Bridget will you, Director Keating, will you please call the role?

Uh Commissioner Arrington, he's gonna be coming late.

Okay.

Uh Commissioner Martin here, Mr.

Redondo.

Here, Commissioner Rogers.

Here, Commissioner Williams.

Vice Chair Cutler, here, Chair Muller.

Okay.

Um, first item of business is public input.

And I'll look to our public for their input.

May I sit over here?

You can speak right there.

Yeah.

This is all right.

Yeah.

Uh and there's no clock, I see, so that's good.

Uh if you're here to talk about the Coca-Cola sign, Bridget's done a great job.

I appreciate her ushering this through two years worth of review by the boards.

Uh this is the second round here.

Um I just wanna um emphasize that I I wholeheartedly support the the commitment of fifty thousand dollars to the restoration.

The the bids from what I understand are in the last time I reviewed them or thirty-five to eighty-five, so canning has come down considerably.

They were at a hundred and hundred and ten, they've come down to eighty-five.

That that may not be the solution, there may be a cheaper solution in some of the other bids, but we're set up where we can kind of cross the finish line and get this over the hurdle.

Um and preserve the sign, restore it, pass it along to someone who wants to take care of it in Rick Ross.

He said he would take possession of it, the ownership of it, and maintain it, but it had to be restored before he did that.

So let's let's do that.

If the restoration works out where it's cheaper, let's use the balance that's being committed.

We can still get some money from the city, we'll still be advocating for that to escrow to let him preserve it, let him spend two thousand dollars a year or every two years to inspect it and and preserve it after it's been restored.

And I I just I and a conservation easement is a great solution.

We've talked about that of saying, you know, you you must take care of it.

We're gonna be watching you.

And uh landmarking would do the same thing.

Um there are some hurdles to that, but I I live in a house that is both landmarked and has a conservation easement.

I can tell you that it's um it's what's in the best interest of the house.

I've always maintained that.

But we have a lot of maybes.

Like, well, maybe we can move it, maybe we can store it, maybe you can go in the new city hall.

And I I just we we have a solution that's affordable that will guarantee its preservation.

Um even after Rick, if we can get a conservation in even after Rick owns the building, because he could sell it tomorrow.

But uh everything's everything's kind of in place.

We just need to get over that at her little the commitment of the uh uh of of the money to to help uh restore it.

So I I appreciate your time and your effort.

Hi, and thank you in three or three with Simpson Street.

And um, I I want to echo what Doug said.

I support um both the uh resolution for to transfer the easement and also the um cooperative agreement with Laura and the city for the fifty thousand dollars.

Um Doug and I back in January, Doug and I filed a landmarking application for the sign, and um was turned by down by the city attorney for reasons we don't like, but anyway, um there is some information.

Uh Doug did amazing research into the sign, and as you will see in Bridget's presentation, which I've had the pleasure of watching several times now.

And as you will see in Bridget's presentation, which I've had the pleasure of watching several times now, there's you're going to learn a lot about the history, including Pat Wright, Lafayette's first female city councilwoman.

But I wanted to talk about a couple things in the in the our landmarking application that have specifically pertaining to Laura's relationship with the sign.

And the first has to do with the easement for 103 North Public Road.

And that was dated March 15, 2016.

Section 2.2 maintenance says Lura retains the sole right and obligation to maintain the mural and to enter onto the property to do so.

The cultural what is her title?

Cultural arts director, yeah.

Um we have uh emails in that that uh Doug had gotten um relating to that.

And we also have the highway bar Coca-Cola sign maintenance plan from the conservative Deborah Ole.

Um it isn't dated, but it followed her February 2036 report to February 23rd, 2016 report to quote owner agent Roger Caruso for the City of Lafayette about how the sign was restored.

So in her maintenance plan, she had daily and weekly routine maintenance.

Any damages or alterations to the sign should be documented with photography, the date of occurrence, and any other details.

A conservator should be contacted immediately for consultation.

And if any part of the sign appears to be actively flaking beyond normal aging, um, i.e.

if the losses become visually more obvious, contact a conservator for repair.

So that was daily weekly routine, then yearly maintenance, document the sign with photography, take an overall shot of the entire sign along with detailed shots containing roughly 10 square feet.

Note the date and any damages or deterioration patterns.

Note the time of day to be consistent with the documentation from one year to the next.

Take the photos when the sign is shaded to achieve even lighting.

Sounds like a royal pain, but you know, she was you know protecting the sign.

Archive the yearly assessment and note any major changes from the last assessment.

Contact a conservator to discuss any issues.

Archive the details of the conservation treatment and the move with these yearly assessments.

So none of this was done.

Um, and that, and we know that based on the city emails to the conservator following the installation of the sign.

The first email was dated June 13th, 2017, and was from Susan Booker to Deborah Ole stating, I don't think we've met, but I was assigned the responsibility providing oversight and monitoring of the Coke mural after its installation.

I went by the mural the other day to check on it and noticed quite a bit of paint flaking away.

Um I'm wondering what amount of flaking is to be expected and considered unavoidable and what should raise a concern that the mural needs some attention.

Would it be possible for you to meet me on site so we can discuss then and explore any action if any action is needed at this time?

