CoMoBUZ Insider Briefing, July 24, 2026

Mike's quick, weekly no-nonsense look at civic affairs in Columbia and Boone County, Missouri. This week, Mike tells you why voters passing the City of Columbia’s Proposition 1 on the Aug. 4 ballot may not be such a bad thing; has updates on more than $13 million in utility rate increases; and explains what’s behind Columbia’s new strategic plan on homelessness.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Columbia voters are being asked to decide whether to give city government another $38 million every year for police and fire services. The argument sounds simple. Public safety needs more people, better facilities, newer equipment, and stronger pension system. But the real choice is not simple. The tax would do more than strengthen police and fire. It would relieve pressure across city government. It would repair financial problems that developed over years, and it would give the city a major reset without changing the people, priorities, or governing habits that created the problem. That's the central tension behind Proposition One. 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. I'm Mike Murphy. This week, the argument for voting yes on Proposition One, even after City Hall has given voters plenty of reason to vote no. Then Columbia utility customers face another round of increases with more already projected, and the city has finally begun building a coordinated five-year strategy for homelessness after years of expanding programs and spending without a single roadmap tying the system together. We began with Proposition One. Columbia City Hall has earned much of the anger surrounding this proposal. The city wants voters to approve an additional one cent sales tax for police and fire services. The measure is expected to generate about $38 million a year. That's a large amount of money. Columbia's general fund is now about $135 million. Police and fire account for roughly $69 million of that. So the new tax would not be a minor addition. It would increase the city's annual revenue by an amount equal to nearly 30% of the current general fund. City officials are presenting that measure as a public safety tax. The description is technically accurate. The money would be assigned to police and fire. It would pay for more officers and firefighters. It would support higher salaries. It would finance vehicles, equipment, fire stations, and a new police headquarters. It would help address the underfunded police and fire pension system. Those are real issues. They are not invented. Police and fire would benefit significantly if the proposal passes. But it's not the entire story. The practical effect of the tax would reach far beyond the two departments named on the ballot. Every police salary paid with new tax revenue is one less salary pressing against the existing general fund. Every pension payment made from the new revenue stream relieves an obligation that otherwise competes with other city services. Every fire station, police building, vehicle, or piece of equipment paid through the tax removes a major demand from the city's current capital structure. The money may be placed in a dedicated public safety account, but the financial relief would spread across the government. That's what makes Proposition One more than a police and fire measure. It's also a rescue the financial structure City Hall has already built. For years, Columbia allowed public safety needs to grow while government expanded elsewhere. The city added positions, it increased compensation, it accumulated capital needs, it allowed pension obligations to become more expensive, it delayed police and fire facility work, and it avoided the most basic responsibility of governing, deciding what should come first. During the past four years alone, the city has added 151 new positions. Columbia also grew during that time. Population, development, construction, retail activity, and inflation all produced more revenue. If police and fire were truly the city's highest priorities, those departments should have received first claim on that growth. They did not. Other priorities came first. That does not mean every new position was unnecessary, and it does not mean every program was wasteful. But it does mean the city made choices. The public safety shortage did not simply happen to Columbia, it developed inside a government that continued to expand while leaving police staffing, fire facilities, equipment, and pension costs unresolved. Now City Hall is using the popularity of police and fire and the credibility of the two chiefs to sell the financial repair. That is one of the reasons many voters distrust the proposal. Another reason is the process. City leaders often speak about public engagement, but the engagement surrounding Proposition 1 largely came after the proposal had already been designed. Residents were invited to town halls after the city had settled on the tax. They were encouraged to ask questions after officials had largely decided what the answer would be. That is not the same as asking the community at the beginning what the city should cut, what it should preserve, and what public safety should cost. The process felt less like public participation and more like public persuasion. There is also a deeper governance problem. Columbia's City Council changes constantly. Over the last decade, the seven council seats have been filled by more than twenty different people. That turnover weakens institutional knowledge, it makes long-term oversight more difficult, it increases the influence of the permanent administrative staff because staff members often know more about the systems, budgets, and history than the elected officials supervising them. As a result, city staff does much of the proposing. Council members are presented with programs, positions, rate studies, contracts, and spending plans, and in most cases, council approves them. That dynamic matters because Proposition 1 would not change it. A yes vote would not create a stronger city council, but a no vote would not create one either. The election is not a referendum on whether voters trust the mayor, the city manager, or the council. It may feel like one, but mechanically it is not. It will not remove anyone from office. It will not undo the past spending. It will not eliminate the pension shortfall. It will not reduce the payroll, and it will not reverse years of deferred police and fire needs. The morning after the election, Columbia will still have the same governance structure, the same administrative operation, and the same unresolved obligations. The only immediate difference will be whether the city has another $38 million a year. And that is where the argument for voting yes begins. City leaders do not deserve to be rewarded for the way they've arrived at this point. They have not demonstrated the financial discipline, candor, or priority setting that should normally come before a request this large. They allowed manageable problems