CoMoBUZ Insider Briefing, May 15, 2026

Mike's quick, weekly no-nonsense look at civic affairs in Columbia and Boone County, Missouri. This week, Mike explains the threat of a lawsuit against the City of Columbia over the constitutionality of its revenue guarantees to airlines, takes a look at the city’s planned $2.57 million North Village Park, bring you up-to-date on I-70 construction, discusses the big rate increases the city has planned for trash pickup and has a final update on the city’s plan Monday to ask voters for a one-cent sales tax increase meeting Monday.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:06

Columbia wanted a direct flight to Charlotte. The city got one. But now, before the first plane even leaves the runway, the deal behind the route is facing a formal legal warning. The question is not whether air service would help Columbia, it almost certainly would. The question is whether city government can use taxpayer money to protect a private airline from losing revenue on a new route.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, the fight over Columbia's airline revenue guarantee escalates. The Goldwater Institute has sent a formal demand letter to city officials warning that public money cannot be used to cover American Airlines losses on the new Charlotte route. Also this week, I-70 construction moves deeper into Columbia. North Village Park moves closer to construction with a $2.57 million budget. And City Council members prepare to review a long series of proposed rate increases for trash pickup. Let's start with the airline deal. Columbia's push for expanded air service has entered a more serious phase. Not because the Charlotte Route is delayed, not because American Airlines is backed away, and not because city officials have changed their minds. The shift this week is legal. The Goldwater Institute has formally warned Columbia City officials that the city's agreement with American Airlines likely violates the Missouri Constitution. The issue is the revenue guarantee behind the new Columbia to Charlotte route. City records previously obtained by ComoBuzz.com show that Columbia agreed to guarantee up to $1.5 million in revenue during the first year of flights between Columbia Regional Airport and Charlotte, North Carolina. Under the plan presented to the City Council, half of that money, $750,000, would come from the city's Transportation Sales Tax Fund. The other $750,000 would come from private and public community partner contributions. The route is scheduled to begin later this month. That matters because the city is not simply buying tickets, it's not paying for airport equipment, it's not making routine infrastructure investments, it's agreeing to help backstop airline revenue if the route does not hit monthly revenue targets. That is the part Goldwater says crosses a constitutional line. In a May 12th letter to Mayor Barbara Buffalo and City Council members, attorneys for Goldwater said Columbia's agreement with American Airlines exposes taxpayers to significant financial risk without giving taxpayers any share of the profits if the route succeeds. That's the core dispute. The airline benefits if the route performs well, but if the route underperforms, the city has agreed to help cover the shortfall up to the cap. Goldwater argues that that is exactly the kind of public support for private business the Missouri Constitution is designed to prevent. The group points to what is commonly called the gift clause. That provision bars cities and other political subdivisions from granting public money or lending public credit to private corporations, associations, or individuals. Goldwater also says that Columbia's promise to pay is also the problem. In other words, the constitutional issue does not begin only if the city writes a check. The issue begins when the city puts public money at risk. The distinction is important. The city may argue that no money has yet changed hands. It may argue that the guarantee is a tool to recruit air service, and it may argue that the community benefits from better connections to the National Air Travel Network are a good thing. Those are real policy arguments. But Goldwater is making a different argument. It is saying public benefit is not enough if the money is being used to support a private company's business risk. That is why this fight is sharper than a normal dispute over economic development. Cities routinely argue that public spending can support economic growth. They build roads, they support airports, they build industrial sites, they use tax tools to attract employers, but a revenue guarantee is more direct. It is a promise that if the private airline does not make enough money on a route, the city and its partners may help close the gap. Goldwater's letter does not demand that the entire arrangement be scrapped. That is also important. The group draws a line between private money and taxpayer money. Goldwater says private businesses, institutions, or organizations can voluntarily contribute to the route if they want to take that risk. But Goldwater says Columbia must make sure only privately contributed funds are used to pay any invoices from American Airlines. Its position is direct. Under no circumstances may taxpayer funds be used for that purpose. That leaves the city with a practical problem. The city's plan, as presented, includes $750,000 from the Transportation Sales Tax Fund. If Goldwater is right, that part of the plan is legally vulnerable. If the city proceeds anyway, it may have to defend the agreement in court. And that is why the May 12th demand letter matters. Until now, the legal warning had mostly come through public comments from attorney Dave Rowland. Roland is a Missouri attorney affiliated with Goldwater. He's also director of litigation and co-founder of the Freedom Center of Missouri. He has raised the possibility of a lawsuit over the airline guarantee, but the new