CoMoBUZ Insider Briefing, March 20, 2026

Mike's quick, weekly no-nonsense look at civic affairs in Columbia and Boone County, Missouri. This week it's an update on Columbia's $500,000 plan to add private security "ambassadors" downtown, the city's struggle to regulate Airbnbs, a planned definition of data centers, the city's sleight of hand on disclosing its $1.5 million revenue guarantee to American Airlines, upcoming construction on Forum Blvd. and the proposed additional one cent sales tax. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 0:04

Half a million dollars. That's what the City of Columbia, the Downtown Community Improvement District, and the University of Missouri are preparing to spend on a new downtown ambassador program built around unarmed patrols, outreach work, and a more visible street presence in the hours when downtown feels least controlled. 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. Later in the episode, Columbia moves towards stricter local review of data centers. And in the receipts, why the city's explanation for keeping its American Airlines revenue guarantee quiet does not hold up very well once you read the agreement itself. This week's lead story is a proposal that could reshape how Columbia manages downtown after dark. The city, the downtown community improvement district, and the University of Missouri are preparing to launch a new downtown ambassador program with a first-year cost of just over $500,000. The goal is simple: put more trained people on downtown streets during the hours when problems are most likely to occur. The proposal would fund unarmed ambassadors to patrol on foot and by bike, assist visitors and businesses, report trouble spots, document incidents, and connect people with services. That first-year cost again is just over $500,000, split evenly among the City of Columbia, the CID, and MU. The City Council is expected to vote on the agreement at its next meeting April 6th. Downtown safety has been a recurring concern for years. That concern sharpened last fall after a shooting downtown. MU President Moon Choi made a public call for action. Business owners wanted more visible security, and public officials want to show they are not simply waiting around for the next incident. This program is the response now on the table. But let's be clear about what it is. This is not a proposal to hire more sworn police officers. It's not a new city department, and it's not just a hospitality program. It's more a middle layer response, a visible non-sworn street presence meant to spot issues earlier, manage smaller problems before they grow, and keep downtown from feeling unmanaged in the hours when the city offices are closed and crowds are at their peak. Under the staffing plan, the program would provide six full-time equivalent positions at about 240 hours a week. Most of the coverage would be concentrated Thursday through Sunday evenings, and the ambassadors would generally work from 5 p.m. to 3 a.m. In addition, one full-time outreach specialist would work daytime hours. That schedule tells you what this program is really about. This is not mainly a daytime beautification effort. It's aimed at the hours when restaurants and bars are busy, when larger groups gather, when intoxication becomes more visible, and when the line between a lively downtown and a disorder problem starts to narrow. Downtown CID executive director, Nikki Davis, describes the ambassadors as unarmed workers in direct communication with Columbia Police. She said they would check lighting, monitor food cart and food truck compliance, help people get home safely, and act as an additional eyes and ears downtown after city offices close. Here's how Davis described the role and what these ambassadors would actually do on the street.

SPEAKER_00 3:27

Of these six safety ambassadors, one of them will be a full-time outreach person. So this person will actually work during the daytime that will help with those experiencing different crises. Helping them find the resources they need, making sure that they're uh being appropriate for the downtown area. So that's super exciting. We have had that arm for many years, but this is a full-time person that we will have dedicated to this downtown area, which is super exciting. Um it's a rough job, it's a hard job. So we have been super happy with what we have had, but we're excited to have this as coming in as well. So yes, they will not be doing strict enforcement, they will be more of a touch point for CPDs, more feet on the ground, more eyes on the ground to help them know which and where they need to be. Um they will, however, be making sure and and reporting to CPDs and the cities that different things during the night are being addressed. So, you know, as you know, we we don't have what many cities call a nightmare, somebody who is out seeing the downtown constantly uh and making sure that businesses are doing what they should be doing, and that that lights um different traffic calming areas are doing what they should be doing. And and making sure that the the parties aren't getting out of hand, you know, um that we're not getting large groups around a food truck and things like that, which can lead to different issues.

