Story

City says in court filings that Salina arts director was first staff member to bring Cozy Inn mural to its attention

October 30, 2026 The Cozy Inn, Cozy Inn mural, Brad Anderson, Salina Arts & Humanities, City of Salina, Steve Howard, Colin Benson, Lauren Driscoll, Michael Schrage, sign code, First Amendment, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Salina, Courts, Local News, Government

Photo: Courtesy Kansas Justice Institute

In sworn answers filed in the federal lawsuit over The Cozy Inn's mural, the City of Salina said Brad Anderson, executive director of Salina Arts & Humanities, a city department, "noticed the Cozy Sign as he drove by the Cozy, and was the first City staff member to bring the sign to the City's attention." (Document CI-01)

Document CI-01: The city's sworn interrogatory answer naming Brad Anderson as the first city staff member to bring the display to the city's attention. Doc. 105-24 at 4 — The city's sworn interrogatory answer naming Brad Anderson as the first city staff member to bring the display to the city's attention. Doc. 105-24 at 4

The decision that the painting was a regulated sign, and the request that owner Steve Howard pause the work, came from other city staff on Monday, Nov. 6, 2023. Anderson was not among the officials the city's zoning administrator named as making that decision, and he is not a party to the case.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday upheld a ruling that Salina violated the First Amendment in how it applied its sign code to the mural. The appeals court's opinion does not name Anderson. His role is laid out in deposition excerpts, city filings and a November 2025 order by U.S. District Judge Toby Crouse.

Wednesday-Friday, Nov. 1-3, 2023: The painting begins

Howard approved artist Colin Benson's design on Nov. 1. A screenshot of their text messages filed by the city shows Howard writing at 4:10 p.m. that day, "Lets go for it!!!" Howard confirmed in his deposition that was when he approved the painting.

Benson began painting the north wall of the restaurant at 108 N. Seventh St. on Friday, Nov. 3, a date both sides agreed to in court filings. Benson testified that the restaurant's ordering window was busy, so he tried to work "basically when they were closing, late at night."

Friday-Sunday, Nov. 3-5: Anderson's texts

By the end of that weekend, Crouse wrote, Anderson had seen the work "both on social media and in person." Anderson agreed in his deposition that his office is about 100 yards from the restaurant.

He testified on Sept. 12, 2024, that he could not recall which came first. "I either saw a picture on social media of the work in progress, or on a downtown drive, I came down 7th Street and saw it first and then saw it on social media," he said.

Asked what he did after he learned of it, Anderson said, "I believe that I either -- I believe that I might have texted Lauren Driscoll in Development Services and/or Leslie Bishop who is the director of Salina Downtown, Incorporated, to see if they were aware of this work." (Document CI-02)

Document CI-02: Anderson's deposition testimony about texting Lauren Driscoll and Leslie Bishop and about the "DRB" text. Doc. 109-6 at 3, Anderson Dep. 40 — Anderson's deposition testimony about texting Lauren Driscoll and Leslie Bishop and about the "DRB" text. Doc. 109-6 at 3, Anderson Dep. 40

He described one of the messages, marked as a deposition exhibit, as "a photograph of the mural at The Cozy Inn process, and a text message that asked about the Design Review Board." When a plaintiffs' attorney read the line "I'm guessing this didn't go through DRB" and asked whether DRB meant the Design Review Board, Anderson answered, "Yes."

"I'm pretty sure that I initiated the inquiry," Anderson testified. (Document CI-03)

Document CI-03: Anderson testifies "I'm pretty sure that I initiated the inquiry" and explains why he contacted Driscoll and Bishop. Doc. 109-6 at 5, Anderson Dep. 43 — Anderson testifies "I'm pretty sure that I initiated the inquiry" and explains why he contacted Driscoll and Bishop. Doc. 109-6 at 5, Anderson Dep. 43

He said he went to Driscoll, director of Community and Development Services, because "she is the person responsible for the staff that we rely on to provide us feedback on projects that might be in violation of either a city code or to get guidance on proper procedures to follow." He said he contacted Bishop because "we work closely, as some of the text flow indicated, on other ancillary projects, including Artwork Alley."

