CoMoBUZ Insider Briefing, July 31, 2026

Mike's quick, weekly no-nonsense look at civic affairs in Columbia and Boone County, Missouri. This week, Mike reviews the Aug. 4 election in Columbia, which includes the Proposition 1 sales tax increase, a race for the Ward 4 seat on the city council and a Democrat primary for associate circuit judge; has an update on a hearing coming Monday in the Stephanie Smarr court case, which is being followed closely by disability rights advocates and is now in its four year; and a report on the city of Columbia’s response filed this week to a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of its revenue share agreement with American Airlines. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:05

Columbia voters will decide Tuesday whether to give city government another $38 million a year, who should fill an open city council seat, and which Democrat candidate should advance toward a Boone County judgeship. The largest question is Proposition 1. It's presented as a public safety tax. It would unquestionably provide major new resources for police and fire services. But the vote is also a judgment on how Columbia reached this point, what city government has already chosen to fund, and whether taxpayers should now provide the money to cover needs that have accumulated over several years. From ComoBuzz.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 August 4th election, we begin with Proposition 1, Columbia's proposed one cent sales and use tax for public safety, then the three-way special election for the fourth ward seat on the Columbia City Council, and the Democrat primary for Boone County Associate Circuit Judge. Later on the briefing board, another pivotal hearing in the Stephanie Smar lawsuit, and Columbia's formal response to the constitutional challenge over its American Airlines revenue guarantee. Columbia voters will make three consequential decisions Tuesday, but one question sits above the others whether to give city government another $38 million a year through a new one cent sales and use tax for police and fire services. Proposition one is the largest issue on the August 4th ballot. It is also the most complicated. Voters are not simply deciding whether Columbia needs more police officers, firefighters, stations, equipment, and better facilities. The city has documented those needs. The harder question is whether this tax is the right way to pay for them and whether city government has done enough to justify asking residents to pay more. The proposal would add 1% to Columbia's city sales tax. The city says the money would be placed in a dedicated public safety fund and used for police and fire salaries, benefits, equipment, and facilities. The plan calls for 50 additional police officers and 42 firefighters, added over several years. It includes renovations to three fire stations, construction of two new stations, a new police headquarters, vehicles, technology, and added payments toward police and fire pension obligations. Police Chief Jill Schlute says Columbia has grown by roughly 49,000 people since 2000, while police staffing has failed to keep pace. The department now has fewer sworn officers per thousand residents than it did 25 years ago. She says understaffing has pushed the department into a reactive model where officers move from call-to-call and specialized functions disappear. The department no longer has what Schlute considers a functional traffic unit. Downtown policing, juvenile work, crime prevention, and neighborhood assignments have all been reduced. She described one recent patrol shift that began with only six officers.

SPEAKER_01 2:59

The patrol division is the guys and gals that are out there responding to all the calls for service all day and all night long. And right now they are not adequately staffed. We started a shift uh one morning last week with six police officers, Mike.

SPEAKER_00 3:12

Her argument is that Proposition 1 would first rebuild patrol staffing, then allow the department to restore proactive policing and specialized units. Fire Chief Brian Schaefer makes a similar case. He says Columbia now operates as an urban community but has not built an urban level of fire protection. The department says it needs 42 more firefighters to move toward four-person crews and improve its response to fires, medical calls, rescues, and hazardous material incidents. The city also faces major capital needs. The current police building is nearly a century old. Several fire stations were built for a smaller department in a different era. Neglected pension liabilities have also become a substantial long-term obligation. Those are the strongest arguments for the tax. The need is real, the problems are not new, and they will not disappear if the measure fails. But the case against Proposition 1 begins with the same history. For years, Columbia grew, revenues increased, and city government added employees and programs while police and fire needs accumulated. During the past four years, the city has added 151 positions across the organization. That does not mean all those positions were unnecessary, but it does mean city government was making choices. Police and fire did not receive first claim on every new dollar, every new position, or every capital decision. Critics argue that city leaders are now asking taxpayers to solve a problem that should have been addressed gradually through earlier priority setting. There is also a larger financial effect. The tax revenue would be dedicated to public safety. But when new money pays for police salaries, pension costs, stations, vehicles, or headquarters space, existing general fund and capital money faces less pressure. So Proposition 1 would do more than improve police and fire. It would strengthen Columbia's overall financial position and make it easier to continue funding the rest of city government. That is not necessarily improper. It is simply the full fiscal consequences voters should understand. There is another concern. The current city council cannot permanently bind every future council to maintain the same level of general fund support for police and fire. Schlute has acknowledged that each annual budget is a new decision.