SPEAKER_02 4:51

The written scope of work includes walking and bicycle patrols, business checks, after hours escorts, and daily incident reporting. It also includes contact with people involved in what the contract calls quality of life issues, including public intoxication, open container violations, loitering, trespassing, public urination, and aggressive panhandling. That puts the program in a gray area that deserves honest attention. Supporters will call it outreach, prevention, and downtown support. Critics may see it as a softer form of behavioral control aimed at people who make downtown feel less comfortable for visitors, businesses, and students. Translated that means the homeless. Both readings are easy to understand. That's why the outreach piece matters so much. One of the six positions would be a full-time outreach specialist focused on connecting people in crisis, including homeless people, with available services. Davis has argued the program is not meant to target homeless and move them out of downtown. Her point is that it's supposed to create contact, connect people to shelter or transportation, and build relationships that may reduce repeated police calls over time. That may also be the most politically sensitive part of the entire proposal, because downtown Columbia has been dealing with several different problems at once. Some complaints are about crime, some are about nuisance behavior, some are about visible homelessness, some are about public intoxication and crowd control late at night, and some are about confidence, whether downtown feels safe, even when the actual legal issues may be minor. This proposal tries to address all of that without turning every problem into a policing problem. And that is probably why the model appealed to all three partners. The city wants better public order and stronger confidence downtown. The CID wants better conditions for businesses and visitors. An MU wants a safer environment around student nightlife and a stronger relationship with downtown. When those three institutions all put money into the same plan, it tells you they think the issue is serious enough that none of them wants to stand off to the side. There is also a practical reason this moved forward. The contractor is not new to Columbia. The downtown CID already uses block by block for cleaning and maintenance work. Its crews clean sidewalks, help remove graffiti, and help routine upkeep downtown. So this is not a leap into a total unknown. It's more an expansion of an existing relationship with a company that already works in the district. Under the memorandum of understanding, the CID would oversee day-to-day operations, submit quarterly reports to the city and MU, and meet regularly with both partners to review whether the program is working and whether changes are needed. The interim term would run from April 1st of this year through March 31st of next year with automatic one-year renewals for up to five years unless a party withdraws. The structure matters. It makes the program real enough to launch, but it also leaves each partner an exit if the results are weak or the politics get rough. And that brings us to the question that will matter most after the launch. How do you know if it's working? The answer cannot be just that downtown feels better. Perception matters, public confidence matters, but more than a half a million dollars in public and quasi-public money will require more than anecdotal evidence. Davis said the ambassadors would generate detailed notes and statistics that can be shared so that the partners can see what workers are doing, what kinds of incidents they are encountering, and what it is or what is not improving. If the logs show recurring trouble at the same places and times, that gives officials a clearer picture of what downtown actually needs. If the ambassadors reduce demands on sworn officers by handling escorts, lower-level interventions, and service connections, that strengthens the case for renewal. If they mainly provide just visible reassurance without much measurable effect, that case gets weaker. And if the records show repeated conflict around homelessness, nuisance complaints, and requests to move people along, the politics of the program could sharpen very quickly. That's why this April 6th vote matters. It's not just a vote on one line item, it's a vote on a governing model for downtown. Not more police exactly, not purely social services, a contracted, highly visible middle layer designed to watch more closely, document more consistently, and intervene earlier. If the council approves it, Columbia will be joining the CID and MU in a half million dollar experiment in how to manage public space, public behavior, and public confidence in the heart of the city. That makes it one of the most important local public safety decisions now moving. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from Como Buzz.com. Onto the briefing board. The first item on our briefing board this week is Columbia's continuing struggle to regulate short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. The issue sounds technical, but it's not. It's a fight over neighborhoods, property rights enforcement, and whether the city created a system that people can realistically comply with. The City Council is again looking at a major rewrite of the short-term rental ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the revisions on a six to three vote. Staff supports them as well. The core problem is straightforward. The city believes there may be hundreds of short-term rentals operating in Columbia, but only a fraction have actually come through the new licensing process. That gap is the heart of this story. Supporters of the rewrite are not saying the city should stop regulating short-term rentals. They're saying the current process is cumbersome, labor-intensive, and not producing broad compliance. Commission chair Sharon Goway Jones says the city needs a system that is clear enough to follow so enforcement can focus on the operators who still refuse to comply. Here is Gowaway Jones explaining why the city believes the ordinance needs to be rewritten.