So two days later, the conservator responded, I would recommend that unless the flaking paint is distracting to the public for viewing that we should wait until fall to address the issue.

So again, that was June of 2017.

There were no follow-up emails to that until November 8th, 2019, there was an email from former planning director Karen Westover to Greg Thompson, the city planner who was the HBB liaison.

And Greg had written uh Karen about sign maintenance in recruitment and I know this because I was in the HPB meetings, they made repeated requests to Greg to find out from the city what was what was doing to maintain the sign following the summer of 2018 and 2019 hail storms, which um really pitted the sign and a bunch of paint fell off.

So Karen wrote attached is the maintenance plan for the mural.

The mural seems to fall under Susan Booker's responsibility, and she is meeting with Fritz on November 14th to discuss.

It seems that the hail in July, the mural is in in need of an assessment and perhaps a code of protective.

I asked to be updated and will pass along any new information.

I also contact contacted the conservators, but the communication should be through Booker.

There was no follow-up to that one either.

So to the best of my knowledge, it was also not discussed publicly at a Laura meeting until Bridget took over and started looking into maintenance of the sign.

So my point to all of this is that Laura did not put in any money from 2016 on to maintain the sign.

So if you amortize that $50,000 over 10 years, it's you know $5,000 a year, which probably Laura would have spent to maintain the sign, get the conservator out there at the clear coat.

So I hope you will look at it that way.

It was it was Laura's responsibility, but I understand how the ball got dropped in this long process.

So I feel like this is an opportunity for you to wash your hands of the sign and also leave it, leave it with some protection for the future.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Luke.

Hello.

Next item.

Thank you both.

Oh, are there's no on the online zone?

Okay, yeah.

Then public clock public input is closed.

Um can I get a motion for approval of the March 10th, 2016 meeting minutes?

I'll make a motion to approve them March 10th meeting minutes.

Okay.

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All those opposed.

That passes.

Um now on to regular business.

Our first item is resolution 2026-01, approving a First Amendment to the amended and restated economic development agreement with 210 North Public LLC pertaining to the property located at 210 North Public Road.

And I'm going to welcome Graham.

Okay.

No, no, no, you can say right here.

Yeah.

Well, this is like the table.

I thought it messed up.

We're we're pretty chill here.

All right.

Um, okay.

So I'm hoping that this is um a brief item.

Um, and I have Graham here to help us walk through just some of the delay.

Um, so I'll give a quick overview of the project, um, an overview of the economic development agreement, what this first amendment does.

Um, Graham has a couple slides about what has changed and then some motion language.

Um, essentially, just with a delay in submitting building permits and also needing to get a new uh restaurant operator.

There's been just a delay in the project, and Graham has fixed all those things, and so there is a data about our certificate of occupancy in this agreement that needs to be extended.

Um so we're all familiar with where 210 is, it's on the corner of baseline and public.

Um it previously was um a St.

Clair gas station, um, and Graham has undertaken uh remediation of that entire site and has cleared it.

Um we entered into a forgivable construction loan of um over $559,000.

Um this was done in two parts, and uh the first was related to environmental remediation, and the second we added additional funds for right-of-way improvements at the time of the second bucket of funds.

Um, the concept was a single-story counter-service restaurant that had site improvements and also some right-of-way.

Um I'll allow Graham to talk in a second about what's changed, and there's some exciting changes that to the project.

Um, but essentially the amended and restated EDA talks about uh the owner completing the construction of a new building at 210 with site improvements, and the big thing here is that the construction of the project should be substantially complete with a C of O by September 1st of this year.

Uh we know that that's not gonna happen.

And so in here that also talks about in bullet four that they'll provide Laura with a copy of a lease with a restaurant tenant with a minimum lease term of five years.

And so our proposed first amendment is to extend the September 1st substantial completion date and occupancy to April 1st, 2028.

And then the restaurant lease to start from September 1st of 2026 to April 1st, 2028.

And then that the minimum lease term would also be extended for that five years.

So everything else is the same.

It's just these two dates.

And I'm gonna open up some brief slides and turn it over to Graham to just highlight what's changed and some of the Yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

Not a lot has changed.

We have we have had this has been a it's been a project.

And we're so close.

We're so close.

It's changed a number of different times.

The most recent delay is definitely all on me.

I'll own it 100%.

We had an operator we were moving forward with that was going to operate the business inside, and that ended up he had other things that he wanted to do, so that went away when we were almost at the finish line last time.

So I guess I should say Rome's at the finish line, take out a grain of salt.

I feel like we're almost there, but anyway, so that went away.

That was originally a single counter service food stall and an ice cream company.

Umce that partnership dissolved, we looked at it under the lens of like, well, we're not gonna go out and find someone that wants to start an ice cream company, so we need to make this more appealing and basically change it back to what it was similar or what it was prior.

So now we've moved it to a three-stall counter service mini food hall.

Um it's got bar, event space, arcade, and outdoor space.

The outside of the building from where it was before with our site fire view is pretty much unchanged.

We made that was one of the things that we were very strict on when we were going through and changing.

We're not gonna change much of the outside because we didn't want to go back through that whole process again.

Um pretty much remains the same as it was before.

Parking is the same, the outdoor space is the same, the building materials and structure and size and shape and windows and all that stuff is still the same.

