CoMoBUZ Insider Briefing, March 27, 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 Ward 5 Columbia City Council election, including clips from interviews with both candidates, Boone County's proposed new building code changes, the lawsuit brought against Boone County by a former court marshal, and Jim Windsor's argument that the city is unfairly covering general fund expenses with transfers from the utilities departments. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:04

In Columbia's fifth ward, a campaign for the city council has narrowed to a blunt question. Does the city need more money to fix public safety and long-delayed infrastructure? Or does it need to prove it can manage what it already has before asking taxpayers for more? From Como Buzz.com, this is the Como Buzz Insider Briefing, a weekly look at the decisions, documents, and debates shaping Columbia and Boone County. This week we'll look at what this race says about the broader debate at City Hall over spending, priorities, and accountability. It's the only contested race for the City Council in the April 6th municipal elections. The race between Don Waterman and Christina Hartman for Columbia's fifth Ward City Council seat is offering voters a fairly clean contrast. Most will think that's over political ideology, even though this is supposed to be a nonpartisan municipal government, if there is such a thing as nonpartisan anymore. Incumbent Don Waterman is asking voters to give him a second term. Challenger Christina Hartman is arguing the city needs a different approach. That is a revealing split right there out of the gate. The incumbent sees the biggest immediate need is public safety. The challenger sees the bigger pattern as delay, unfinished business, and basic infrastructure that should already be in place. And that divide carried directly into the question that may matter most in this race right now: the proposed additional one cent sales tax for public safety. Waterman supports it. He says he's supported it from the beginning.

SPEAKER_02 3:40

I support it and have supported it from the beginning. If we look at our current budget, uh this year we actually had to dip into reserves in order to be able to balance the budget. Fortunately, we had some we had reserves available uh beyond our mandatory 20% reserves. We had some reserves above that, so we were able to use that. If we attempt to grow the police department organically as our sales tax revenues grow, you know, we're looking at maybe three to five off additional officers a year. Chief Sluti said she needs anywhere between 50 and 60. Chief Schaefer said he needs 40 new firefighters. We have some capital things that need to be done. Three fire stations need to be rebuilt. There's issue with the police station, the main station downtown. That's at its end of life, so that's going to need to be either rehabbed or rebuilt or relocated. Equipment, cars, other equipment for the new officers and firefighters. Uh this would let us uh generate, I think current estimate between sales, sales tax, direct sales tax, and use tax about thirty odd million dollars a year. So it would let us increase the forces and address some of these capital projects much more quickly.

SPEAKER_00 5:05

That is Waterman's case. The city has real needs, those needs are expensive, and if voters want fast action on police staffing, fire protection, and facilities, then city government needs more revenue to do it. Hartman's answer was more cautious and much more skeptical. She did not give an absolute no, but she made it clear that she's leaning against the tax. Her reasoning was not complicated. She said many citizens are already hurting financially, and she said before City Hall asked voters for more money, it needs to show it's using existing money the way it said it would.

SPEAKER_03 5:36

I think uh right now a lot of citizens are hurting, and so for me the the sales tax really needs to be examined. I'm leaning toward, I think we need to work on making sure that we're utilizing the budget we have rather than asking uh voters for additional money and funding. So I think it kind of comes back to the accountability of all this.

SPEAKER_00 6:01

That word came up repeatedly in Hartman's interview, accountability, not just as a slogan, but as her explanation for why she is skeptical of new taxes. She tied that directly to infrastructure. Her point was that voters have already approved projects, the city has already had opportunities to move things forward, and yet some of the fifth ward's biggest needs have lingered for years. From her perspective, that weakens the case for asking for more money before showing more results. That same tension runs through the Watertower debate, which has hovered over the fifth ward for years. Hartman argued the city needs to stop circling the issue and move it forward. Her view is that the city council needs to take responsibility for getting the project done. Waterman did not dispute the need, but he described the challenge differently. He said the project has been difficult because of siting problems, topography, neighborhood resistance, and the collapse of a possible location tied to the school district. So on that issue, too, the distinction holds. Hartman emphasizes the delay and the lack of completion. Waterman emphasizes the complexity of the problem and the practical barriers the city has faced. That may sound like a small difference, but politically I think it matters because one argument says the city is not executing. The other says the city is trying to solve hard problems that do not yield quickly. That split showed up again when the conversation turned to housing. Waterman said Columbia needs to make it easier to build housing.

SPEAKER_02 7:26

One is we need to make sure we've streamlined the process as much as we can. The recent housing study that was done to the city county staff, that was their number one recommendation. Is streamline the process. Two, we need to take a look at our fees. Are the fees appropriate? Is there something that maybe we could waive fees or something like that if we're looking at affordable housing? The challenge is yes, if neighbors don't want it. Sometimes we have to take a look at that and say, you know, I understand, I appreciate your sentiments, but in the long run, long term, this is what Columbia is going to need.

