CoMoBUZ Insider Briefing, March 13, 2026

Mike's quick, weekly no-nonsense look at civic affairs in Columbia and Boone County, Missouri. This week it's an update on the city's six upcoming airport projects totaling $13 million, City Manager De'Carlon Seewood's communications overhaul, more I-70 construction disruption in the works, the city's unsigned deal with American Airlines and a proposed re-write on the city's new restrictions on short term rentals.  

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:04

Six airport projects, more than $13 million, and a bigger question for Columbia. When airport expansion draws on the city's half-cent transportation sales tax, what gets pushed aside somewhere else? From ComoBuz.com, this is the Como Buzz Insider Briefing, a weekly look at the decisions, documents, and debates shaping Columbia and Boone County. I'm Mike Murphy. This week, Columbia is preparing to move six airport projects forward at once with local costs backed in part by a transportation tax that also funds streets, sidewalks, transit, and other transportation needs. Later in today's episode, City Council members pressed City Manager to Carlin Seawood on whether a proposed communications overhaul will actually fix City Hall's long-running responsiveness problems. And in the receipts, we'll look at the unsigned American Airlines Agreement that spells out the city's proposed risk in the new Charlotte Route deal. The biggest local government story heading into next week's Columbia City Council meeting may look like a routine airport construction package, but it's not. What council is being asked to do Monday is set public hearings for six airport-related projects, totaling more than $13 million. On paper, that looks like an infrastructure story. In practice, it is also a public finance story and a priorities story. Because these projects are not just about what the city wants to build at the airport. They're also about how the city plans to pay for that growth and what that means for everything else competing for those transportation dollars. The six projects cover much of the Columbia Regional Airport campus. They include a passenger boarding bridge, reconstruction of airport drive, reconstruction of the Terminal Loop Road, a de-icing pad and containment facility, expansion of the North Parking lot, and a new production kitchen for terminal concessions. Council is expected on Monday night to set public hearings for April 6th. Some of these projects are easy to grasp from a passenger side. More parking, better roads, better signage, another boarding bridge, improved concessions. Others are more on the operational side. The de-icing containment system, for example, is meant to capture excess de-icing fluid during winter weather so it does not enter the stormwater system. Taken one by one, most of these projects have a practical case behind them. The largest is the de-icing pad and containment facility, estimated at about $4.7 million. City staff says that project would be funded 90% by the Federal Aviation Administration and 10% by the city's transportation sales tax. The parking expansion is estimated at about $3.2 million. Staff says it would pave an existing gravel lot and nearby turf areas, bringing the total to $425 spaces and adding about $250 spaces overall. The justification is increased passenger demand tied to more American flights, the return of United Airlines, and the addition of Allegian Airlines. The passenger boarding bridge is estimated at $1.8 million. Staff says it was added to this year's capital plan because of faster than expected flight growth. The city would pay the design costs and local construction match from the transportation sales tax, while the FAA would reimburse most of the construction cost. Airport drive reconstruction and wayfinding signs are estimated at $1.7 million. The city says the road is in poor condition with cracking, potholes, and uneven surfaces. The terminal loop road reconstruction is estimated at just under $860,000. And the production kitchen for terminal concessions is estimated at a little more than $828,000. So that's the project list. Now here is the larger issue. How much of this is an airport story, and how much of this is really a transportation funding story for the whole city? The answer, I think, is both. Columbia's half cent transportation sales tax is covering the local share of several airport projects. It also covers the airport's annual operating losses, and it will be used to support the city's proposed revenue guarantee to American Airlines. That's where the story gets more complicated because this tax is not dedicated only to the airport. It's also used for the city's transit operations, streets, sidewalks, and other transportation improvements across the city. That means money committed to airport use is money that's not going to be spent somewhere else. That does not necessarily make the airport spending wrong, but it does make it a choice. And it's a choice with trade-offs. This is where local government can get fuzzy in public discussion. A project may be described as mostly federally funded, and technically that may be true. If FAA money pays 90%, that sounds like a bargain. But the local match still matters. The source of the local match matters, and the cumulative effect matters even more. Because when multiple airport capital projects, plus airport operating losses, plus a new airline revenue guarantee all draw from the same transportation tax base, this stops just being an airport development story. It becomes a question of the city's priorities. Columbia is making it clear that the airport is a major strategic priority. You can see that in this project list. You can see it in the push to expand service. You can see it in the parking expansion tied to increased traffic. You can see it in the new boarding bridge. And you can see it in the city's willingness to backstop a new Charlotte route with public money. And again, there's a case for that. Airport access matters, business travel matters, regional connectivity matters. And city leaders may believe the airport is worth major investment as an economic development tool. I think that is fair policy argument. But once local tax dollars are involved, the question is not just whether each airport project is useful on its own. The question is whether airport spending is crowding out other transportation priorities residents use every day. Street maintenance, sidewalk gaps, transit service, neighborhood transportation improvements. These are daily use systems. So when the same local revenue support supports both airport growth, so when the same local revenue source supports both airport growth and broader city transportation needs, the public deserves a clear explanation of how those priorities are being set. None of that means the city should not do these projects. It means council should be clear about what it is doing. If the airport now is being treated as a top-tier city investment priority, then say so. If