SPEAKER_01 5:28

My understanding is there's no way for current councils to bind future councils as far as that year-to-year budget allocation. So every budget cycle, it's its own animal. It's a new thing every single year that has to go through the process and be approved by the council.

SPEAKER_00 5:43

She argues that major reductions would be difficult because roughly 85% of the police budget is personnel. Cuts would almost certainly affect staffing. Future police and fire chiefs, along with the public, would have to object if a council tried to reduce existing support. The burden of the tax also matters. Sales taxes are regressive. They take a larger share of income from households that must spend most of what they earn. The city emphasizes that added costs would be 4 cents for a $4 cup of coffee, $12 cents for a $12 meal, and $1 on a $100 purchase. Those examples are accurate, but household budgets are not built one purchase at a time. Residents experience the tax alongside rent, utilities, insurance, food, transportation, and other costs. The city says about 32% of the sales tax revenue would come from commuters, students, tourists, and other people who live outside Columbia. But local residents would still pay most of it. That leaves voters with a practical choice, not a clean one. A yes vote would give police and fire substantial new resources and make city government financially stronger. A no vote would reject the city's current approach and force another round of budget decisions. But it would not automatically produce a leaner government, a better proposal, or immediate reform. The same city leadership would remain in place Wednesday morning after the election, so would the same pension obligations, staffing shortages, and aging buildings. The second decision Tuesday is who will represent Columbia's fourth ward after former Councilman Nick Foster resigned. Ryan King, Sharon Jones, and Dave Sorrell are competing in this special election. King is an attorney and Army Reserve Judge Advocate and a member of the city's Housing and Community Development Commission. Jones chairs the city's Planning and Zoning Commission and works as a civil rights attorney and policy advocate. Sorrell is a retired Columbia Utilities Director who spent 24 years with the city. Their differences are cleanest on city finances and governance. King has emphasized declining reserves, unfinished infrastructure, and more deliberate budgeting. Jones is focused on housing policy, the balance of power between the council and city staff, and cutting consultant and outsourcing costs before cutting services. Sorrell has argued for a return to core services, tighter financial management, and greater attention to infrastructure. All three say Columbia needs more housing. King has emphasized multifamily development and greater density. Jones has warned that housing policy should also preserve opportunities for homeownership and generational wealth. Sorrell has supported denser development, smaller lots, and cottage-style housing as ways to increase supply. On Proposition 1, none of the three offered unqualified endorsements. Jones says she supports police and fire personnel, but views sales taxes as regressive and a last resort. Sorrell said he's willing to pay more for public safety, but questioned whether the one cent sales tax solves the city's larger budget problem. King called the tax important but said different budget choices might have reduced the amount needed. The winner will immediately join a council facing the 2027 budget, utility costs, housing policy, infrastructure demands, and continued questions about who sets policy at City Hall. The third decision is the Democrat primary for Boone County Associate Circuit Judge. Bill Ellis and Spencer Smith are competing to replace Division IX Judge Tracy Gonzales. She's retiring. The winner will face Republican James Egan in November. Ellis has emphasized 25 years of legal work in Boone County and 15 years of juvenile law experience. Division IX currently handles the juvenile court docket. Ellis argues that the court should retain somebody who can take over abuse, neglect, delinquency, and adoption cases immediately. Smith argues that voters are electing an associate judge, not a permanently assigned juvenile judge. The presiding judge controls case assignments. Division IX could handle criminal, civil, probate, family, landlord, tenant, or other cases in the future. Smith points to his work as both a prosecutor and public defender, his military service and his criminal trial experience. The campaign also presents a clear insider-outsider contrast. Ellis has raised more than $115,000 and has broad support from attorneys and others connected to the Boone County legal system. Smith has raised less than $18,000, much of it is own money. He has built his campaign around door-to-door contact and a grassroots message. So Tuesday's ballot will not settle Columbia's financial problems, its housing debate, or the future shape of local government, but it will determine whether city government receives a major new revenue stream, who takes the seat at the city council table, and who advances towards a judgeship. Those are the decisions in front of voters on Tuesday. You're listening to the Como Buzz Insider Briefing from Como Buzz.com. Two other developments this week involve lawsuits that test how public institutions balance competing obligations. First, the Stephanie Smarr case. A Boone County judge will hold another important hearing Monday in a civil lawsuit that has now entered its fourth year. SMAR sued her former fitness coach, Thomas LaFontaine, in June of 