SPEAKER_00 8:07

That is a fairly traditional pro-housing argument from a sitting council member. Reduce barriers, speed up approvals, accept that not every decision will be popular with nearby residents. Hartman's answer was more layered. She did not reject the need for housing, but she framed the issue as broader than just building more units.

SPEAKER_03 8:25

So I think there's a lot of issues that are kind of coming to play there. There's um the cost of building new homes and the interest rates. And so I think when it comes to working with the community members, we need to understand how the community is feeling about it, what type of housing they would um be willing to uh work with. There's all different types of housing, and so we need to make sure also the infrastructure is in place to support that additional uh housing needs.

SPEAKER_00 8:57

So here again, the difference is not whether housing matters, both candidates know it does, the difference is in emphasis. Waterman sounds more ready to cut through the resistance and move projects. Hartman sounds more concerned with whether the underlying systems and public support are really there. And that same pattern showed up when I asked each candidate to name a recent council decision they would have handled differently. Hartman pointed to the pedestrian ordinance. She said plainly that she would have voted no. And she used the answer to make a broader argument that the city is too often reacting to public pressure instead of addressing root causes earlier.

SPEAKER_03 9:38

I would have voted no on that. I think that for me, that we need to look at proactive approaches and not necessarily reactive approaches on our approach to managing our city. When we talk about um housing and uh the homeless situation, uh a lot of that was driven out of fear and anxiety and and um I for me, I think that we need to be working with people to try to identify what needs they need at the m at the time, in addition to doing proactive things. So there's it's been proven that it is cheaper to help people stay in their homes rather than uh waiting till you know they are unhoused.

SPEAKER_00 10:29

That answer is important because it shows how Hartman thinks about governance beyond one ordinance. She says that the city is being too reactive, too driven by immediate frustration, too focused on late stage response instead of earlier intervention. Waterman picked a different council controversy. He went back to the debate over diversity, equity, and inclusion language. He says he could have explained himself better. City staff had recommended removing DEI language from the city's strategic plan because of what they said was pressure from the Trump and Kehoe administrations. After considerable pushback from the community to not give in and change the language, a city council motion called for the language to be left intact. Waterman cast the only no vote.

SPEAKER_02 11:12

I think explaining myself would have been a little better. Personally, I'm like, you know, we're doing things right in Columbia anyway. So I didn't see that taking the language out. I know for many people having that language there that they can point to is very important. I understand that. I thought what we were doing didn't go far enough. So that's actually why I said no. But indirectly, by saying no, I guess unintended consequence, my no was said leave everything as it is. You know, don't change anything.

SPEAKER_00 11:49

That answer reinforced something important about Waterman's candidacy. He's running as someone already inside the machinery of city government, explaining how and why he made decisions in real time. Hartman, by contrast, is using the questions to argue the city's current habits of decision making are not good enough. Then there's the budget, and here too, the candidates offer two different ways of looking at the same pressure. Waterman says he does not see much left to cut. He said the city has already pared down the budget significantly, and he did not identify any major area where he thinks cuts could be made that would make a meaningful difference.

SPEAKER_02 12:25

We've cut down the budget as much as I think that we can. There's not much left there. There's not much juice left in that lemon. I think, you know, we look at what where the money's going. I know many people think that we're spending a lot on the homeless. Some of my constituents say, you know, we shouldn't be spending any of that. The report that we just got is we've spent, I think it was 1.7 million, is what we're going to spend this year, which in a $600 million budget is really not that significant. But yes, it's money spent. But again, we have to look at all of Columbia. I don't know that there's anything or any specific cuts that I can think of offhand that would significantly benefit the budget.

SPEAKER_00 13:17

Hartman also did not name a specific service to eliminate, but her answer again came back to waste contracts and whether the city is spending money in ways that actually serve the public.

SPEAKER_03 13:28

We need to look at what that waste is and what contracts aren't serving the city and how we can start moving away from those contracts.

SPEAKER_00 13:37

That may be one of the clearest dividing lines in this race. Waterman says the city has already cut what it can and now has to confront real needs, particularly in public safety and infrastructure. Hartman says she's not convinced the city has done enough hard work yet to earn trust for more spending. So what exactly are fifth ward voters choosing between? At one level, they're choosing between experience and change. That is the obvious frame. But at a deeper level, they're choosing between two theories of what is wrong at City Hall. Waterman's theory is that city faces expensive real-world demands and experienced leadership is needed to navigate them. Hartman's theory is that the city's deeper weakness is process, follow-through, and accountability, and that better management can improve outcomes before taxpayers are asked to do more. Their closing arguments reflected that cleanly. Waterman's closing message was about experience. He says there's a great deal to learn on the outside before someone fully understands how city government operates.

