | $141,300 |
| Median Gross Rent | $1,685/month | $947/month |
| Typical Housing Stock | Newer construction, planned subdivisions, larger lots | Older homes, traditional neighborhoods, varied architecture |
| Common Ownership Costs | Higher property taxes, frequent HOA fees | Lower property taxes, less common HOA presence |
These differences create distinct pressure points. Renters in Mason face higher monthly obligations but gain predictability through newer construction and professional management. Renters in Hamilton trade lower rent for potential variability in unit condition and landlord responsiveness. Buyers in Mason absorb higher entry costs and ongoing fees but reduce exposure to major system failures in the first decade of ownership. Buyers in Hamilton enter more affordably but must budget for the reality that older homes demand more frequent attention—new roofs, furnace replacements, and window upgrades arrive on shorter cycles.
Housing takeaway: Mason’s housing costs are front-loaded and structured around newer inventory, making the city more accessible to higher-income households willing to pay for predictability and space. Hamilton’s housing costs prioritize entry accessibility, appealing to first-time buyers and renters who can manage variability in exchange for lower monthly obligations. Families seeking newer construction and planned amenities will find Mason’s structure more aligned with their priorities, while households prioritizing lower barriers and established neighborhoods will find Hamilton’s market more navigable.
Utilities and Energy Costs
Utility costs in Mason and Hamilton are shaped less by rate differences and more by housing stock, home size, and seasonal exposure. Electricity rates are nearly identical—17.59¢/kWh in Mason and 17.66¢/kWh in Hamilton—but natural gas pricing diverges slightly, with Mason at $11.25/MCF and Hamilton at $13.33/MCF. That natural gas difference matters most during Ohio’s cold winters, when heating dominates utility bills. A household in Hamilton heating an older, less-insulated home will feel that higher gas rate more acutely than a household in Mason’s newer, better-sealed construction.
Housing age plays a central role in utility exposure. Mason’s newer homes typically feature modern HVAC systems, improved insulation, and energy-efficient windows, reducing both heating and cooling loads. Hamilton’s older housing stock often includes original single-pane windows, minimal attic insulation, and aging furnaces that cycle more frequently. This means two households with identical heating and cooling habits can experience meaningfully different utility bills simply because of the building envelope. A family in a 1970s Hamilton home may run the furnace longer to maintain the same indoor temperature as a family in a 2010 Mason home, amplifying the impact of that higher natural gas rate.
Cooling costs in summer are more balanced, as both cities experience similar heat and humidity. However, home size introduces variability: Mason’s larger floor plans mean more square footage to cool, which can offset the efficiency gains of newer construction. A 2,500-square-foot home in Mason may cost more to cool than a 1,400-square-foot home in Hamilton, even with better insulation. Apartment dwellers in both cities benefit from shared walls and smaller footprints, but Mason’s newer complexes often include central air as standard, while Hamilton’s older rentals may rely on window units or less efficient systems.
Utility cost exposure also varies by household composition. Single adults or couples in smaller homes or apartments experience lower absolute costs but higher sensitivity to rate changes, as baseline usage represents a larger share of their budget. Families in larger homes face higher total bills but gain more control through behavioral adjustments—programmable thermostats, strategic cooling zones, and off-peak usage. Older homes in Hamilton offer more opportunities for efficiency upgrades (air sealing, insulation, furnace replacement) that can reduce long-term exposure, while newer homes in Mason arrive closer to their efficiency ceiling, leaving less room for improvement.
Utility takeaway: Mason’s utility costs are more predictable due to newer construction and better baseline efficiency, making the city more appealing to households prioritizing stable monthly bills and minimal maintenance. Hamilton’s utility costs are more variable, shaped by housing age and the higher natural gas rate, but offer more opportunities for efficiency upgrades that can reduce exposure over time. Families in larger homes will feel utility pressure more in Mason due to square footage, while households in older Hamilton homes will feel it more through heating season intensity.
Groceries and Daily Expenses
Grocery and daily expense patterns in Mason and Hamilton are shaped by access, store mix, and household routines rather than price differences. Both cities share the same regional price parity (RPP 94), meaning a gallon of milk or pound of chicken costs roughly the same at comparable stores. What differs is how easily households can access those stores, how much time they spend shopping, and whether convenience spending creeps into the budget. Mason’s experiential signals show sparse grocery density, meaning fewer food and grocery establishments relative to population and road network. Hamilton’s signals indicate corridor-clustered grocery access, with options concentrated along main commercial arteries rather than distributed throughout neighborhoods.