SPEAKER_01 10:54

We believe there should be anywhere between three and four hundred short-term rentals on offer in Columbia on any given night. So far, we've only seen about 154 of those come through as license applications, whether they have to come through the commission or they just get administratively approved. That's less than half, depending on the number that you're using. So we are trying to find a way to make this ordinance extremely clear and as easy as possible for people to come in and get compliant so that as we start the enforcement action, we're really able to knock that number down to only compliant licensed entities operating in our city.

SPEAKER_02 11:40

Under the same proposed changes, not every short-term rental in a residential area would face the same level of review. Some lower-risk properties could move through a more administrative process. Higher risk cases would still have to go through the conditional use process. Those high-risk triggers include being too close to another approved or fully licensed short-term rental, having code violations or documented complaints, or being near a public school. So the city is trying to sort these applications into two groups: properties that can be processed by staff and properties that still need to go through a heavier public review. Supporters say that is a more rational use of time and enforcement energy. Critics say it weakens neighborhood protections by letting more non-owner-occupied rentals move ahead without a hearing. That is the real divide. At the bottom, Columbia is trying to balance two claims that do not sit comfortably together. Property owners want flexibility, neighborhoods want stability, livability, and some protections against quiet residential blocks turning into quasi-commercial lodging areas. There is also a capacity issue here that should not be ignored. City staff said even administrative short-term rental applications can take substantial staff time. A full conditional use case takes more and then adds notices, hearings, reports, legislation, and council action. If the city is dealing with hundreds of potential operators and only a small share are getting licensed, that's a sign the current system may not match the size of the market. So when the council revisits this, the real question is not whether short-term rentals should be regulated. That question has been settled. The question is whether Columbia wants a system built around a universal procedural friction or one that serves its heaviest reviews for the cases most likely to create neighborhood problems. That is the policy choice in front of the City Council. The second item on the briefing board this week is Columbia's move to put data centers under strict local review. This may sound technical also, but it matters. It matters because Columbia is trying to get ahead of a problem many communities are only starting to recognize. Data centers are not just another industrial use. They can involve major demands on electricity, major cooling needs, large structures, and utility infrastructure that raise questions far beyond the normal warehouse or office building. The immediate proposal before the council is fairly narrow. It would create a formal definition of a data center and require conditional use approval before one could be built in the city's industrial district. That means a future project would not just slide through by right. It would require hearings before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. This matters because of what happened last fall. In November, the council denied a rezoning request amid concern that the site could become a data center. At the time, the city code did not specifically define that use, leaving a potential gap. This amendment is meant in part to close that gap. It's the first half of a two-step process. Step one is to define the use and require public review. Step two would come later. That phase would create Columbia specific standards and permit criteria focused on the actual impacts of data centers. This is where the bigger questions will live. How much power use is too much? What kind of backup generation would be allowed? How should water consumption be evaluated? What infrastructure costs should the developer bear? And what kind of public benefits, if any, should the city expect in return? For now, the city is taking the most basic step of saying, first, let us define this clearly and make sure any future proposals get public review. That is a sensible place to start. It also reflects a larger reality. Communities increasingly understand that data centers may bring investment and tax value, but they can also place extraordinary demands on utilities and land use planning while creating fewer long-term jobs than the size of the project might suggest. So the debate is moving away from whether data centers are part of the modern economy and toward where they should actually go, how they should be reviewed, and what protections local government want in place. That is the debate Columbia is now entering more formally. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from ComoBuzz.com. This week in the receipts, let's go back to the City Council's decision to approve the revenue guarantee, backing new American Airlines service between Columbia Regional Airport and Charlotte, North Carolina. The route itself was easy to understand. The city wants more air service. Airport leaders say Columbia is growing fast. Charlotte is a major hub. Officials and business leaders argue the route will strengthen economic development and eastbound connectivity. All of that's straightforward. The more revealing issue was not the route, it was the disclosure. When the new Charlotte service was first announced, the public announcement did not disclose that the city and its partners were backing the route with $1.5 million in a revenue guarantee to American. That omission raised obvious questions. Why leave out such a material