SPEAKER_02 14:34

I think the biggest thing is that I the experience that I bring. My first probably year or so was just simply learning. There's so much to learn when you're on the outside, unless you've extensively dealt with City Hall, you have no idea. One, how complex it is, how interconnected all the different departments are. Two, with the desire for transparency, how slow we take things. In the private sector, things have you can make things happen a lot faster. In public service, public government, it takes time. So I bring that experience, getting to know the people. I think the biggest thing for me right now is experience.

SPEAKER_00 15:12

Hartman's closing message is about systems, efficiency, and problem solving.

SPEAKER_03 15:17

Voters should choose me because I am somebody that wants to dive in, look at the processes. My background is in cybersecurity and analyzing systems. And so when we go in, we look at the system, we need to be able to really identify what are those core issues. How do we identify the pain points? And how do we make that process or that uh process more efficient? And a lot of times efficiency comes with process improvement rather than additional resources needed.

SPEAKER_00 15:50

And that, in the end, is the fifth ward contest. An incumbent saying Columbia needs more capacity, more resources, and steady leadership to finish difficult work, and a challenger saying City Hall needs sharper discipline, better execution, and stronger accountability before it comes back to voters for more. And for fifth ward voters, the choice is not as hard to describe. More money now to address known needs or demand for better performance first. And that is the race for the fifth ward for a seat on the Columbia City Council. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing here from Como Buzz.com. I'm Mike Murphy. Now to the briefing board. First, Boone County Housing Reform. A package of Boone County code changes aimed at making it easier to build duplexes, accessory dwelling units, and smaller lot homes is now headed to county commissioners with a public hearing and possible votes set for next Tuesday. This is one of those stories that sounds technical until you step back and look at what county officials are actually trying to do. They're trying to make some kinds of housing easier to build, not by writing subsidy checks or launching some giant new program, but by changing the rules that shape what can be built, where it can be built, and how long approval takes. That matters because a big part of the county's argument here is not just that housing is expensive, it is that delay, uncertainty, and process that also makes housing more expensive. Here's Kendrick.

SPEAKER_01 17:52

And so uh by putting restrictions or or putting ADUs and kind of spelling them out in code, black and white, what is allowed, how those projects can move forward, you create more predictability, uh, but you also create a faster timeline for those projects to be approved.