We have changed the inside of the building.

Um it's still more or less the same shape and size and everything with pretty much the same layout.

The difference being on the one on the right side, there's about three food stalls, but it used to be one.

And the left side was ice cream, and now it's just open seating and arcade.

Um so it hasn't changed as far as size, shape, any PUD, none of that stuff, landscaping requirements, everything is still the same.

It's just our concept inside has changed slightly from one counter service and ice cream to three counter service.

Um the original idea of a mini food call.

That's right.

Yeah, it's more of the original idea, but it's only one story because I can't remember those two stories, the building was events old.

Um yeah, we've already, you know, started.

I've I've held off tearing down the trees because they look great with Christmas lights on in six years.

It could be who knows how long.

But we've already started moving the um power poles, we've set ground mounted transformers.

We're I'm trying to do anything I can to like kind of move this forward.

Um it's back in for permit right now on revisions, so I'm hoping three-ish months, 90 days from now, we will see a permit and be able to start digging this fall.

That's the goal.

And 12 to 14 month timeline is gonna be a challenge a little bit.

This project on the corner baseline in Budwick.

There's not a lot of place to do much of anything.

Um, and we have to build a building and then we spot that we can really exist.

So it's gonna have some challenges, probably gonna take a little longer than I would like.

I would love it to be 12 months, but realistically it's probably gonna be 14.

Um, so that put us if we get a permit in October 1-ish, and we start digging in the month of October.

Um November, we're finished by February, open by April 1 is the goal.

Um Great.

Yeah.

Um, so as a reminder, this is just extending some dates in the EDA.

Um, Graham's here to answering questions, and then um I have some proposed motion language, but I'll turn it over to Vice Chair Keller.

Can you speak a little bit about the timeline when a business is looking from the ground up is looking to work through permits, understanding that you've been through part of that?

Just kind of how the planning department works and what it will take for this to stay on track.

Does three make three months make sense?

So this because Graham's gone through the planning entitlements, now he's in the building permit process, so that will be through a different um or like section.

In here in the agreement, we also have the provision of being able to extend the C of O up to 120 days if there is a delay on the city side.

So our our goal is to try to it it honestly depends on two things, right?

How much is in the queue, but also how complete the submittal is.

If the submittal's not complete, then we have to go back and forth a couple times.

If this middle is A plus, then it's easier to review.

Okay.

What's the city's current guidance on normal permits and reviews?

I mean for building permits, they're they'll probably be looking at six weeks for upon review for comments.

Yep.

First round or assuming is that do you think they're actually hitting that?

I mean the city boulder is eight weeks, but they're three weeks behind.

So kind of fluctuates, yeah.

But this is a priority, so um we'll be making sure that everyone, if if you know, some of the things that we can do to make sure that we can alleviate or you know, reduce some of that time is if Graham has a couple of questions before submitting, just getting on the phone with the chief building official and trying to work those through.

So there aren't any like loops ends.

So we're we're so I guess is it is it actually submitted or is it like in like in for permit?

Like it's literally like paid fees, it's in with the city, and you're just balls in their court, or it's actually we've already gotten confidence that it's back for revisions for those comments, but we did change the inside on that revision, so it's going to have to go through code compliance again.

So it's kind of sort of starting over if with those changes-ish.

Starting over on, I would say starting over on the inside from like they're gonna have there's definitely gonna have to be some MEP stuff that's looked at, some you know, means of egress, those things, but from the exterior, all the site stuff is is the same.

All uh the power requirements, the you know, you still have to pop the basement, so have to bring, say, fire risers in.

So all that stuff that was gone through before, yes, it will need to be looked at because it's slightly different, but hoping to stand on the shoulders of workers already been done.

And you know, if I get it, everybody's busy and understaffed, and so I I just assume 12-ish weeks.

Um, and probably in over the course of that 12 weeks, there would be some more comments that we would address, but we're ready to do it.

Yeah, and we do have that question if needed.

Um I think this is your last raw, Graham.

Oh yeah, yes, it is no matter what the outcome.

This is the last time.

Yeah.

Other questions for either Bridget or Graham?

I guess if you get a permit or you know, your shovels moving dirt, things happening.

I mean, is there are you have you pre-leased any of these stalls or that stuff?

Or so we've changed the operation structure inside, and we are we are now starting the business inside ourselves.

Okay, so you're and then we are having an operator that runs um Josh Diner and Greg Topal.

They have uh Gin Mill and Golden, um, a couple spots at Rhino's Taco and Boulder, um, they just opened uh East Inco out by um like 55th and then just open that's another root all.

They have a couple places in Idaho.

We're partnering with, so we're starting the business, we're partnering with them, they're gonna operate the entire thing for us.

They have to get the liquor license, they run that for our they do all the operations.

Well, we technically own the business, so we'll sign a master lease to ourselves, which we can then get SBA for.

And so all of that is like makes it relatively easy.

We don't have to go out, and then they just license the stalls, yeah, preferably to local local people that are trying to look for places that can get a foot in, but um ultimately it'll be up to them.

Do you already have an operating agreement with them and a contract so that they are definitely gonna be the partners running that aspect of your business?