to become expensive ones. They failed to deal with public safety needs gradually when the cost could have been spread across earlier budgets. Now voters are being asked to pay the accumulated bill all at once. That is the case against Proposition 1. But after assigning blame, voters still face a practical question. Will Columbia be better off with the money or without it? A no vote may feel satisfying, it may express anger, it may deliver a political rebuke, but it will not produce a leaner, better governed city the next morning. It will produce the same city government with less money than it says it needs. The pension obligation will remain, police vacancies will remain, fire staffing and facility needs will remain, equipment replacement will remain, and the city's existing programs and payroll will remain. And the pressure will move somewhere else. That will likely mean budget cuts, it will likely mean deferred maintenance, it'll mean slower hiring, it'll mean more conflict among departments competing for limited dollars. It'll mean another tax proposal, surely, perhaps under greater financial pressure and with fewer options. A no vote does not automatically force reform. That is important. There is a tendency in local government debates to assume that financial rejection produces discipline. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it simply produces deterioration. Government does not always respond to a failed tax by eliminating its least important work. It may delay capital maintenance, it may freeze positions, it may reduce service quality, it may push costs into utility rates or fees, it may return with a revised proposal after another year of inflation and delay. Voters cannot assume City Hall will respond to defeat by making exactly the reforms voters would prefer. If Proposition 1 passes, the city receives a major financial reset. Police and fire get a stable, continuing source of revenue. The pension problem is largely taken care of. Capital projects gain a dedicated funding stream. Pressure on the general fund declines. Existing capital capacity becomes more available for streets, buildings, and other infrastructure. Columbia City government becomes financially stronger. That does not mean all the money will be spent wisely. It will not guarantee better governance. It will not create public trust. It will not prove the city deserves the revenue. This simply means that Columbia will have more capacity to meet obligations it already has. That is the cold practical argument for voting yes. There is, however, a truly serious argument against the tax that cannot be dismissed. The sales tax is regressive. It takes a larger share of income from people who spend nearly everything they earn. Families already struggling with housing, utilities, food, transportation, and childcare will be asked to help repair financial problems they did not create. That is particularly difficult for a city government that frequently speaks about equity. The city is asking for a tax that will fall most heavily on the people with the least room in their budgets. The gap between higher income and lower income households in Colombia will widen, even if only a little, with every taxable purchase. That is not theoretical. It's how sales taxes work, and it is a strong reason to vote no. But rejecting the tax does not produce a more progressive revenue source. It does not eliminate the pension issue. It does not build a fire station. It does not recruit police officers. It does not replace equipment. It does not force an orderly reform process. It simply leaves all of those questions unresolved. There is also another side to the equity argument. Budget deterioration does not fall evenly either. People with money can absorb declining public services more easily. They can live in safer neighborhoods. They can pay for private alternatives. They can tolerate longer delays. They can replace what government fails to provide. Lower income residents often depend more heavily on reliable police, fire protection, streets, emergency response, and public infrastructure. So Columbia is not choosing between a regressive tax and no harm. It is choosing between a regressive tax that would materially strengthen city finances and rejecting that tax while every underlying problem remains. There is no painless option. The community should also confront its own role in how this developed. City Hall and the council deserve the largest share of responsibility. They had the information, they had the authority, they made the budgets. But Columbia is still a representative government. Residents elect these leaders. Council races often receive limited attention. Budget hearings come and go with little public scrutiny. Positions are added, programs are expanded, long-term obligations are approved, and most citizens remain focused, understandably, on their own lives. Public concern often arrives only when the tax proposal appears. By then, many of the decisions creating the need have already been made. That is the luxury Columbia residents have enjoyed. The luxury of not paying close attention. The luxury of assuming someone at City Hall is setting priorities. Not a tax on yachts or jewelry or expensive cars, a tax on civic inattention. It is the price the community may now pay for years of allowing city government to grow without demanding a clear hierarchy of needs. That may not be entirely fair. Many citizens did pay attention. Some warned about staffing pensions, facilities, and expanding payroll. But as a community, Columbia did not create enough political pressure to change the direction. Now the cost of that failure is appearing on the ballot. So the argument for yes is not an endorsement of City Hall. It is not a declaration that leaders handled the problem well. It is not confidence in the governing culture. It is a judgment about the practical consequences of the two available choices. Vote yes and Columbia becomes financially stronger. Police and fire gain resources. The pension problem largely goes away. Capital pressures decline. The city receives a bailout it did not earn. But vote no and the bailout is denied. The same government remains in place, the same obligations remain unpaid, and the community begins another round of budget conflict without the new revenue. That is what voters are actually deciding. Not whether they like City Hall, not whether the process was fair, not whether the proposal was backed honestly. The election decides whether the government Columbia already has will operate with another $38 million each year. That's the case for voting yes. It's not a compliment to City Hall. It's the price of dealing with the government Columbia has rather than the government many residents wish it had. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from Como Buzz.com. Now to the briefing board. First utility rates. Columbia utility customers face another round of higher electric, water, and trash bills beginning October 1st under proposals introduced by the City Council this week. The package would generate about $13.5 million in additional annual revenue. About $8.6 million would come from electric rates. Water would generate another $3.4 million. Solid waste would add about $1.5 million. The council has not taken final votes. The measures were introduced as part of the fiscal 2027 budget process and will return for final consideration. The electric proposal would increase annual rate revenue by 6%. The fixed residential customer charge would remain $22.44. The city would instead increase usage charges in several commercial and industrial rates. For an average residential customer, the estimated increase is about $8.26 in non-summer months. A typical summer bill would rise by about $12.87. Those estimates both include the permanent rate increase and a proposed expansion of the city's power cost adjustment cap. The city wants to raise that cap from 15% to 20% of its lowest residential energy rate. The PCA allows the city to recover changing purchased power costs without rewriting the entire rate schedule every time. Staff says the increase is needed because power contracts are expiring, demand is growing, and replacement capacity is much more expensive. The utility also cites deferred infrastructure, storm hardening, inflation, labor, equipment costs, and declining reserves. Water rates would rise by 10%. A typical customer would see the monthly bill increase from just under $30 to nearly $33. That follows a 12% water revenue increase approved last year. Solid waste would receive an overall 5% increase, although individual customers will see different changes. The smallest residential trash cart would rise by about 13%. And the current package is not the end of it. City studies project additional increases after this year. Water is projected to rise again. Electric staff expects more annual increases after another cost of service studies. SOD waste projections call for 10% increases in each of the next two years, followed by additional 5% increases. So the immediate issue is affordability. The larger issue is structural. Columbia is entering a period in which utility customers are not facing one isolated adjustment. They're facing a multi-year sequence of higher charges driven by capacity needs, capital work, inflation, and earlier deferred decisions. What happens next is straightforward. The council will consider final approval as it completes the city budget, but customers should look beyond the first year bill. The important number is not simply the $13.5 million proposed now. It's the continuing pattern of increases already being built into the city's long-term planning. Second, homelessness planning. Columbia has hired an outside consultant to help build what city officials describe as the community's first coordinated five-year strategy for addressing homelessness. The city will pay consultant Barry Dunn up to $22,150 to facilitate the process through the end of the year. Barry Dunn is already leading a broader update of Columbia's citywide strategic plan. A 16-member steering committee will work through 12 meetings, one focus group, and as many as five stakeholder interviews. The committee includes city and county officials, police and fire leaders, health care, schools, nonprofits, faith organizations, and business representatives. The goal is to develop recommendations that can guide city spending, nonprofit services, and regional cooperation over the next five years. The important fact is not the size of the consulting contract, it's the timing. Columbia and local organizations have spent years expanding shelters, outreach, case management, prevention programs, and other services. City spending connected to homelessness reached about a million dollars annually in fiscal 24 and again in 25 and will do so again this year. The city purchased and renovated the Ashley Street Center. It supported downtown outreach, it funded emergency shelter operations, and it backed development of the roughly $20 million opportunity campus. But only now is the city formally creating a single roadmap to connect those investments, establish priorities, and measure results. A January staff report acknowledged that the local response has grown without one coordinated strategy tying the pieces together. The city has moved from one program in one immediate need to another. This new planning process is supposed to step back and answer larger questions. How should prevention, shelter, treatment, case management, and permanent housing fit together? Who is responsible for what? What outcomes should the community measure? And how should future spending be judged? The consultant is not writing the policy. Its job is to organize the meetings, interviews, and decision-making process. The steering committee is expected to present the city council with a report and a recommended action steps by the end of this year. That will be the real test. Columbia does not lack programs, it does not lack organizations, and it does not lack spending. What it has lacked is a shared system for deciding whether those efforts are working together and whether the public investment is producing measurable results. The plan is intended to provide that structure. The next question will be whether the city uses it to set priorities or simply adds another report to an already crowded shelf of reports. This brings us back to proposition one. The tax debate is about police and fire, but it's also about something larger. It's about whether Columbia can distinguish between needs, wants, and obligations before those choices become emergencies. The city's public safety programs grew over years. Its utility costs are now rising in a multi-year cycle. Its homelessness program expanded before the city created a coordinated strategy. Those are different issues, but they reveal the same governing challenge. Columbia is often better at adding programs, projects, and commitments than it is at deciding what comes first and how the whole system will be financed. That is why Proposition 1 matters beyond the ballot language. The $38 million would solve real problems. It would also make it easier for the city to avoid confronting the habits that created them. A yes vote may be the most practical choice, but practical does not mean satisfactory, and it should not end the demand for stronger oversight, clearer priorities, and more honest explanation for how city finances work. You can read the full reporting on Proposition 1, the proposed utility increases, and the homelessness planning processes at ComoBuz.com. In the weeks ahead, watch for the council's final utility votes, the final public safety tax campaign, and the first concrete recommendations from the homelessness steering committee. Those decisions will tell us whether Columbia is beginning to govern through priorities or continuing to govern through accumulation. For Como Buzz.com, I'm Mike Murphy. Thanks for listening. I'll see you next week.