the city is using transportation tax revenue to support a broader airport growth strategy, if so, say so. And if city officials believe the return is worth the cost, they should be able to explain that directly. Because the public should not look at these as six isolated projects. The public should look at these as a pattern. And the pattern is this Columbia is committing local transportation tax dollars to a growing list of airport needs while facing competing transportation demands elsewhere in the city. There is another reason that this matters now. These are not final approvals yet. Monday's action is expected to schedule public hearings for April 6th. That means there's still time for the city council and for the public to ask broader questions before these become firm commitments. How much transportation sales tax money is already going to airport operations and airport capital? How much of that is temporary? How much is becoming structural? What other transportation projects are delayed, reduced, or left unfunded because airport-related demands are drawing from the same revenue stream? It may be the simplest question of all: what is the city's actual policy on how much local transportation tax money should go to airport use? This is bigger than one project. It gets at whether Columbia's airport strategy is being built through clear public policy or through a series of separate decisions that add up to something larger. That's the real story in this airport package. Yes, there are six projects. Yes, together they top $13 million. But the deeper issue is not just what the city wants to build at the airport, it's how the city is choosing to pay for it and what that means for the rest of Columbia's transportation system. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from ComoBuzz.com. Now on to this week's briefing board. Item one, the City Council presses City Manager to Carlon Seawood on his proposed communications overhaul. That came this week from a city council work session. Council members seem less interested in the idea of a new communications department than in whether it would fix the city's real problems. That's the key distinction here. A reorganization plan can sound polished in a presentation. The harder question is what changes for the public. The sharpest exchange came from Councilmember Betsy Peters, who asked about timing, accountability, and how anyone would know a year from now whether the plan had actually improved performance. It seemed like a fair question. Her point was simple. This kind of proposal can sound good on paper and still fail in practice. Sea Wood didn't have a good answer. He said the first step is hiring a director. The city expects to advertise that job right away, interview in May, and ideally have someone in place by July. After that, Sea Wood said the broader plan would be developed with council involvement. So Seawood is asking council members to have confidence in a structure whose actual performance standards are still not even defined. Bizarrely, the plan wasn't even presented by Seawood. It was presented by Sidney Olson, the city's outgoing engagement and public communications manager. Olson is leaving city government this week to take a job with Central Bank of Boone County. She said the proposed department would create a citywide communications hub without stripping departments of their own subject matter voices. Under the model she described, departments would keep their own public information staff while a central office would coordinate branding, media relations, internal communications, messaging, and crisis communications. She described it as a hybrid model rather than a fully centralized one. So none of this sounds unreasonable. In fact, uh it sounded pretty good, but the concern from council was not really about the structure, it was about performance. Peter said when she calls City Hall, she's often transferred to voicemail and never hears back. Mayor Barbara Buffalo said the city needs clearer expectations for timeliness, consistency, and professionalism. She also raised concerns that frontline staff often do not have the information they need because departments are not communicating well with one another. Councilmember Nick Foster made a related point. He said council members themselves are often left fielding questions on matters outside their expertise, which suggests the same communication gaps are affecting the public too. So this isn't really a branding problem, it's a systems problem. Seawood said the government has operated too long as if it were 18 separate organizations instead of one city government. That sounds like a fair diagnosis, but diagnosis is not the same thing as measurable improvement. And that sounds like what Council seems to want. There's some practical details that help explain the skepticism. City Special Projects Manager Stephanie Brown said the 874 City Line is testing a phone tree and may launch it soon. She also said the current system has limits. Calls may be recorded in the contact center, but once they're transferred, the recording stop. Once the call goes to a department, follow-up becomes that department's responsibility. In plain terms, the city is still building a communication chain that has blind spots throughout. There's also a timing issue. Olson is leaving. Foster asked whether the city will be handing the next communications leader a usable framework or forcing that person to start from scratch. Seawood said the goal is to have the bones in place. So where does that leave the proposal? No formal action was taken. This was a work session, not a vote. But the meeting made clear where council scrutiny is likely to go next. Members are not just asking whether the city can build a communications department. They want to know whether City Hall will become easier to reach, more reliable, and more responsive when residents, reporters, or even council members need answers. That seems to be the right test because the city's problem is not a lack of output. It already produces updates, presentations, and messaging. The issue is whether those systems produce accountability and clarity where it matters. Item two this week on the briefing board is I-70 drive southeast closure that begins Monday. A modest amount of drivers will be impacted when a short stretch of I-70 Drive Southeast in East Columbia closes on Monday. The real impacts will come later this summer when Modot builds an underpass under I-70, connecting Hanover Boulevard north of the interstate to the South Outer Road. The closure on Monday will affect I-70 Drive Southeast just west of Woodridge Drive to Glenstone Drive. The entrance to Woodridge Drive from I-70 Drive Southeast will also close. Traffic will be detoured to Keene Street and St. Charles Road. The closure is expected to last about 300 days running into January of next year. This is not a long stretch of road, but it's an important one. Improved I-70 program director Eric Kapinski described it as a short distance but