Um not an operating agreement because the operating agreement as a developer, I'm gonna own the building, then I'm also going to own the business through separate entities.

So my operating agreement for the business is myself, and then they just I don't have a contract with them yet for running the business.

But it'll be also our business, same as like community.

So there'll be like employees not contracted.

There'll be like W-2 employees that are for your business.

Yeah.

Yeah, and but the people that actually operate the space that run restaurants all the time at food halls, they will be like, I guess, employed, though technically they'll be employed by the business that we own inside, and they will operate and manage the entire thing for substantial fee.

That's right.

So it's gonna work this time.

And does that fit with the requirement that we have that that on that date specific, April 1 or whatever, that we have a five-year, they have a five-year lease with some.

Is that gonna create any issues?

Um we just have to operate the business four or five years as a revenue producing restaurant or similar concept.

I thought I read it as there has to be a five-year lease.

I mean, if you're leasing it to yourself, you can give you write yourself a lease for five years or whatever, but based on that structure, you're just gonna enter you'll you'll have a you know a mass release and it'll spill out terms.

I mean, you'll be both entities, both well yeah, we'll have a five-year lease, but I I think we actually have to operate four or five years as well.

Is that part of the requirement?

Or the yeah, part of the loan forgiveness.

Forgiveness, yes.

Yes.

Well, I mean, I'm all right on this project anyway at this point, so this one's gonna work.

I told Graham we're not doing this again.

I think we probably feel that way too.

Yeah, if we're even here in two years, but to be the ones making that decision.

No, I'm gonna like the direct worrying because I know we just keep rolling along.

Who makes the I mean if if this is not here in two years, what happens?

Like who who decides what?

So we have an IGA with the city that um they will take over management of EDAs and yeah.

It's just their loose end.

Yep.

Are there other questions for either Bridget or Graham?

And if not, is there a motion for the resolution 2026-01?

Just want to see something there.

I guess drive by and I'm like, please I want to see something.

I want to see some dirt moving or something, or so.

Um I'll make a motion.

Okay.

Uh so I'd like to move to approve resolution number 2026 01, approving the first amendment to the amended and restated economic development agreement with 210 North Public LLC extending the project completion, restaurant lease commencement deadlines, and authorize the chair to execute the first amendment and form approved by the city attorney.

Second.

Okay.

Are there comments?

And I just like to say I can't wait to see this.

And um at the same time, it's always a little nerve-wracking when we extend something in a couple of years, especially beyond our own lifetimes as Laura.

Anyway, um, I think it's gonna be a really good project.

It's in a great location.

Um the activation to downtown, it it both will attract people to come and it will be attractive to as an addition on the street.

So let's make it work this time.

Uh all those in favor of resolution 2026-01.

Um, please say aye.

Aye.

Opposing motion passes um unanimously.

Thanks, Graham.

Thanks.

Thank you guys very much.

April 1st, 2028.

Wait, it's April Falls Day.

No, no, but we'll be there.

And that's a long way to wait.

Uh there's a long way to wait.

I got things.

Our next item is items pertaining to the assignment of the easement agreement for the historic Coca-Cola mural.

Um we have a resolution and a cooperating agreement.

Um, Bridget.

Um, so there's been a lot of history with this project, and um there's I've been working on this um since February with council and different boards and commissions.

So I'm I am gonna take a moment to just give you guys some history and bring up to speed about what's been going on these past couple of years.

It's a buckle up.

Um, and then you'll be considering two items, a resolution.

And then you'll be considering potentially doing a cooperative agreement with the city Lafayette for one-time funding.

So the original mural was located at 201 North Public Road.

This is where the collective use it currently is.

In the post-19 post-1936, there was photos that you would start to see saying highway restaurant.

And then the early 50s, that's when we started to see Pat and Garris Highway Bar.

This bar had rotating advertisements on the side of the building.

So you can see to the left, there's a Paps Blue ribbon advertisement, and to the right, there's a coarse beer advertisement.

So it was common to have just different advertisements rotate on the side of buildings in this area.

In 1956, the building was covered with asbestos siding.

And during the demolition of the building, the removing of that asbestos siding, the mural was discovered.

You can see here that it was pretty vibrant when they took off that siding, and in a way it was preserved underneath it.

There was a big community effort to save this mural.

So when it was uncovered in 2015, it was moved to the fire station prior to demolition.

In 2016, it went through a major restoration treatment and then moved to where it is today at 103 North Public Grid.

And so the total cost to move the sign, complete the restoration, and do the associated flat work.

If you're familiar with that site, there's a little railing and an awning and some lighting.

All that was 136, 126 was raised by the community, which is important to note.

Richard Ross is the owner.

And then the City of Lafayette actually owns the sign.

And then the easement stipulates that Laura retains the sole right and obligation to maintain that mural.

So you can see it was moved one block away.

So fast forwarding to 2022.

You can see here that from the original restoration in 2016 to 2022.

When I picked this up, it had uh started to see some significant deterioration.

Um I originally contacted the uh original conservationist uh preservationist that worked on this.

Unfortunately, after 18 months of kind of back and forth seeing if she was be able to come out, um, she wasn't able to commit, and so that's when we kind of pivoted as far as um looking at a professional to help us with this undertaking.

