CoMoBUZ Insider Briefing, June 19, 2026

Mike's quick, weekly no-nonsense look at civic affairs in Columbia and Boone County, Missouri. This week, Mike takes a look at how Columbia’s renewable-energy policy is running up against the harder reality of an electric utility that has to solve issues with capacity, reliability and cost; reviews the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit against the City of Columbia over the city’s revenue guarantee with American Airlines, discusses the Columbia Police Department’s annual surveillance technology report and the city loosening standards on Auxiliary Dwelling Units.  

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Columbia has a renewable energy goal. What it does not have yet is a complete power plan. That distinction matters because electric customers are already paying more. They're being asked to absorb rate increases, purchase power costs, delayed infrastructure, and long-term supply risk. The city's renewable energy program cost customers about $3.5 million more last year than non-renewable power would have cost. Over 11 years, that premium has reached about $32.2 million. All that money did not solve Columbia's capacity problems. It did not modernize the grid. It did not install any advanced meters. It bought compliance with a policy goal. And that raises the central question is Columbia running an electric utility or protecting a political identity? From ComoBuz.com, this is the Como Buzz Insider Briefing, a weekly look at the decisions, documents, and debates shaping Columbia in Boone County. I'm Mike Murphy. This week, Columbia's renewable energy policy meets the harder reality of electric capacity, reliability, and ratepayer cost. Also, the Goldwater Institute files its lawsuit over the city's American Airlines revenue guarantee. Columbia police report a major expansion of surveillance technology. And in the receipts, the City Council loosens rules for accessory dwelling units, undoing part of a regulatory structure that has produced very few of them. Here's the lead story. The city of Fulton broke ground this week on a new natural gas-powered turbine for generating electricity at its energy center. That may sound like a Fulton story, but it's also a Columbia story. Because while one mid-Missouri city is moving toward the kind of firm electric capacity utilities need, Columbia remains stuck in a familiar posture, studying, debating, delaying, and defending a renewable energy policy that has become less a working utility strategy and more a statement of values. Now that is not an argument against renewable energy. Columbia should buy renewable power when it's practical, reliable, and affordable. Most people support a cleaner energy future. The issue is whether Columbia's elected leaders have confused a renewable energy goal with an electric utility plan. The evidence says they have. Columbia's electric utility is under real pressure. Power costs are rising, capacity needs are looming, advanced metering infrastructure is delayed, long-term supply questions remain unresolved, rate increases have already arrived and more are expected. Against that backdrop, city leaders continue to defend an ordnance-driven renewable program that cost electric customers about $3.5 million more last year than comparable non-renewable power would have cost. Over 11 years, that premium has reached $32.2 million. That's not a rounding air, it's ratepayer money. It comes from families, renters, small businesses, employers, and every other customer who opens a Columbia electric bill. The question is what that money has actually bought. It has not solved Columbia's capacity problem. It has not modernized the grid. It has not installed any of those advanced meters. It has not protected customers from purchase power exposure, and it has not put Columbia ahead of the curve on reliability. That is the heart of the matter. Renewable energy can be part of a responsible power portfolio, but wind and solar are not the same thing as firm capacity. A city can buy renewable energy credits, it can sign renewable contracts, it can celebrate sustainability goals. None of that guarantees dispatchable power when demand is high, when the grid is tight, and the utility needs resources it can actually count on. That is why Fulton matters. Fulton is not simply talking about energy values, it is moving on generation. Similar municipal power projects are underway in Marshall and Hannibal. Those communities are acting on basic utility reality. Power systems need dependable resources. Natural gas is not the enemy of a cleaner future. Properly understood, it is the bridge that allows a cleaner system to be built without gambling with reliability or hammering customers with avoidable cost. That point should not be controversial. But in Columbia, climate politics have been layered on top of utility management. Mayor Barbara Buffalo has built much of her political identity around environmental leadership. She chairs the Environmental Standing Committee for the U.S. Conference of Mayors. She has taken Columbia's climate ambitions onto the larger stages. That work is not inherently wrong. Cities should think seriously about climate, energy, and sustainability. But when a mayor's political brand is tied so closely to environmental policy, residents have a right to ask whether utility decisions are being driven by the needs of the electric system or the needs of that political brand. That is not personal, it is accountability. A public