For households in Mason, grocery shopping often requires intentional trips to big-box stores or regional chains, typically involving a car and consolidating errands into fewer, larger runs. This structure works well for families who meal-plan and buy in bulk, as it minimizes per-trip costs and leverages warehouse club pricing. But it creates friction for households that prefer frequent, smaller shopping trips or need to grab a few items on the way home. The lack of walkable grocery access also means that convenience spending—grabbing takeout, ordering delivery, or stopping at a gas station for a few items—can become the default when time is tight, quietly inflating the grocery budget through higher per-unit costs.
Hamilton’s corridor-clustered grocery access offers more flexibility for households willing to navigate commercial strips. A household living near a main road can access multiple grocery options within a short drive, including discount chains, ethnic markets, and independent grocers. This diversity allows for price shopping and category splitting—buying staples at a discount chain, produce at a farmers’ market, and specialty items elsewhere. However, households living off the main corridors may face similar access friction as those in Mason, requiring longer drives and reducing the practical benefit of Hamilton’s denser commercial presence.
Dining out and convenience spending follow similar patterns. Mason’s restaurant landscape skews toward chain dining and fast-casual options clustered near retail centers, often requiring a drive and encouraging bundled errands. Hamilton’s older commercial districts include more independent restaurants and carry-out spots within walking distance of residential neighborhoods, making spontaneous dining more accessible but also easier to default to when cooking feels burdensome. Single adults and couples may find Hamilton’s walkable dining options reduce the need for a full grocery run, while families in Mason benefit from predictable chain menus and kid-friendly environments but pay for the convenience of proximity to planned retail centers.
Grocery takeaway: Mason’s sparse grocery access favors households who plan ahead, buy in bulk, and can absorb the time cost of consolidated shopping trips. Hamilton’s corridor-clustered access offers more flexibility for price shopping and spontaneous trips but requires living near commercial arteries to fully benefit. Families managing larger grocery volumes will find Mason’s big-box access efficient, while single adults and couples may prefer Hamilton’s walkable dining and market diversity, even if it requires more intentional route planning.
Taxes and Fees
Tax and fee structures in Mason and Hamilton reflect their different housing markets and municipal service models. Property taxes are driven by assessed home values, meaning Mason homeowners face higher absolute tax bills due to the city’s higher median home value of $375,000 compared to Hamilton’s $141,300. However, the effective tax rate—what percentage of home value goes to taxes—depends on local levies, school district funding, and county assessments, which can vary block by block. Mason’s newer subdivisions often include HOA fees that bundle services like landscaping, snow removal, and neighborhood amenities, adding a predictable monthly cost that doesn’t exist in most of Hamilton’s older neighborhoods.
HOA fees in Mason typically range from modest amounts for basic lawn care to several hundred dollars per month in communities with pools, clubhouses, or extensive common areas. These fees create budget predictability—households know what they’ll pay each month—but they’re non-negotiable and can increase annually. Hamilton’s older neighborhoods rarely include HOAs, meaning homeowners handle their own landscaping and exterior maintenance. This offers more control and flexibility but shifts responsibility: a household that doesn’t mow regularly or address peeling paint faces neighborhood pressure rather than a formal violation notice.
Sales taxes in both cities are set at the state and county level, so there’s no meaningful difference in what households pay at checkout. However, local income taxes and municipal fees can vary. Some Ohio cities levy local income taxes to fund services, and residents should verify whether their specific address falls within a taxing jurisdiction. Trash collection, water, and sewer fees are typically billed separately from property taxes and can vary based on service provider and usage. Newer developments in Mason may include private utility providers with different rate structures than Hamilton’s municipal services, affecting both predictability and cost.
For renters, tax exposure is indirect but real. Landlords in Mason pass higher property taxes and HOA fees through to tenants via rent, meaning renters absorb those costs without seeing the line items. Renters in Hamilton benefit from lower property tax burdens on older homes, which can translate to lower rent—but they may also face less predictable fee structures if landlords adjust rent to cover rising maintenance or utility costs. Long-term residents in both cities should anticipate that property taxes can increase as home values rise or school levies pass, affecting both owners and renters over time.
Tax and fee takeaway: Mason’s tax and fee structure is more predictable due to HOA bundling and newer infrastructure, but it’s also higher due to elevated home values and planned community costs. Hamilton’s structure offers more control and lower baseline taxes but requires homeowners to manage services independently and absorb variability in maintenance timing. Homeowners planning to stay several years should factor in Mason’s ongoing HOA obligations, while those in Hamilton should budget for the reality that older homes demand more frequent attention even without formal fees.