Crouse's order describes both recipients as city officials. Anderson testified that Salina Downtown, Incorporated, is "a Business Improvement District funded in part by the City of Salina I think," and that "It is not a department of the city." He said he was "fairly confident she is not an employee of the City of Salina."

According to Crouse's order, the texts told the recipients the display "was being painted" and expressed doubt "that it had been approved through the sign-permit process." The messages themselves are not part of the public court record reviewed for this story.

Sunday night, Nov. 5: Driscoll and Schrage are told

Driscoll was asked in her deposition whether, when she received the text on Sunday night, it was "still up in the air whether it was a sign or not." She answered, "Correct."

Asked what she meant by the word "ughhhhh" in an exhibit, Driscoll testified: "Ughhhhh, like it didn't go through the permitting process. It hasn't been seen by anybody. So that means it's an unknown which means I'm going to walk into something Monday morning." (Document CI-04)

Document CI-04: Driscoll explains "ughhhhh" and says she expected to "walk into something Monday morning." Doc. 109-11 at 2, Driscoll Dep. 34 — Driscoll explains "ughhhhh" and says she expected to "walk into something Monday morning." Doc. 109-11 at 2, Driscoll Dep. 34

That night, then-City Manager Michael Schrage testified, he was in his recliner when he learned the wall was being painted. "It was either Brad Anderson or Lauren Driscoll, but I'm not sure," he said of who told him. What they conveyed, he said, was "the concern that it was" a sign "and that there was going to need to be a conversation with the owner."

Schrage agreed it was out of the ordinary to be contacted on a Sunday evening and said that by then the matter "had kind of taken on a public level of conversation."

Driscoll described the timing publicly a week later. At the Nov. 13 City Commission meeting, she said, "Staff learned about the sign late on Sunday night, contacted Mr. Howard Monday morning and just asked if we could have -- if he could pause in -- in the creation of his sign so that we could get a chance to look at it." Schrage interrupted to clarify: "Sunday -- not yesterday --" Driscoll answered, "Correct." Schrage continued, "-- Sunday, the week prior." Driscoll replied, "Right. Sunday before." (Document CI-05)

Document CI-05: Nov. 13, 2023, City Commission transcript: staff "learned about the sign late on Sunday night"; Schrage clarifies "Sunday, the week prior." Doc. 105-5 at 14-15 — Nov. 13, 2023, City Commission transcript: staff "learned about the sign late on Sunday night"; Schrage clarifies "Sunday, the week prior." Doc. 105-5 at 14-15

Monday, Nov. 6: City staff decide it's a sign

Schrage said he first saw the display himself while "driving into work about 6:30 Monday morning."

That Monday, four members of the city's planning staff met: Driscoll; Dean Andrew, the zoning administrator; and planners Dustin Herrs and Dustin Michelson. Herrs, testifying on the city's behalf, said they "pulled up a photograph" of the work in progress, "and we viewed it and it had met the definition of a sign."

"We sat down with code, pulled the definition, said, yep, it met those components," Driscoll testified. "And then we looked at that location and did the math to show like not only is it a sign but its size does not fit this location."

Herrs testified that he invited Howard to his office that day and "explained to him the sign limitations that are in the C-4 district."

Andrew testified the determination "was made by Mr. Herrs and concurred with by myself and Ms. Driscoll." No record reviewed shows that Anderson took part in it.

In the case's pretrial order, the city stated its position: "Given the existing sign inventory, the Cozy Inn had approximately 10 square feet of remaining sign allowance, but the wall sign was approximately 528 square feet in size." It also said, "On November 6, the City contacted Howard and asked him to pause the painting, advising him that the painting was a wall sign under the sign code, it needed a sign permit, and it was too big to qualify for a sign permit as proposed. Howard did not administratively appeal this determination." (Document CI-06)

Document CI-06: The city's contentions in the amended pretrial order on the Nov. 6 pause request, the sign's size and Howard's lack of an appeal. Doc. 109-3 at 14 — The city's contentions in the amended pretrial order on the Nov. 6 pause request, the sign's size and Howard's lack of an appeal. Doc. 109-3 at 14

Both sides agreed in a court stipulation that "On November 6, 2023, the City asked Howard to stop painting the display."