significant in effect. That sounds about right. Anyone who uses the route will notice the difference. The purpose is to let crews shift interstate traffic and build two new bridges in that area in phases. Once complete, the underpass is supposed to improve local movement around the interstate and reduce pressure on the nearby connector. There's a strategy behind the sequencing. Modot wants that underpass connection in place before taking on connector bridge work later. Kopinsky said the goal is to make this summer difficult in order to make next summer less painful. But the disruption coming this summer is staggering. The biggest impacts north-south this summer will come from over the biggest north-south impacts this summer will come from overpass bridge closures at St. Charles Road and to Providence Road. At St. Charles Road, Modot is planning a weekend demolition around April 10th, followed by a full closure throughout the remainder of the summer. Providence is expected to follow in late May or early June, also with a full summer-long closure. So this is not some minor inconvenience. It's the beginning of a broader period of disruption coming with the I-70 rebuild through Columbia. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from Como Buzz.com. This week's receipts come from a document that says a lot, precisely because it's not signed.com obtained a draft of the Air Service Agreement between the City of Columbia and American Airlines, laying out the terms of the proposed Charlotte route. The document says it was made and entered into on February 13th, 2026. But city officials say it has not been signed. It would only be signed March 16th, that's Monday, if approved by the City Council on Monday. That matters because the city's public position is that this is not yet a final contract, because it has to be authorized by the City Council. But the draft is detailed enough to show exactly what the city is prepared to agree to. Under the proposed one-year deal, regularly scheduled passenger service between Columbia Regional Airport and Charlotte Douglas International Airport would begin May 21st and run through May 22nd of next year. The key issue, though, is not the schedule, it's the risk structure. The agreement is built around a minimum revenue guarantee. American would compare the route's monthly revenue against a minimum revenue requirement. If revenue falls short, the airline can invoice the city for the difference. If revenue exceeds the minimum, American keeps the excess. Strong months do not offset weak months. The city's total exposure would be capped at $1.5 million over the term of the agreement. That's the heart of the deal. If the route underperforms, the city pays up to the cap. If the route performs well, American keeps the upside. The draft also says the city would waive landing fees during the service period. And it gives American broad operational discretion over aircraft type, schedule, operating carrier, service frequency, and continued operation of the route. None of this is necessarily unusual in an airline incentive deal, but it is exactly why the documents matter. Public officials often talk about these deals in broad terms a new route, a partnership, economic development, expanded service. Then the agreement shows you where the risk really sits, and here the structure is plain. The city is being asked to backstop the route up to $1.5 million and waive landing fees under an agreement city officials say is not yet signed, but is already fully drafted. The signature page tells part of that story too. The draft includes signature lines for city officials and for American Airlines. The copy obtained by ComoBuzz.com contains no signatures. So the status matters. It appears to be a proposed contract, not an executed one. And it doesn't appear the city council plans to discuss it publicly. The vote scheduled on Monday is on the council's consent agenda, packaged in with several other items that will all be approved with one vote. Council is not just being asked to endorse the idea of Charlotte service. It's being asked to approve a budget amendment of $750,000 and authorize the agreement structure. And this agreement doesn't stand alone. It lands in the middle of the same airport funding picture that we started talking about today. The city's half cent transportation sales tax is already supporting airport capital and airport operating losses. It is also what's going to be used for this revenue guarantee. So the deeper receipt is not just that the city has a detailed draft before final approval. The deeper receipt is that Columbia's airport growth strategy is increasingly being supported by local public dollars, and the full picture only becomes clearer when you read the documents. Okay, a couple things to watch next week. First, Monday's Columbia City Council meeting. The American Airlines Revenue Sharing Agreement is on the consent agenda, along with a budget amendment appropriating the $750 and authorization of the Air Service Agreement for round trip service between Columbia Regional and Charlotte Douglas. Given what is already visible in the unsigned draft, the item deserves attention even if it appears in the routine part of the agenda. Second council is also set to review proposed changes to the city's short-term rental rules. The package coming out of the Planning and Zoning Commission would ease some approval requirements, rewrite the tier structure, and change which operators must go through the conditional use permitting process. Staff says the goal is to simplify administration and improve compliance. Opponents argue the city is moving too quickly and could weaken protections for neighborhoods and long-term housing. That debate matters because the current ordinance is still relatively new. Now, less than two years after passage, council is being asked to look at a significant rewrite. That will be taken up in a work session before the regular council meeting. So next week's city council business is not light. Airport money, airport guarantees, short-term rental rules, plenty on the table. The through line this week is straightforward. Columbia is making a series of decisions that can look technical when they arrive one at a time. Airport hearings, budget amendments, route agreements, department reorganization, ordinance revisions. But underneath those items are bigger questions about priorities, transparency, and whether the public is getting the full picture before decisions are hardened into policy. The airport story is the clearest example. Each project can be explained on its own terms, but taken together, they show a city committing real local resources to airport growth while drawing from the same transportation tax that also supports other city needs. That does not make the investment illegitimate. It does make it worth examining as a whole. That's what we'll keep doing. You can find more reporting on all these stories at Como Buzz.com. I'm Mike Murphy. Thanks for listening. I'll see you next Friday.