Transportation & Commute Reality
Transportation costs in Mason and Hamilton are shaped by commute patterns, car dependence, and fuel prices rather than transit infrastructure. Mason’s average commute time is 26 minutes, with 41.4% of workers facing long commutes (typically over 30 minutes). Hamilton’s average commute is slightly shorter at 25 minutes, with 35.6% of workers in the long-commute category. Both cities show low work-from-home rates—5.9% in Mason and 6.5% in Hamilton—indicating that most households rely on daily commuting, and the associated time and fuel costs are non-negotiable for the majority of workers.
Fuel prices introduce a meaningful difference. Mason’s gas price sits at $3.91/gal, while Hamilton’s is $2.78/gal—a gap of over a dollar per gallon. For a household commuting 25 miles round trip daily in a vehicle averaging 25 MPG, that difference translates to measurably higher weekly fuel spending in Mason. The gap likely reflects proximity to different fuel distribution networks or local pricing dynamics, but the practical effect is the same: households in Mason face higher per-gallon costs, amplifying the expense of car-dependent routines. A family running multiple vehicles for work, school, and errands will feel that difference more acutely than a single adult with a short commute.
Both cities show rail transit presence in their experiential signals, but the practical utility of rail depends on proximity to stations and alignment with daily destinations. Mason’s walkable pockets and notable bike infrastructure suggest some neighborhoods support non-car mobility, but the sparse grocery access and long commute percentages indicate that most households still rely on cars for daily logistics. Hamilton’s corridor-clustered errands and integrated parks offer more opportunities for walking or biking within neighborhoods, but commuting to Cincinnati or other regional employment centers still requires a vehicle for most workers.
Car dependence also affects household logistics beyond commuting. Families managing school drop-offs, grocery runs, and extracurricular activities in Mason face higher coordination costs due to sparse daily errands access, meaning more trips and more fuel consumption. Hamilton’s denser commercial corridors reduce some of that friction, allowing households to bundle errands more efficiently along established routes. However, the time cost of navigating older street grids and traffic signals can offset the distance savings, particularly during peak hours.
Transportation takeaway: Mason’s higher fuel prices and longer commute exposure create more transportation cost pressure for car-dependent households, particularly those running multiple vehicles or managing complex daily logistics. Hamilton’s lower fuel prices and slightly shorter commutes reduce per-mile costs, but the time cost of errands and commuting still dominates for most households. Families prioritizing predictable commute times and newer road infrastructure may prefer Mason, while those seeking lower fuel costs and more flexible errand routes may find Hamilton’s structure more manageable.
Cost Structure Comparison
Housing dominates the cost experience in both cities, but the nature of that pressure differs fundamentally. Mason’s housing costs are front-loaded: higher home values, higher rent, and frequent HOA fees create a steep entry barrier but deliver predictability through newer construction and professional management. Hamilton’s housing costs prioritize accessibility: lower home values and rent reduce the monthly obligation, but older housing stock shifts pressure into maintenance, repairs, and utility variability. For households with limited savings or lower incomes, Hamilton’s structure is more navigable. For households prioritizing move-in-ready homes and stable monthly costs, Mason’s structure reduces long-term friction.
Utilities introduce more volatility in Hamilton due to older housing stock and the higher natural gas rate, particularly during winter heating months. Mason’s newer homes offer better baseline efficiency, reducing exposure to seasonal swings and making monthly bills more predictable. However, Mason’s larger floor plans mean families in bigger homes still face higher absolute utility costs despite better insulation. Households sensitive to utility variability—those on fixed incomes or tight budgets—will find Mason’s structure more forgiving, while those willing to invest in efficiency upgrades can reduce Hamilton’s exposure over time.
Transportation patterns matter more in Mason due to higher fuel prices and sparser daily errands access. Households running multiple vehicles or managing complex logistics face higher per-mile costs and more time spent coordinating trips. Hamilton’s lower fuel prices and corridor-clustered errands reduce some of that friction, but the time cost of navigating older infrastructure and traffic patterns can offset the savings. Single adults or couples with simple commute routines may not feel the difference as acutely, but families managing school, work, and errands will find Mason’s structure more demanding.
Groceries and daily expenses follow access patterns rather than price differences. Mason’s sparse grocery density favors households who plan ahead and buy in bulk, reducing per-trip costs but increasing time investment. Hamilton’s corridor-clustered access offers more flexibility for spontaneous trips and price shopping, but only for households living near commercial arteries. Families managing larger grocery volumes will find Mason’s big-box access efficient, while single adults and couples may prefer Hamilton’s walkable dining and market diversity.