And so, in partnership with the city, Laura released a request for qualifications for an assessment and restoration of the sign.

Um we contracted with John Canning Co., which is an award-winning firm in preservation, conservation, and restoration, and they did an initial assessment, and you can see here some of the work that they've done across the country.

So the initial scope was looking at a visual assessment and then um review of the existing conditions, and so they did a paint investigation where they actually studied the hand brush strokes, they performed clean tests to determine the feasibility of removing surface layers of dirt and grime, and paint.

They also did paint layer consolidation tests to determine the uh possibility of finishes, and then they provided a report for potential conservation or restoration um options.

Um I'm gonna spend uh just a couple minutes um highlighting some of the findings of this report to remind you all of them because it's been a couple years.

So they did find evidence of the previous signs, uh both the cores and paps blue ribbon, but do uh and due to the mural's position and location, um, it received sun and wind throughout most of the day without much protection.

Um these observations of weather are important to note because of their correlation as to why the mural has deteriorated so quickly after just eight years of being restored.

Um it was eight years when they did this report in 2024.

Um should also note the likelihood that historic paint layers underneath are continuing to fail, rendering the prior restoration move.

Um the paint is peeling everywhere throughout the space, and the sliced touch will cause it to break off, and the wood itself is cracking and splitting, causing exposed wood in gaps.

Cleaning tests were attempted to better understand the state of the paint.

However, this was proven difficult due to the fragility of the paint.

And then the mural faces the southwest as we all know, and so it's therefore exposed to sun and UV rays for a majority of the day.

This is not only causing fading of colors in the paint layers, but also weakens their binding um capabilities, which leads to flaking pain and paint loss.

And since the mural is paint on wood, it is subject to the natural expansion and contraction of wood from the fluctuations in temperature and the rate of absorption of moisture by the substrate, the wood, can affect the stability of the paint layer and extreme weather fluctuations can severely accelerate the process.

You can also see a photo here of the informant plaque that was there, which was made of a different material and has just seen a lot of sun exposure as well.

So it's not just wood that gets beaten by the sun, it is other signs.

And we've seen this throughout the city as well.

So within that report, they gave a couple of considerations for some options.

The first approach would be to complete a mess major restoration and conserve it where it is.

The second approach would be to complete a major restoration, but add additional protection, such as a bigger awning or plexiglass covering.

Since getting this report and talking internally to some other groups, we're not too jazzed up about the plexiglass idea because it could just create other maintenance issues with moisture entrapment and also fading.

Just a thing to note.

The third approach would be a more long-term solution with a mural undergoing a major restoration and then moving it into a climate-controlled environment.

The fourth approach would be considered doing a replica of the mural on site.

Lewisville has a mural replica at their historic museum of Coca-Cola, and then move it, their original to an indoor location.

So what do we do from there?

Since we are not a board or commission that focuses on historic preservation, we referred the assessment to the Historic Preservation Commission and then also the Historical Society in July of 2024, so about two years ago.

At that time, and I would note that the makeup of these boards was different than today.

Both groups identify this as a historic artifact, and that moving indoors would preserve its integrity.

I have a couple bullets here from the Historic Preservation Commission, which was interesting.

Kim Dugan at the time was the chair, and she's also a wood scientist.

So some of the things that was shared was that the south facing exposure of the paint makes it extremely susceptible to paint fading, cracking, and flaking as the UV rays break down the chemical bonds of the paint.

Advertisements painted on the building at that time were meant to be temporary.

And paint is in general a sacrificial layer meant to protect the wood underneath.

Even really high quality paints need to be reapplied every eight to 12 years here in Colorado, and the wood substrate expands and contracts with moisture causing paint failure.

They also talked about the idea that if you were to move it, there's ways to honor the mural on site, including its signage, and they even chatted about maybe you could do an electronic light display that projects the historic mural at night.

So after getting that after sharing the assessment and feedback to the city, because they are the owner of the sign.

It is the side of the size of the side of a building, so it's very large.

It's 26 feet long and 14 feet tall.

And so we weren't able to identify a site within the city's facility portfolio that would be suitable for the public to view.

So city staff also reached out to History Colorado about partnerships as they rely on genetic donations to build their permanent collection.

Except because of its size, they declined.

Did you have any ideas?

And they shared, well, there are a lot of food halls popping up in the Denver metro region.

Sometimes they're in very large spaces.

There's a correlation between coke and food, and so you could think about potentially looking at that.

We haven't done that.

Reached out to any food halls.

Included the new city hall.

Oh, wait, that was an idea.

So in 2025, we released a request for proposals to see if there was a qualified partner available.

Ideally, a local museum or public nonprofit with experience in managing artifacts to provide a permanent publicly accessible indoor home while preserving the sign's historical integrity.

We reached out to two museums in Boulder County, but they didn't respond.

The property owner of the building, uh Richard Ross didn't respond to the RFP and said that he'd be interested in taking ownership of the sign contingent upon another round of restoration, and he would keep it where it is.

So fast forward to earlier this year in January, community members Doug Conroe and McGeeulin submitted a historic landmark designation application for the Coca-Cola and Pat and Gars Highway R mural sign.

And the applicants shared that the sign is significant is historically significant for several reasons.