utility is not a platform for political messaging. It is infrastructure. Its first obligations are reliability, affordability, maintenance, and long-term planning. If the utility can meet those obligations while reducing admissions, it certainly should, but it cannot put the order backward. Columbia's problem is not that it has environmental goals. Columbia's problem is that political leaders have allowed those goals to sit on top of utility management as if good intentions can substitute for capacity, transmission, metering, and disciplined purchasing. They cannot. The renewable energy ordinance may have made sense when the city wanted to push itself toward cleaner power. But today it functions too much like a rigid political command. It tells the utility what percentages of renewable power to chase, even when that target may not be the best use of ratepayer money in any given year. That is not how a serious utility should run. A serious utility should start with the system. What supply does Columbia need? What capacity can it count on? What is the market risk? What infrastructure must be upgraded? What can customers afford? What costs are unavoidable, and what costs are discretionary? Only after those questions are answered should the city decide how to layer cleaner energy into the plan. Instead, Columbia too often starts with the aspiration and then manages around it. That is backward. The city does not need an ordinance that forces symbolic purchasing decisions. It needs a clear management directive. Buy renewable power when it's cost effective, reliable, and consistent with utilities' broader system needs. Don't buy it simply to satisfy a political target. Don't pay a premium for energy that does little or nothing to solve the real problem. And the real problem is clear. Columbia needs firm capacity, it needs a modern grid, it needs advanced meters, it needs a rate structure and supply plan that customers can understand. It needs utility strategy that begins with operational reality, not political preference. The city also needs a more honest public conversation. City Hall often talks about engagement, it holds meetings, it receives reports, it posts documents, but the conversation ratepayers deserve is more direct. How much more should Columbia residents be asked to pay for renewable targets before the city has secured the capacity and infrastructure needed to run the system? That is the engagement that matters. A plain conversation about bills, risk, and trade-offs. Because every premium dollar spent on renewable purchase is a dollar that cannot be used somewhere else. It cannot help pay for advanced metering. It cannot offset rate increases, it cannot build reserves, it cannot accelerate infrastructure work, it cannot move Columbia faster toward firm generation. City officials can argue that $3.5 million in one year is manageable inside a large utility budget. That misses the point. The issue is not whether the city can technically absorb the premium, the issue is whether the city should keep asking ratepayers to absorb it while the utility's larger problems remain unsolved. That is a management question. It is also a political question. City Council should set broad goals. It should demand accountability. It should insist that Columbia move toward cleaner energy when it makes sense. But council should not force the utility to serve the politics of renewable symbolism while delaying the hard work of securing dependable power. This is where Columbia's debate often gets distorted. The serious critique is not that clean energy is bad. It is that a clean energy goal is not a substitute for a power plan. It does not tell customers how Columbia will meet peak demand. It does not explain how the city will manage purchased power volatility. It does not decide whether to participate in new generation. And it does not modernize the distribution system. It's a goal. Goals matter, but utilities run on resources, contracts, infrastructure, engineering, and money. Fulton's natural gas turbine brings that difference into focus. Columbia should be moving with the Missouri Public Utility Alliance and other municipal partners on additional generation, not after another round of hand wringing, not after another consultant presentation, not after rates climb again. Now. The responsible path is not to abandon renewable energy, it's to stop pretending renewable energy is enough. A serious city can pursue cleaner power and still admit natural gas capacity is needed. A serious city can care about carbon emissions and still care about electric bills. A serious city can set ambitious goals and still change course when facts show a policy is not delivering. That is what Columbia needs now, seriousness. The city manager should be directed to bring forward a practical utility plan that puts reliability, capacity, and affordability first. The renewable energy ordinance should be repealed or rewritten. Columbia should stop paying unnecessary premiums for renewable power unless those purchases clearly advance cost, reliability, and emissions goals together. This does not mean walking away from cleaner energy. It means putting cleaner energy where it belongs, inside a disciplined utility strategy, not above it. Columbia is asking residents to trust City Hall through a period of rising costs. Utility rates are up. More increases are coming. There's a public safety sales tax on the table. Capital needs are growing. Infrastructure demands are not going away. In that environment, trust depends on candor. Residents can handle hard facts. They can handle trade-offs. They can handle a city saying, we want cleaner power, but reliability and affordability must come first. What they should not have to handle is paying premiums for a policy that sounds good when the core utility problems remain. Renewable goals are not a power plan, and ratepayers should not be asked to keep paying for the difference. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from Como Buzz.com. I'm Mike Murphy. Now, two more developments shaping city government this week. First, the Goldwater Institute has filed its promised lawsuit against the City of Columbia over the public revenue guarantee tied to American Airlines new route between Columbia and Charlotte, North Carolina. The case was filed in Boone County Circuit Court by Goldwater attorneys David Rowland and Tony Napolatino. It was brought on behalf of two Columbia residents and taxpayers Mark Winter and Richard Shanker. The lawsuit names the City of Columbia and Finance Director Matthew Lew as defendants. At issue is the city's air service agreement with American Airlines. According to the petition, Columbia guaranteed that the new Charlotte route would generate certain minimum monthly revenues for the airlines. If the route falls short, American Airlines can invoice the city for the difference. The total revenue guarantee is capped at $1.5 million. The lawsuit says that $750,000 of that is public money from the city's Transportation Sales Tax Fund. The other $750,000 is described as private money contributed through the Central Missouri Air Services Fund. Goldwater is not challenging the use of the private money. The lawsuit is aimed at the city's public commitment. The legal argument is straightforward but consequential. Goldwater says the agreement violates the Missouri Constitution by granting public money or lending public credit to a private corporation. The lawsuit asks the judge to declare the agreement unconstitutional and block Columbia from making any public payment to American Airlines. The city has not yet had its opportunity to respond in court. American Airlines is not named as a defendant. Why does this matter beyond the airport? Because Columbia has treated the Charlotte route as economic development and air service expansion. Goldwater is framing it as an unconstitutional subsidy. The court will now be asked whether the city's public financial backstop is lawful airline recruitment or whether it crosses the constitutional line against using public money to aid a private company. That decision could affect not only the route, but how Columbia and other cities structure future airline recruitment deals. Second, this week, Columbia Police reported a major expansion and consolidation of surveillance technology in 2025. The department's annual surveillance technology report was submitted to the City Council under Columbia's Law Enforcement Surveillance Oversight Ordinance. The report covers FLOC safety license plate reader cameras, axon body worn cameras, axon in-car video, and police drones. The most visible piece is FLOC. Police say license plate reader cameras reached about 86% of planned citywide installation in 2025. The system generated over 5,500 alerts. Warrant-related arrests were the largest share, followed by stolen plate alerts and stolen vehicle alerts. The department tracked 217 case outcomes directly associated with Flock alerts. Of those, 69 were cleared by arrests, 52 generated investigative leads, 33 remained in progress, and 31 were classified as unable to locate. Police describe Flock as a force multiplier, not a standalone crime prevention system. They say it gives investigators time-stamped, location-specific vehicle information that can confirm timelines, identify suspect vehicles, rule out suspects, and support probable cause. The report also details Columbia's move into a broader axon platform, including new body cameras, live response tools, auto tagging, and Fleet 3 in-CAR video. Police reported 217 body-worn cameras in inventory. They said there were 44 instances of body camera non-activation or recording disruption during the year of 2025. The department put that in the context of more than 129,000 community interactions and calculated that the failure or interruption rate is at about like 0.034%. The Exxon expansion carries a five-year contract cost of $3.25 million. Police also continued using drones for missing person searches, crash and crime scene documentation, SWAT operations, crowd monitoring, and tactical situations. The department reported no substantial complaints about flock, body cameras, in-car videos, or drones. The accountability question is not whether those tools could help police, they clearly can and do. The question is whether council and the public will keep pace as the technology becomes more integrated, more expensive, and more central to everyday policing. For now, the department is not recommending any policy changes. Flock installation is expected to continue into 2026. The flock contract comes back for renegotiation in 2027. The receipts. The Columbia City Council has now unanimously approved changes that make it easier to build ADUs in single-family residential neighborhoods. An accessory dwelling unit is a smaller second dwelling on the same lot as a primary home. It may be a backyard cottage, a garage apartment, or an addition use for a family member, a renter, or an aging-in-place arrangement. The biggest changes in R1 residential