The better choice depends on which costs dominate your household. Households sensitive to housing entry barriers and monthly rent will prefer Hamilton’s lower baseline costs, even if it means accepting more variability in utilities and maintenance. Households sensitive to predictability and willing to absorb higher housing costs will prefer Mason’s newer construction and structured fees. For families managing complex logistics, the difference is less about price and more about time: Mason’s sparse errands access and higher fuel costs create more friction, while Hamilton’s denser corridors and lower gas prices reduce coordination burden.
How the Same Income Feels in Mason vs Hamilton
Single Adult
Housing becomes the first non-negotiable cost, and the $738 monthly rent difference between Mason and Hamilton creates fundamentally different financial starting points. In Hamilton, lower rent leaves more room for savings, discretionary spending, or absorbing unexpected costs like car repairs. In Mason, higher rent consumes more of the monthly budget upfront, reducing flexibility but delivering newer construction and more predictable utility bills. Commute costs matter less for a single adult with one vehicle, but Mason’s higher fuel prices still amplify the expense of daily driving. Flexibility exists in grocery spending and dining out, but Mason’s sparse errands access means more intentional trip planning, while Hamilton’s walkable dining options make spontaneous meals easier but also easier to default to when cooking feels burdensome.
Dual-Income Couple
Housing remains the dominant cost, but a dual-income household can more easily absorb Mason’s higher rent or mortgage in exchange for newer construction and planned amenities. The decision hinges on whether both partners commute daily: if both drive to Cincinnati or other regional employment centers, Mason’s higher fuel prices and longer average commute times create more friction and higher weekly fuel spending. If one partner works remotely or locally, the transportation gap narrows. Grocery spending becomes more strategic in Mason, where bulk buying and meal planning reduce per-trip costs, while Hamilton’s corridor-clustered access allows for more frequent, smaller shopping runs. Flexibility disappears when both partners work long hours and need convenience—Mason’s sparse errands access makes last-minute stops harder, while Hamilton’s denser commercial presence offers more options for quick stops on the way home.
Family with Kids
Housing, transportation, and logistics costs become tightly coupled, and the time cost of managing school, errands, and extracurriculars dominates the financial experience. Mason’s higher housing costs buy access to newer construction and family-oriented subdivisions, but the sparse grocery density and limited school infrastructure (per experiential signals) mean more driving and more coordination. Hamilton’s lower housing entry barrier frees up budget for other expenses, and the integrated parks and hospital presence reduce friction for families managing healthcare and outdoor activities. Transportation pressure intensifies in Mason due to higher fuel prices and the need to drive for most errands, while Hamilton’s lower gas prices and denser commercial corridors reduce per-mile costs. The role of commute friction becomes critical: if both parents work and manage school drop-offs, Mason’s longer commutes and sparse errands access create more time pressure, while Hamilton’s shorter average commute and walkable pockets offer more flexibility in daily routines.
Decision Matrix: Which City Fits Which Household?
| Decision factor | If you’re sensitive to this… | Mason tends to fit when… | Hamilton tends to fit when… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Housing entry + space needs | You need lower upfront costs or prioritize entry accessibility | You can absorb higher rent or home values in exchange for newer construction and predictable systems | You prioritize lower monthly obligations and can manage variability in older housing stock |
| Transportation dependence + commute friction | You run multiple vehicles or face long daily commutes | You value newer road infrastructure and can absorb higher per-gallon fuel costs | You benefit from lower fuel prices and shorter average commutes despite older street grids |
| Utility variability + home size exposure | You need predictable monthly bills or live in a larger home | You gain stability through newer construction and better baseline efficiency despite larger square footage | You can invest in efficiency upgrades to reduce exposure from older housing stock and higher natural gas rates |
| Grocery strategy + convenience spending creep | You prefer frequent small trips or walkable errands access | You plan ahead and buy in bulk, reducing per-trip costs through big-box access | You live near commercial corridors and benefit from flexible shopping and dining options |
| Fees + friction costs (HOA, services, upkeep) | You want control over maintenance timing and service choices | You value predictable monthly HOA fees that bundle landscaping and amenities | You prefer managing services independently and avoiding structured fees |
| Time budget (schedule flexibility, errands, logistics) | You manage complex schedules with school, work, and extracurriculars | You can absorb longer drive times and sparse errands access in exchange for planned community amenities | You benefit from shorter commutes and denser commercial corridors that reduce coordination burden |
Lifestyle Fit
Mason and Hamilton offer distinct lifestyle textures shaped by their infrastructure, development patterns, and community character. Mason’s experiential signals show walkable pockets with high pedestrian-to-road ratios and notable bike infrastructure, suggesting that some neighborhoods support non-car mobility for recreation or short trips. However, the sparse grocery density and limited family infrastructure (low school density) indicate that most daily logistics still require a car. Mason’s rail transit presence connects residents to the broader Cincinnati metro, but the city’s suburban form means most households rely on driving for work, errands, and activities. Families in Mason gain access to planned subdivisions with HOA-managed amenities—pools, playgrounds, walking trails—but trade walkable daily errands for intentional trip planning.