SPEAKER_00 18:07

Kendrick tied the package to the county's broader planning work and to its housing study. And he put some eye-popping numbers on the table. He said Boone County may need at least 25,000 and possibly as many as 37,000 new housing units by 2045 or 50, just to keep pace with population growth. That's a pretty substantial number. And Kendrick's argument is if county leaders wait until one giant all-encompassing reform package, the whole effort could get bogged down before anything passes. So this package is narrower by design. It focuses on areas where there may be enough consensus to get something done now. Accessory dwelling units are a central piece of that. There are smaller units, sometimes built on the same property as an existing home. Kendrick said they can help create more housing units, give some property owners rental income, and also help older residents stay in place. But the real policy shift is this: in some county classifications, the proposal would allow those units by right. That means applicants would not have to go through a more cumbersome rezoning or planned development process each time. And that's exactly the point. The county says discretionary processes can take a long time, cost more money, and still the end is uncertainty. So by spelling out clear rules in the code, officials say they can create more predictability and faster timelines. The same logic goes to smaller cottage lots. Kendrick said land is a major cost driver in housing. So if the county allows smaller lots in some subdivisions, more units can fit on a smaller footprint, which in theory can create more affordable housing opportunities. Now that's the county's theory of the case. Make some housing types easier to build, make the process clearer, reduce delays, and try to move the supply side of the market. Kendrick also made clear the county was intentional about not pushing the most controversial reforms first. His view is that too many reform efforts die in the weeds, too much detail, too many disputes, too much time arguing before anything gets adopted. So this is meant to be a tighter package with a better chance of passage. The next key date is Tuesday, that's March 31st. If the public hearing goes smoothly, County Commissioners could vote the same day. If there's heavy pushback, Kendrick said the vote could be delayed. So this is one item to watch closely this coming week. And second on the briefing board, the Edward Lopez lawsuit. The 13th Judicial Circuit Court in Boone County is trying to get itself dropped from the retaliation and discrimination lawsuit, filed by a former Courthouse Deputy Marshal, Edward Lopez. This is the first step in a case that has already generated serious allegations about what Lopez said he saw inside the Boone County Courthouse and why he says he lost his job. Lopez sued after his September 11th termination from the Boone County Marshal's office. His lawsuit claims he was fired in retaliation for reporting misconduct and for raising concerns about what he described as unlawful and hostile work environment. He also alleges discrimination and retaliation tied to his race and national origin. Boone County has already denied those allegations. Now the 13th Judicial Circuit is making a narrow argument. Its position is not mainly about what did or did not happen inside the courthouse. Its main point is that Lopez sued the wrong defendant in a January 21st motion to dismiss and on a March 24th answer to Lopez's petition. And if that's true, the court says it cannot be liable under the employment-based claims Lopez is asserting. That's the heart of this filing. Lopez's lawsuit describes alleged misconduct by members of the Boone County Marshall's office, including supervisors and co-workers. The circuit court says those individuals were county employees, not employees of the 13th Judicial Circuit. So where does that leave the case? At this point, the lawsuit still represents the law. Two separate but related issues. One is the factual dispute over what Lopez says happened inside the courthouse and why he was fired. The other is the legal question of who exactly can be held responsible. The 13th judicial is not really trying to settle the broader factual dispute in this filing. It's trying to narrow the case and remove itself from it. So for now, the case remains in an early stage, and the court is being asked to dismiss all claims against the 13th Judicial Circuit, or at a minimum, throw out Lopez's discrimination claim and the required administrative steps that are completed. That is the briefing board. And now the receipts. This week's receipts come from an opinion piece written by Jim Windsor in Como Buzz.com. It goes straight to a question that deserves more public scrutiny at City Hall. Are Columbia utility customers quietly paying costs that should be carried by the general fund? Windsor's argument is blunt. He says rate payers for the city's water, electric, sewer, and solid waste utilities have been covering unfair amounts of city administrative costs through what are labeled intragovernmental fees. And his larger claim is not just that the charges are high, it's that the system lacks transparency. He says neither the public nor city boards and commissions are given enough detail to clearly understand what each utility is paying and how those assessments fit into the city's overall budget structure. That is the accountability angle here, because if utility customers are effectively subsidizing broader city operations through opaque internal charges, then the city is not just collecting revenue. It's shifting costs in a way that it can obscure what government actually costs and who is really paying for it. Windsor worked at Water and Light for 36 years and retired as an assistant utilities director. He explains that this practice did not start with the current administration. But he says the current administration is responsible for continuing it and defending it. He says past administrations found it easy to cover growing general fund costs by pulling money from the utilities, then turning around and saying the utility cost had increased and rate hikes were needed. Windsor Warden Council that sewer and solid waste are in a cost of service review, which could lead to proposed rate increases in fiscal year 2027, and he noted that a consultant and the Water and Light Advisory Board have already proposed a 10% increase in water rates next year. Now here's where this ties directly into a major city issue coming up. In April or May at the latest, council is expected to decide whether a to place this proposed one cent sales tax on the August ballot. Windsor says he is not an automatic no on that tax. In fact, he says he would typically support increased funding for public safety. But he argues he cannot support the proposal unless the city takes serious action first to correct what he views as the unfair practice of making utility ratepayers carry too much of the city's internal administrative burden. His argument is if the sales tax passes, the city would have enough new money to shift those costs back where they belong and still address public safety needs. And the public benefit, in his view, would be straightforward fewer or smaller utility rate hikes, more transparency, and less hiding of city costs inside utility bills. If the city is going to ask voters for more tax revenue while also raising utility rates, then the public has every right to demand a clearer accounting of who is paying for what. That is what the receipts here are for, not just opinion, pressure backed by a paper trail. And this one is worth watching because it connects directly to next big city hall debate. Coming up, a couple items to watch in the week ahead. First, the proposed one cent sales tax increase. This is shaping up as one of the biggest policy and political questions facing Columbia this year. The argument is for public safety, more funding, more capacity, more ability to address police, fire, and other city needs. But the politics are not going to be simple, because as you heard in the fifth ward race, even candidates running for the same council seat are already split on the idea. And as Jim Windsor's piece makes clear, there's also a growing question about whether City Hall should clean up its own internal cost shifting before asking voters for more revenue. So that issue is not going away. Second, the filing period for the primary and general election closes March 31st. That gives us a clearer picture of who's in and who's out and what the next election cycle is going to look like. That's in August and November this year. And that matters because local politics never really stays quiet for long. One election ends, the next one starts taking shape. That's especially true in Colombia, where debates over taxes, development, homelessness, utilities, and public safety are now feeding directly into campaign season. So those are two things we'll be tracking closely the sales tax debate and the soon to close filing period that tells us what the next round of local races will look like. So that's it for this week's Como Buzz Insider Briefing. If you value this kind of reporting, direct, local, and focused on how decisions actually get made, please support the work at Como Buzz.com. I'm Mike Murphy. Thanks for listening.