zoning districts. ADUs can now be allowed without a conditional use permit as long as they meet city standards. That's a meaningful shift. A conditional use permit is a discretionary approval process. It adds uncertainty, time, cost, and neighborhood politics to the project. Removing that requirement means an ADU in an R1 district can move through as an accessory use if it meets the rules. City staff said the purpose is to reduce regulatory uncertainty and remove barriers to ADU production. Planning and zoning unanimously recommended approval at an 8-0 before the council acted. So why is this in the receipts? Because Columbia has been here before. The city first adopted ADU standards in 2015 after the Columbia Imagined Comprehensive Plan identified them as one way to promote livable and sustainable neighborhoods. The city amended rules in 2019 and again in 2024. It created a fee waiver program in 2018. Even with all of that, staff said ADU production remained limited. That is the receipt. For more than a decade, city policy said ADUs were part of the housing solution, but the regulatory structure the city built around them helped keep production low. The latest changes followed an October 2025 request from Monarch Architecture, which asked the city to review friction points in the rules. Planning and zoning then held work sessions from October through April. The approved rules still include limits. No more than two dwelling units are allowed on a single lot, including the ADU. On R1 lots, only one of the dwellings can be registered as a rental under the city's rental unit conservation law. That provision is meant to prevent both the main house and the ADU from becoming rentals on the same R1 lot. The ordinance also sets a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Detached ADUs must be at least 10 feet behind the primary dwelling, at least 6 feet from a side lot line, and at least 15 feet from a rear lot line. Corner lots have additional setback rules. So this is not deregulation without standards, it's a recalibration. The broader lesson matters. Columbia often says it wants more housing options, more affordability, and more flexibility. Then it builds a process that works against those goals, waits years, and comes back to loosen the rules. Housing policy is not only about what the city says it supports, it's about what the code actually allows. It's about how much uncertainty a property owner faces, and it's about whether a small project can move forward without becoming a political event. ADUs will not solve Columbia's housing problem by themselves, but they are one modest tool, and modest tools still matter when the city is trying to add housing supply inside existing neighborhoods. The next receipt will be the permitting data. If the new rules work, ADU applications should become easier to pursue and approve. If production remains low, council will have to decide whether the remaining rules are still too restrictive, whether costs are the real barrier, or whether the city's enthusiasm for ADUs was stronger in theory than in practice. Coming up, Columbia's budget session moves into sharper focus. City Council members began reviewing the fiscal 2027 capital improvement plan this week. No final action was taken, but the work session opened the process that will shape major spending on utilities, drainage, public safety equipment, parking, trails, airport operations, and landfill capacity. The list includes a $1 million fire engine replacement, airport snow removal equipment, MKT trailbridge work, parking garage repairs, electric feeder improvements, water system work, stormwater upgrades, sewer capacity planning, and a long-term landfill cell project. The larger issue is not just which projects are on the list, it is how the city decides what moves ahead, what weights, and what the public can see about those choices. Councilmember Valerie Carroll pressed the questions, especially around stormwater. Councilmember Christina Hartman asked why major utility projects such as advanced metering infrastructure could not be funded over time instead of through bonds. The budget calendar accelerates in July with work sessions on the general fund, enterprise funds, and the full proposed budget. Public hearings follow in August and September with the final budget adoption scheduled for September 21st. The thread running through this week's briefing is not hard to see. Columbia is entering another season of expensive decisions, electric reliability, renewable energy costs, airline subsidies, surveillance technology, housing rules, capital planning, and budget hearings. Each issue is different, but each one asks the same basic civic question. Is city government being clear with the public about costs, trade-offs, and consequences? That is where trust is built or lost. It is not built by slogans. It is not built by process for the sake of process. It is not built by telling residents only the part of the story that supports the preferred policy. It is built by showing the receipts. On the electric utility, that means admitting that renewable goals are not a power plan. On the airline lawsuit, it means testing the city's economic development strategy against the state constitution. On surveillance, it means asking whether oversight is keeping pace with technology. On housing, it means checking whether the code actually produces the flexibility city leaders say they want.com. For Como Buzz.com, I'm Mike Murphy. Thanks for listening, and I'll see you next week.