They share that significant because of its association with Pat Wright, who was the first city who was the city of Lafayette's first female city councilor and the co-owner of Pat and Gars Highway Bar.

The second is its association with the Lafayette Lincoln Highway period.

The sign is the only they share that the sign is Lafayette's only remaining historic commercial billboard recognizing when public road was the spur of the Lincoln Highway, which was the nation's first federal highway.

And then the third is its association with Lafayette Saloon Row, which spanned on the west side of public road from Geneseo to Cleveland from the late 1800s to the early 1900s.

All other areas of town had town founder Mary Miller's deed restrictions forbidding the sale of alcohol.

As you heard through public comment, the application was not advanced to consideration as it did not meet the city's definition of a structure eligible for local landmark.

It is essentially a piece of the building that was moved.

And so you would think some would characterize this as an object rather than a structure, and objects aren't allowed to be landmarked in our city code.

They do allow objects to be landmarked.

History of Colorado indicated that it is not eligible for national or state register because it was removed from the original building.

The applicants do believe that the project warrants further exploration.

They've also been advocating to change our local landmark designation to allow for objects.

So that brings us to February of this year.

I went to the February 17th council meeting where I presented a very similar presentation to this about the history of the sign, how we got here, and where we are today, and asked for input on a preferred path.

And we presented some initial options.

The first would be to restore the sign and display it where it is currently.

And those costs ranged at the time, ballpark from 105,000 to 130,000.

This cost also bakes in the idea that you need to remove it, bring it off-site, restore it, and then put it back to where it is.

The second option would be to restore the sign and look to relocate it indoors, and then in its place have potentially two things.

One, you could do uh you could rotate art murals.

This is something that we discussed at Laura and Laura at the time, said that they would this was a couple years ago, commit to 25,000 to do rotating art murals and also include the trucking and restoration of that site.

Um, the other idea that if you were to remove the sign is you could do a replica of the sign, and so some ballpark numbers were around $60,000.

The third option that was presented to council for discussion was if it's a historic artifact, if you continue to paint it, you're putting new paint on historic paint layers, and so do not restore the sign and just store it indoors.

And so you would just be paying for the trucking.

And then in that meeting, um, council had a robust discussion and asked a lot of questions, and some other ideas that were brought up was to just cut out the Pat and Gars banner that's at the top and restore that.

It is in a way kind of similar to the apothecary building where they found the original sign and Karen cut that out and restored it and put it on the side.

Another counselor brought up uh relocating it to one of the Capitol Bond projects.

It would likely be the Civic Center and building it in in a way that uh could have some protection from the elements.

And so after that discussion, council did not choose an option and requested additional information since it had been a number of years.

And so they requested input from the Historical Society, Laura, the Lafayette Cultural Arts Board, and Historic Preservation Commission.

I've gone to all of them, and now I'm here for urban renewal.

Um I will note that I gave a very similar presentation, but when I went to those other boards, I uh had discussion questions and asked for their input about the what's historically significant, what are some considerations for long term preservation?

And I will note that I gave a very similar presentation, but when I went to those other boards, I uh had discussion questions and asked for their input about the what's historically significant, what are some considerations for long-term preservation?

Um this is something that council wanted to get input from them.

Council was more interested in Laura about is there any funding that you could put to any of these options?

And so I am not gonna leave a discussion as far as the historical significance.

Um, and so you'll see that in a second.

Everything has been the same that I've shared, and we're having a different conversation.

Um we did recently do or another round of requests for qualifications just to confirm what cost could be.

And so we released an uh RFQ in May, it closed in June, and um similar to the last time we wanted to understand um ballpark numbers, and so we received three proposals, and the costs really uh represent um a range related to different approaches and level of intervention.

The lower cost proposals focus on stabilization and repainting, while the higher cost proposals provide a more comprehensive conservation process.

So it's essentially um I have a table here, and I'm not gonna go into this because it's um ultimately council will decide, you know, if what sort of level of intervention makes sense if they want to restore it.

But um, for instance, Eric Johnson, he's a muralist up in Loveland.

Um, his approach would be to scrape off flaking paint and just paint over it.

Where John Canning would probably, it's the most expensive, it's almost 100,000, and it's the most intensive restoration of stabilization and painting and testing, and then Smith Art Conservation, they also threw their hat in the ring, they're lower.

They don't actually, they note in this proposal in their proposal, they don't actually typically do this work, but they have a fine arts painter on staff, and so they threw their hat in the ring.

We haven't um moved forward with any of these because we'll be talking to council as well as the property owner because that could be an option as well if he would take it over.

So the easement agreement.

Um I'm here tonight uh because as Laura winds down, it affairs, it's appropriate for us to transfer the right and obligations under this easement agreement to the city.

It's part of our list of things that we need to do.

This assignment aligns responsibility for the easement with the ownership of the mural and positions the city to determine and implement the most appropriate long-term strategy.

Um, and so in a way, we're not here to try to figure out what should happen, but more of this is a step and we need to transfer this easement over to the city.

So within the original easement agreement, um, the assigner, Laura is authorized to assign the easement agreement to the city of Lafayette.

So this is something that we can do.

We uh we do not need to get permission from Rick to do this, it's in the original agreement.