letter puts that warning in formal legal terms. It is no longer only a public objection. It is a written demand from a litigation organization telling city officials not to use taxpayer money to cover any American airline invoices tied to the guarantee. The Goldwater Institute is based in Arizona. It describes itself as a free market public policy, research, and litigation organization founded in 1988 with the blessing of the late U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater. The institution says it works in courts, legislatures, and communities around the country to advance limited government, economic freedom, individual liberty, and constitutional limits on government power. That background matters because Goldwater is not just commenting on a local airport deal. It's viewing Columbia as part of a broader national fight over public subsidies for private interests. Tony Napolitano, a senior attorney for the Institute and one of the signers of the letter, wrote in a companion article that taxpayers should not be forced to backstop the profits of a major airline. He argued that Columbia crosses a constitutional line by putting $750,000 in public transportation sales tax money behind the route. Again, the institute says it does not object to private contributions. Its objection is to public money being placed at risk. For Columbia, this lands at a sensitive moment. City officials have spent years trying to expand air service at Columbia Regional Airport. Charlotte has been one of the community's top priorities. A direct connection to Charlotte would connect Columbia to one of American Airlines' major hubs. That could matter for business travel, university travel, health care, economic development, and the general convenience of getting in and out of Mid-Missouri. Mayor Barbara Buffalo praised the route when it was announced in December. So the political case for the route is not hard to understand. Columbia wants better service. Airlines are cautious about smaller markets. Revenue guarantees are used in some communities to reduce the risk for airlines when they test new service. That's the business logic. But legal authority is a separate question. The city cannot simply say the route is good for Columbia and assume that settles the matter. The use of public money must fit within Missouri law, and that is where the agreement now faces its toughest scrutiny. There's also a transparency issue. The city's role in the guarantee was not the headline when local officials first announced the Charlotte service in December. The public celebration focused on the new route. The financial backstop emerged later in a staff memo prepared for City Council. The memo said the council would be asked to approve an ordinance amending the fiscal year 2026 budget by appropriating the city's $750,000 share from the Transportation Sales Tax Fund and authorizing the city manager to execute agreements connected to the new round trip service. The remaining half of the package was described as coming from the private and public community partner contributions. That funding source is the Central Missouri Air Service Fund. The fund has long been used locally to help recruit and retain airline service by reducing financial risk for carriers entering a smaller market. But this arrangement is now forcing a harder question. If the Air Service Fund includes private contributions, public contributions, or a mix of both, how will the city make sure constitutionally restricted public money is not used to cover airline revenue losses? Goldwater's letter essentially says private money may be fine, taxpayer money is not. That means the city may need to separate the funding streams clearly. It may need to show which dollars are private, it may need to show which dollars are public, and it may need to prove that no public dollars are used if American submits an invoice under the revenue guarantee. This is not a small administrative detail. This is the center of what could become a legal fight. Columbia's city manager DeCarlin Seawood has defended the proposed Charlotte service as an economic benefit for Columbia and the region. That is the argument city officials are likely to keep making. The route could make Columbia more attractive for employers. It could help business travel, it could support university travel, it could make the airport more useful to people who now drive to St. Louis or Kansas City. But none of that answers the constitutional question. Goldwater is not saying air service has no value. It's saying the Missouri Constitution limits how government may support private business, even when officials believe the community benefit is real. That is the line to watch. This may also become a test of how comfortable Columbia is with economic development agreements that rely on public risk and private upside. A revenue guarantee is attractive because it can help land service that might not otherwise happen. But it also puts government in a difficult position. If the route succeeds, the airline benefits, the airport benefits, and the community benefits. If it fails, the taxpayers may be asked to absorb part of the loss. Goldwater says that imbalance is unconstitutional. The city has not yet had to make any kind of public defense of the deal, but the demand letter changes the posture. City officials now have written notice that a national litigation organization believes the agreement violates the Missouri Constitution. That means every next step carries more weight. If the city moves ahead and uses only private money for any revenue guarantee payments, it may reduce its legal risk. If it continues to hold public transportation sales tax money in the deal, it may invite litigation. And if litigation comes, the question will not be whether Charlotte is a good destination. The question will be whether Columbia used public money or public credit in a way the Missouri Constitution forbids. That is a much narrower question, and that is the question that may decide what happens next. There is one more public interest point here. The debate is not anti-airport. It's not anti-growth, and it's not a simple argument over whether Columbia should have more flights. A serious city can want better air service and still be required to follow constitutional limits. A serious city can support economic development and still be required to explain who carries the risk. A serious city can celebrate a new route and still owe taxpayers a clear answer about whether their money is being exposed. That is where this issue stands. The legal warning is already here, and the city may soon have to decide whether the Charlotte Route is backed by private risk, public risk, or a funding structure that can survive a court challenge. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from Como Buzz.com. Now to the briefing board, two other developments shaping Columbia this week. First, I-70 work is moving deeper into Columbia. Missouri's rebuild of I-70 through Boone County is moving from groundbreaking ceremony to visible disruption. Improved I-70 program director Eric Kopinski said the Roachport to Columbia project will reshape one of the busiest stretches of interstate in mid-Missouri. The project includes 107 lane miles, 14 new bridges, and seven updated interchanges. Through the urban Columbia section, I-70 will eventually expand from two lanes in each direction to three lanes each way. Kopinski said that with the new outer road system, the corridor will be 10 lanes wide through that section. That is the long-term picture. The short-term picture is construction, lane shifts, bridge work, pavement repairs, split lanes, and slower travel through work zones. The Roachport to Columbia section is part of the state's larger $2.8 billion I-70 expansion. It's connected to the Columbia to Kingdom City project already underway east of Columbia. It's also connected to the Boonville to Roachport stretch. Those three mid-Missouri projects will rebuild roughly 45 miles of I-70 between Boonville and Kingdom City with a combined investment of about $1 billion. The Columbia to Kingdom City section is expected to be finished in December of 2027. The Roachport to Columbia section has a completion deadline of December 2029. Kopinski said drivers will begin seeing more completed work later this summer, but the full buildup will take years. In the near term, westbound traffic has already been switched on the new pavement between U.S. 63 and Paris Road. Crews are preparing foundation work for a new flyover expected to open later this winter. Work also continues at the Kingdom City Interchange and the St. Charles Road Overpass. The Providence Road bridge demolition over I-70 remains scheduled for May 29th. In west of Kingdom City, westbound I-70 between Kingdom City and Hatton is returning to split lane configuration while crews pave new highway. Kopinski acknowledged that setup will frustrate drivers, but the broader message from MODOT is clear. The work is funded, the contractors are in place, and the disruption is now part of the price of rebuilding the interstate. Second, North Village Park is moving closer to construction. The Columbia City Council is being asked Monday to approve an additional $1.425 million for the park project at 210 Ore Street in the North Village Arts District. The money would allow the city to award the construction bid to Columbia-based Reinhardt construction. The total construction bid is about $2.38 million. The city would set aside about $190,000 for contingency costs. Together, the additional appropriate would bring the total project budget to about $2.57 million. This has been in the works for several years. The city bought the 2.3 acre property from American, Missouri in 2022 for $950,000. The site had previously been used as a manufactured gas plant and remains subject to an environmental covenant from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. The council approved the North Village Park Master Plan in Phase 1 construction back in March of 2024. Since then, City Staff and McClure Engineering have worked through construction documents, infrastructure planning, and bid preparation. The park is planned as a new downtown public space with sidewalks, landscaping, public art, a flexible performance area, family space, playground features, seating, lighting, and parking improvements. But the project is not just grass and benches. A large part of the work is infrastructure. The contractor will reconstruct a large box culvert in the southeast corner of the parking lot along St. James Street. The goal is to improve stormwater hydraulics in the area. The project also includes new storm drain inlets on all four sides of the park. Two existing city water lines will be relocated into the turf area of the park so they're easier to access for future repairs. Electric and communication utilities would also be moved underground. Staff says the work would replace older infrastructure, remove poles that create sidewalk accessibility problems, and improve the appearance of the park. The project must be finished by December 31st this year to meet requirements of a Missouri ARPA community revitalization grant. So Monday's council decision is not the final ribbon cutting, but it's a key funding step. Without the appropriation, the city cannot award the full construction contract and move the project forward on the current schedule. Now to the receipts. This is where we slow down and look at the documents behind a public decision. This week, the document is a consultant presentation on Columbia's solid waste rates. The City Council is scheduled to review it during a work session Monday. And the headline is simple trash pickup rates are likely to go up a lot. The important point is this is not being framed as a one-year rate adjustment. It's a multi-year rate plan. The presentation, prepared by the consultant