detail? At Monday night City Council meeting, Councilmember Jackie Sample pressed the issue publicly. City Councilor Dancy Thompson said the agreement contained a confidentiality clause requiring the city to notify American Airlines before releasing the document in response to a sunshine request. That explanation, it got uh the councilor and the city council through the meeting, but believe me, it sounds way more substantial than it actually is. Because when you read the agreement language, the clause does not prohibit the city from disclosing the agreement under Missouri's sunshine law. In fact, the clause expressly recognizes that the city has disclosure obligations under the state law. What their provision does is acknowledge that records received from American are subject to applicable disclosure requirements and that the company must be notified and can try to challenge release on proprietary grounds. That is not the same as a ban on disclosure, not even close. And that is the point. There's a big difference between saying a contract contains confidentiality language and saying the language actually prevented public disclosure of a taxpayer-backed financial guarantee tied to a major public announcement. Those are not the same thing. The city ultimately did disclose the agreement when I asked for it. That tells you something by itself. If the contract had truly barred disclosure under law, the city would not have produced it. So the better way to understand what happened is this. The city had a contract that included a routine confidentiality and notification language. The city also had legal obligations under Missouri law. And despite those obligations, the public announcement of the new air service did not include the major public risk piece of the deal. That was a choice. Maybe not a sinister one. Maybe the goal was to announce the service first and the deal with the guarantee later, but it was still a choice. And when asked about it, the city's legal explanation gave the impression that the contract itself somehow tied the city's hands. The language does not really support that. She's providing cover for the mayor and the city staff. Now, none of this necessarily means the revenue guarantee was bad policy. Supporters argue the city used a similar model years ago to help bring American service in the first place and ended up paying only a tiny fraction of the total guarantee. They say the Charlotte Route could pay broader economic dividends and that the financial exposure is shared with outside partners. Reasonable people can debate that, but whatever you think of the policy, the disclosure issue matters on its own. If public officials are asking residents to accept risk on behalf of a private airline, that should be part of the initial public explanation, not something the public learns later. Especially when the city is simultaneously asking people to trust that the route makes economic sense. A clean public process would have sounded something like this. We are announcing new service. It's backed by a $1.5 million revenue guarantee. Half is coming from the city, half from outside partners. Here is why we believe the risk is justified. That would have been transparent. Instead, the guarantee surfaced later, and then the legal rationale offered by the delay did not line up very well with the contract text. That is why this belongs in the receipts, because sometimes the issue is not only what government does, it's what government chooses to emphasize, what it leaves unsaid in how strong the explanation is once someone finally asks to see the paperwork. Coming up, here are two things we'll be watching in the week ahead. First, the Forum Boulevard rebuild. The city is moving forward with a long planned major reconstruction of forum between Chapel Hill Road and Wood Rail Avenue. The latest estimate is about $14.3 million. The next steps include bidding and acquisition of a long list of temporary and permanent easements. If the city stays on schedule, construction will begin in the spring of 2027. This is not a minor resurfacing job. It's a major corridor remake involving widening, intersection changes, a new Hinks and Creek Bridge, bike and pedestrian work, and changes that will reshape one of West Columbia's key north-south routes. We'll be watching the approvals, the property impacts, and the cost story. Second, the sales tax proposal. City staff is now floating a one cent increase in the city's sales and use taxes dedicated to public safety with an estimated annual yield of roughly $38 million. Administration says the money would help support police and fire operations, capital needs, and pension obligations. This is a major proposal and it needs City Council approval in April if it's going to make it onto the August ballot. It arrives at a time when the city is also facing larger questions about operating costs, staffing growth, and the financial choices that created pressure for new revenue in the first place. So the tax question is not only whether public safety needs more money, it's also whether city government has made a persuasive case that it has managed existing resources well enough to justify asking voters for more. That debate is just getting started. The thought line in this week's briefing is control. Control over downtown streets, control over how short term rentals fit into neighborhoods. Control over whether data centers go and how they get reviewed, and control over public information. When government enters into a financial deal, it should have disclosed more clearly up front. Those are different stories, but they all point to the same larger reality. A lot of local government is not about grand ideology, it's about who sets the rules, how clearly they explain them, and whether the public gets an honest account of what is being done in its name. You can read more about all these stories on Como Buzz.com. For Comobuz.com, I'm Mike Murphy. Thanks for listening, and I'll see you next week.