Um in a moment we're gonna be talking about a cooperative agreement, but first I wanted to um turn it over to Vice Chair Culler to handle this item and answer any questions about just transferring over the easement from Laura to the city, and I have some proposed motion language when that makes sense.

Okay.

Any discussion, any questions for Bridget for each other on transferring the easement.

And can I get a motion?

Is the eastman tied to that location?

Yes, the one.

So if the mural were to move potentially in any of these options, what would the easement then do at that location without the mural?

So in the easement, it talks about restoring the site to its original condition, and so that would be um when we transfer to the city and the city decides, let's say we want to move the mural, then they would have the obligation to fulfill the terms of the agreement.

Like we're moved a little barrier in the lights.

Correct.

Patch paint, which is make it like it was never there.

Yeah.

And would we assume that the easement would go back, would disappear or it would just be terminated.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, that was my second question.

If we transfer the easement to the owner, but I think the owner of the building is rich, I assuming.

So yeah, if if we decide to give the mural, sorry, if the city decides to sell or give the mural to uh Richard Ross, then you could essentially get rid of that ease.

There might be need to be some sort of easement if it's within the right-of-way, I'm not sure the exact flat lines, um, but you wouldn't need it if he um as far as to display it on this building because it's his.

And once we vote on this, assuming it passes, then in a sense we don't.

It's not our issue at all anymore.

And if the right now you're considering moving like forward with the co um, sorry, and transferring the easement to the city, and then we need to go through a process where the city accepts that.

So it's a we need to draft that, they need to you Kevin would need to sign it, uh the city would need to accept it.

So this is the first start to start that process to transfer that easement agreement to the city.

All right.

I'll make a motion.

Uh I'd like to move to adopt resolution number 2026-02 authorizing the assignment of the easement agreement for the historic Coca-Cola mural from the Lafayette Urban Authority to the City of Lafayette and authorizing the chair to execute the assignment assumption of rights and obligations agreement in a form approved by the city attorney.

I'll second we have a motion of second.

All those who approve um say aye.

Aye, aye, aye.

Great.

So then a cooperative agreement.

Um so as we wind down and transfer responsibilities, I want to bring forward um uh recommendation that you consider providing the city with one-time funding of $50,000 to support the future work associated with this historic Coca-Cola mural.

Umrigally uh Laura said that we would they would commit $25,000 for a very specific thing.

Since so many things are up in the air right now, and council is considering a bunch of different options for us to uh you know be able to continue our window process.

Um this allows you to provide one-time funding for a number of things and leaving it up to city council to determine the right use of those funds.

Um they'll be the ones considering all the input from the boards and commissions.

Um this $50,000 may not cover the grand total of everything, but it could go to some of it, and so letting them determine the best use of those funds.

So those funds uh may be used for activities directly related to the preservation projects, including but not limited to restoration and conservation, removal, relocation, a replica, modifications to the original installation site, restoration of the original mural site, and other project-related activities necessary to preserve or interpret the mural.

Um, and so with this, um you can also um separately if you decide to move forward with this, direct staff to share with council what they would prefer happen with these funds.

Previously, you said remove it, let's do a rotating art.

You can say, hey, we're moving, you can have these funds.

We would like you to know that we have a preference about how they're used, but we'll leave it up to you when you figure out the best what your path forward is.

Um right now you just have uh a motion to authorize this one-time funding.

I we have a fund balance that's very low, it's less than 300,000, 200,000 of which is tied up to an EDA.

50,000 could be for this, and then the remaining would be related to closing costs and any legal fees needed to just wind down Laura.

So we're really at the bare bones of what we have left.

Um, and the $50,000 over a 10-year period could be uh looked at as potentially $5,000 per each year.

So with that, I will turn it over to Vice Chair Cutler.

Okay, so we have two decisions to make.

One is whether we approve um the $50,000 contribution to this cooperative agreement, and then in addition, we have to decide whether we want to provide direction to city council for how we would prefer that that money gets spent.

Um why don't we go through the first part and the motion and then if we need and and have a discussion about what we want to add and do that as a separate emotion, separate motion.

Does that work provide me direction?

Okay, you can also make a motion to direct me to write a letter to council saying blah blah blah blah blah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I'm opening the floor for discussion and or questions, and we'll follow that with a motion.

I support the cooperative agreement.

Um it feels reasonable.

And um personally, I don't have any direction for how the funds should be used.

I feel like you've done all the work and spoken with all the boards that are way more qualified to like pass judgment on this.

So I would support whatever the council decides based on the information that you bring them.

I mean I can I completely agree with that.

I think there's a lot of options and opinions, and I think the council is the appropriate body to decide, so I'm fine with uh agreeing with the $50,000 based on what you already have up there.

I think it's the right way to kind of send it off.

Well, I'd like to thank Doug and Vicky for coming and um both your work and your conversation with us tonight.

Not really conversation.

Um and you, Bridget, for doing some pretty amazing thorough work with the boards and commissions to come up with a lot of uh ideas or to put together a plan.

Um I think the request is reasonable.

I think that you've looked carefully at what the options are in general terms, and you've there it's listed in ways that there are options to restore and leave it where it is, to finding another place where it's restored or not, and maybe not even seen by the public.