Stantec, recommends a 5% solid waste revenue increase in fiscal year 2027, that's next year, then 10% increases in each of fiscal year 28 and 29, then 5% annual increases through fiscal year 2032. After that, the plan recommends 3% annual increases. That's a long runway of higher rates. The proposal has not been adopted. Monday's work session is a discussion step, but the presentation gives council members the financial argument they will be asked to consider. The central finding is that current solid waste revenues are unbalanced with expenditures. That is consultant language. In plain English, the system is not bringing in enough money to keep up with the cost of running it. For a typical residential customer using a 65-gallon trash cart, the calculated rate the first year would be from $17.37 to $18.28 per month. That's about 91 cents or 5.2%. That first year number may not sound dramatic by itself, but the receipts matter because the presentation does not stop there. It shows a planned series of increases designed to support operating costs, capital spending, vehicles repairs, replacement, debt service, and reserves. The Solid Waste System's fiscal year 26 revenue requirements total about 35.3 million. That includes about 20.8 million for personnel and operating expenses. It includes about 13.2 million for capital projects, vehicles, repairs, and replacement. The consultant's warning is that waiting too long can create a rate shock. In other words, if the city delays increases until the system is short of cash, future hikes may need to be larger and more sudden. Stantac recommends spreading increases across several years. That is the financial logic, but there's a policy choice buried inside of it. The council has yet to decide whether to accept a planned schedule of increases now, adjust the recommendations, or delay action and risk steeper increases later. There's also a recycling issue to watch. The presentation says that if the city includes a materials recovery facility in the capital plan, a 4% larger rate increase would be required in fiscal year 2028 to support debt financing for that project. A materials recovery facility, often called a MERF, is used to sort and process recyclable materials. That means the rate plan in front of council is not necessarily the high-end version. If the city adds major recycling infrastructure, the costs could rise further. The presentation also recommends changing how costs are assigned across customer classes. Commercial customers would see a redesigned rate structure. Current commercial fees are based on pickups per week and are split between front load and rear load type trucks. Stantec recommends consolidating those rates to simplify administration and make the system clearer for customers. Commercial recycling rates would also change. The consultant recommends setting recycling fees at a uniform 90% of the calculated commercial trash rate. That is designed to keep an incentive on commercial recycling. Community improvement district rates would also be simplified. Some individual rates would rise sharply, others would fall. That's the other reason this discussion matters. The public often hears rate increase is one number, but a rate design study decides who pays, how much they pay, and whether some customers are subsidizing others under the current structure. The council will not take final action during the work session Monday, but the documents show where this is headed. Solid waste costs are rising, capital needs are significant, and the consultant is recommending a planned series of pretty steep rate increases rather than a single emergency correction later. And if council members want a different answer, they will need to explain which costs should be delayed, which reserves should be reduced, or which customers should carry more of the burden. That's the value of looking at the receipts. The rate increase is the headline. The financial structure underneath is the story. Coming up next week, the Columbia City Council returns to one of the biggest local tax questions of the year. On Monday, May 18th, Council members are expected to revisit whether to place a 1% public safety sales tax on the August 4th ballot. The proposal is expected to raise about $38 million a year for police and fire needs. But the timing has become more complicated. Boone County officials are also planning an increase to the county's dedicated law enforcement sales tax, driven in large part by GL costs and the rising expense of housing inmates outside Boone County. Coordinate their approach or ask many of the same voters for separate sales tax increases. That's the question to watch Monday night. Not just whether Columbia wants more public safety money, but whether governments can explain the total ask to taxpayers who only see the financial amount on their receipt. The airline guarantee story is a good reminder that growth questions are rarely simple. Columbia wants better air service. That's understandable. A direct Charlotte route could help business travel, university travel, and the region's connection to the national economy. But public benefit does not erase public obligation. When taxpayer money is placed behind a private company's revenue, the public deserves a clear explanation. Who carries the risk? Who gets the upside? What money is public? What money is private? And what does the Missouri Constitution allow? Those are not technicalities, those are rules that separate public investment from private subsidy. The first Charlotte fight is scheduled this month. But the legal and political test is already underway. We'll keep following the airline agreement, the city's response to the Goldwater Demand Letter, Monday's public safety tax discussion, the solid waste rate review, and the continuing construction impacts on I-70. You can find our reporting at Como Buzz.com. For Como Buzz.com, I'm Mike Murphy. Thanks for listening. We'll see you next week.