2023. SMAR is now 39. LaFontaine is 79. She argues that Lafontaine groomed her into a secret sexual relationship while serving as her personal trainer, then stalked and harassed her after she ended the relationship in 2020. LaFontaine denies the allegations. He maintains the relationship was consensual and disputes that he stalked or harassed her. The case has drawn the attention of disability advocates and increasingly become a dispute over the legal process itself. Smar has autism spectrum disorder, a communication disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Her attorneys say those conditions make unfamiliar settings, confrontation, and rapid verbal questioning extraordinarily difficult. The defense is entitled to test her claims and has sought an independent neuropsychological examination. The question is how that examination can be completed while accommodating SMARS disabilities and preserving LaFontaine's right to defend himself. SMARS deposition was completed over two sessions in March under court-ordered accommodations. Her attorneys say the deposition showed that she can participate meaningfully when she has extended time, written material, and the ability to process one question at a time. Based on that experience, SMAR is asking Boone County Circuit Judge Benjamin Miller to modify the medical examination protocol. The proposal calls for an in-person examination in a controlled environment, written questions and answers, frequent breaks, paper testing, and the presence of support personnel. The defense says these issues have already been litigated. Lafontaine's attorneys argue that SMARS repeatedly agreed to examination dates, then proposed new conditions that prevented the evaluation from going forward. They're asking the judge to deny the new request and impose sanctions. Those requested sanctions include possible dismissal of the lawsuit. Monday's hearing will determine whether SMAR receives a new set of accommodations or must proceed under the existing court order. A September trial date remains on the calendar, but both sides have asked for a longer nine-day trial several months after the judge resolves the examination dispute. The larger issue here is whether the court can move toward trial without denying either side a meaningful opportunity to participate. The second item is Columbia's legal defense of its American Airlines revenue guarantee. The Goldwater Institute filed suit in June on behalf of Columbia taxpayers Mark Winter and Rick Shanker. The lawsuit challenges the city's agreement supporting American Airlines service between Columbia Regional Airport and Charlotte. Under the agreement, public transportation sales tax money would be used to cover part of the airline's revenue shortfall if the route fails to make agreed financial targets. Goldwater argues that arrangement places public money behind a private company's business risk and violates the Missouri Constitution's restrictions on gifts of public money and lending public credit to private corporations. The city filed its formal answer this week and denied those claims. Columbia argues that the agreement serves a valid public purpose. The city points to air service, transportation access, airport use, commerce, tourism, business connectivity, and economic development. It also argues the agreement is not a gift because the city receives something in return. American Airlines must provide the routes, meet performance and reporting obligations, and maintain the service required by the contract. The city describes that as a bargain for exchange rather than a giveaway. The city also raises procedural defenses. It argues that taxpayers lack standing because they have not suffered a distinct legal injury. It says the case may not be right because any payments depends on future route performance, calculations, invoices, and appropriations. And it argues American Airlines should have been named as a party because the lawsuit could directly affect the airline's contractual rights. Those threshold issues could delay or prevent a ruling on the central constitutional question. The dispute presents two different views of public purpose. Goldwater says expected community benefits do not allow a city to shield a private airline from losses while taxpayers receive no share of possible profits. Columbia says supporting commercial air service through a public airport is a legitimate transportation function and produces value for the community. The next question is whether Circuit Judge Benjamin Miller decides the case is ready for review now or whether the plaintiffs must wait until the city makes or is about to make an actual payment. Tuesday's election will produce winners and losers, but the public questions behind it will remain. If proposal one passes, voters and future councils will still have to watch whether the money follows the plan, whether existing public safety support is maintained, and whether the promised staffing can actually be recruited. If it fails, city leaders will have to show what they're willing to cut, delay, or reconsider before returning to voters. The fourth ward winner will enter into that decision-making process immediately, and the judicial primary will move one candidate closer to a position where difficult disputes, including cases like the two on this week's briefing board, are resolved. You can find the full reportings, source documents, and continuing election coverage at Comoobuz.com. We'll be watching the August 4th results, Monday's SMAR hearing, and the next filings in the airport lawsuit. For ComoBuz.com, I'm Mike Murphy. Thanks for listening. I'll see you next week.