And I think that the next step is for whoever's going to use that money to make those decisions.

I personally like the two newest options best.

I think they're creative, I think they're creative ways.

I'm like, oh, I guess it's yeah, Coca-Cola is a problematic company incorporation, and right now it's like not the sentiment with people, you know, like polluting the earth with plastic and all the problematic things that Coca-Cola does.

I love memorializing the first woman councilman.

So putting it in the city council where future women city council can see it and admire it every day.

I think that's a great place for it.

I would recommend it did not go in that building since Pat and Garr were direct competition for the people who owned that building at that time that there might be a better place if it's just their names.

But I agree in theory with what Maria said.

Marlena I don't really have much to add either on the historical preservation.

I I think ten years from now, if we restore it and put it back in that same place, I feel like 10 years from now be the same discussion because it will still be exposed to sun and wind and mail and so I hope they find a more long-term solution because obviously the restoration is really expensive as we have filed from these quotes, but um I'm not the one making the decisions on that.

I think city council is like representative of Lafayette.

It's better, please.

Is there a motion?

I'll make a motion to keep my street going on if you really want to do it.

No, you can go ahead.

Like to move to authorize the chair to execute a cooperative agreement between Lafayette.

That was the other one.

Uh to uh between the Lafayette Renewal Authority and the City of Lafayette providing the one-time transfer of $50,000 to the city to support activities directly related to the preservation of the historic Coca-Cola mural, including restoration, conservation, removal, relocation, replication, restoration of the original mural site, and other related project activities in a form approved by the city attorney.

Should be city attorney or city council.

The the cooperative agreement is going to be approved by the city attorney.

Okay.

Yes.

We have a motion and second.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

The motion passes unanimously.

And so now it's just um is there would you like to have a discussion about how this funding is used?

And if not, then I don't need to share with council.

So I wanted to give you that option that if you felt if there was everyone felt really strongly about one thing, then I could write a letter that said you can do what you want, but this is the preference, and if you don't have one, then I don't we don't even have that discussion.

Okay.

What I heard from three of us was that we didn't have a preference.

One of us had a preference of two.

And um Marlena, what I thought I heard was that you felt like you wanted to leave it in the hands of the preservationists.

Well, no, I ignore it.

I I think that option one, I think it was option one restoring and putting it back in the place.

I think you and I agree that it might not be the best path forward.

Um I like her idea with the commemorating the female counselor more than I agree Coca-Cola does not need our endorsement.

Um I think the the value to the city is more in the other part of the mural than uh Coca-Cola.

Um portion portion.

Would you like to give Bridget some thoughts on have her take those thoughts as preferences?

Um again, I feel like I heard from three of us that we'd like to not put any of the stipulations on if you want the other thing that I could do is in my presentation to council, I'm going to provide feedback from all these boards, and I can share while the urban renewal authority didn't have the same discussion as the other boards.

There was a note of considering long-term preservation, um, the importance of the first female counselor, and I I feel like that could be enough for them just to know that that was discussed.

Does that work for the board?

Yeah, I mean, if much we're going through majority three of you guys said you didn't really care, so that would technically take you know so you feel strongly and if you're if you feel like that's a a the best way to have Bridget represent that, then I think that's a scoozing.

I would like to have you do that.

Okay, just share that what the chairs are.

That's always seemed to those seem to be the old the higher preferences, but in with the specifics to how the funds were used that we trusted the city council and other boards to provide direction.

Noted.

Okay.

Anything else on that?

Okay.

Um updates.

Thank you.

Um I have just a couple of updates since I have you guys here.

The pocket park construction has started.

Yes, we're moving your grading.

Um it should go pretty quick because it's such a small site.

So through the end of the summer, they'll be working on uh grading and utilities and starting in February.

That's when you'll start to see some hardscape and some landscape.

Um the longest lead items are related to the site furnishing playground equipment, but we're tracking for like a November opening.

So you said February.

Did I say February?

Yeah, I was like, oh, it seems weird.

August.

Okay.

September, October, November.

I could have said February.

I thought I heard famous.

Anyway, fall, it's gonna be done.

Um the other thing is um the 700 800 block streetscape and alley project.

We uh did an RFP, we have a contractor, it's within budget.

We're now working through the process of doing some right-of-way acquisition.

Um, so working through that.

So it should follow after the pocket park, most likely.

Um I'll probably need to have a September meeting to wrap up the other easement agreements that we have with two more, and then authorizing selling um our vacator right-of-way on the 700 block to the city of Lafayette.

Um and then really after that meeting, we just need to handle the closing with Jamal Gilmore on 760 West Baseline Road.

So we're I know I say this every time we see you, but we're very close.

We're gonna just donate it.

Yes.

We need them to accept.

Um and then they can figure out the best use of it.

Yeah.

That's all I got.

Okay.

New business.

Staff or commissioner reports.

All right.

Woohoo!

Oh my god.

It seems like you've been part of the community for a yeah, it does.

In a good way.

Hopefully.

In a very good way.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

That's awesome.

And we did extend our lease for two years.

All right.

Ten years already.

We are adjourned.

I remember when it's guys.

All right.

Things are just definitely like maybe for us.

I had shoulder surgery and surgery back.