Hamilton’s experiential signals paint a different picture: corridor-clustered grocery access, integrated parks with high density, and hospital presence create a more established urban infrastructure. The city’s walkable pockets and rail transit suggest that some neighborhoods support car-free or car-light living, particularly for households near commercial arteries. Hamilton’s medium school density and playground presence indicate more distributed family infrastructure than Mason, though still below high thresholds. The city’s older commercial districts and traditional street grids offer more spontaneous access to dining, shopping, and services, but the trade-off is older housing stock and less predictable residential aesthetics. Families in Hamilton benefit from established parks, hospital access, and walkable errands in some neighborhoods, but must navigate variability in housing condition and infrastructure age.
Commute times are nearly identical—26 minutes in Mason, 25 minutes in Hamilton—but the experience differs. Mason’s newer road infrastructure and planned development reduce navigation complexity, while Hamilton’s older street grids and traffic signals require more route familiarity. Both cities show low work-from-home rates, meaning most households commute daily and the time cost of getting to work is non-negotiable. Recreation and outdoor access favor Hamilton, where integrated parks and water features (per experiential signals) offer more distributed green space. Mason’s park density sits in the medium band, meaning outdoor access exists but requires more intentional trips to specific locations.
Mason’s median household income is $121,082 per year, while Hamilton’s is $52,995 per year—a reflection of different economic bases and household compositions. Mason’s higher income levels align with its newer housing stock and family-oriented subdivisions, while Hamilton’s lower income levels reflect its industrial heritage and older residential neighborhoods. Both cities show similar unemployment rates—3.8% in Mason, 4.1% in Hamilton—indicating stable labor markets despite different income distributions.
Mason’s rail transit presence connects to the broader metro, while Hamilton’s hospital and integrated parks offer more localized infrastructure. Families prioritizing planned amenities, newer construction, and predictable community structure will find Mason’s lifestyle more aligned with their expectations. Households prioritizing walkable errands, hospital access, and lower housing entry costs will find Hamilton’s established infrastructure more navigable, even if it requires managing older housing stock and more variable aesthetics.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Mason or Hamilton cheaper for renters in 2026?
Hamilton offers substantially lower rent, with a median gross rent of $947 per month compared to Mason’s $1,685 per month. That $738 monthly difference creates more budget flexibility in Hamilton, but renters should weigh that savings against trade-offs in unit age, amenities, and energy efficiency. Mason’s higher rent typically delivers newer construction, in-unit laundry, and more predictable utility costs, while Hamilton’s lower rent often means older buildings and more variability in landlord responsiveness. The better choice depends on whether you prioritize lower monthly obligations or predictability in housing condition and operating costs.
How do transportation costs differ between Mason and Hamilton in 2026?
Mason’s gas price of $3.91/gal is over a dollar higher than Hamilton’s $2.78/gal, creating measurably higher fuel costs for car-dependent households. Both cities show similar average commute times (26 minutes in Mason, 25 in Hamilton), but Mason’s higher fuel prices and sparser errands access mean more frequent fill-ups and longer drives for daily logistics. Families running multiple vehicles or managing complex schedules will feel that difference more acutely, while single adults with simple commute routines may find the gap less impactful. Hamilton’s lower fuel costs and corridor-clustered errands reduce per-mile expenses, but older street grids can add time even if distance is shorter.
Which city has higher utility bills, Mason or Hamilton, in 2026?
Utility costs depend more on housing age and size than rate differences. Electricity rates are nearly identical (17.59¢/kWh in Mason, 17.66¢/kWh in Hamilton), but natural gas is higher in Hamilton at $13.33/MCF compared to Mason’s $11.25/MCF. That natural gas gap matters most during winter heating months, particularly in Hamilton’s older, less-insulated homes. Mason