Driscoll testified that the message was, "Steve, don't paint anymore, because if for some reason this isn't allowed, I don't want you to go further." She added, "So I just didn't want him going further and spending money or doing something that he may have to change or would choose not to go forward with."

Howard gave a different account in a sworn declaration. "On Monday, November 6, 2023, City Planner Dustin Herrs told me that I couldn't finish the display even though there had been no public complaints about it and only city officials took issue with the mural at The Cozy," he said.

At 3:22 p.m. that day, Benson texted Howard: "Hey Steve, just seeing what's going on Dad told me this morning when I set up that I probably should wait until I heard from you to find out what this permit BS is about. So just let me know. Thank you and have a good day." (Document CI-07)

Document CI-07: Benson's Nov. 6, 2023, 3:22 p.m. text to Howard about "this permit BS," from screenshots the city filed. Doc. 109-7 at 15-17 — Benson's Nov. 6, 2023, 3:22 p.m. text to Howard about "this permit BS," from screenshots the city filed. Doc. 109-7 at 15-17

Benson testified that he had stopped painting the wall on Nov. 6.

Accounts in the record differ on when Anderson's message reached Driscoll. Asked whether "it was there on November 6th that Mr. Anderson informed Miss Driscoll," Herrs answered, "That's my understanding." Driscoll's deposition, her Nov. 13 remarks and Crouse's order place it on Sunday night.

Tuesday, Nov. 7: Benson's text

At 1:15 p.m. the next day, Benson texted Howard: "What's up Steve sorry I was all riled up after talking with the committee of the arts Director. I didn't know it was through them so when you get a minute call me if you want." (Document CI-08)

Document CI-08: Benson's Nov. 7, 2023, 1:15 p.m. text to Howard referring to "the committee of the arts Director." Doc. 109-7 at 18-19 — Benson's Nov. 7, 2023, 1:15 p.m. text to Howard referring to "the committee of the arts Director." Doc. 109-7 at 18-19

The text does not name the director, and no record reviewed identifies whom Benson meant. Elsewhere in his deposition, asked whom he worked with on the city's Riverfest, Benson said, "Leslie Bishop is the main director of the Arts Center."

Wednesday-Thursday, Nov. 8-9: The city manager briefs commissioners

On Nov. 8, Schrage wrote to the mayor and city commissioners that although the display "might look similar to murals in the downtown and elsewhere, it contains a commercial message promoting a business and its product which makes it a wall sign."

"With respect to Cozy Inn, we were not contacted in advance. Rather, we became aware as the painting was observed," he wrote. "Staff has contacted them and asked them to pause. And, a meeting has been scheduled with them for Monday of next week." He added that "the crux of the issue is that they began painting a commercial wall sign without contacting us." (Document CI-09)

Document CI-09: Schrage's Nov. 8, 2023, email to the mayor and commissioners, with private email addresses redacted. Doc. 105-18 at 2 — Schrage's Nov. 8, 2023, email to the mayor and commissioners, with private email addresses redacted. Doc. 105-18 at 2

The next day, Schrage wrote again: "Staff was in contact with Mr. Howard multiple times again today and thought that we had gained his understanding that we would meet with him on Monday to discuss the issue and options further."

Benson posted on social media on Nov. 9, "There are laws set to keep others from doing whatever on walls and we know this now and that's great." He added, "Everyone needs to be on the same page instead of the bashing." (Document CI-10)

Document CI-10: Benson's Nov. 9, 2023, social media post, an exhibit to his deposition. Doc. 109-10 at 1 — Benson's Nov. 9, 2023, social media post, an exhibit to his deposition. Doc. 109-10 at 1

The meeting with Howard

Anderson testified that, "having known Steve for a number of years," he reached out to Howard "to see if I could be of any assistance." Schrage said that "Brad Anderson had already offered to convene a meeting, and we met at Arts & Humanities that Monday morning." He placed his meeting with Howard on the morning of Nov. 13.

Driscoll recalled the first meeting with Howard differently: "It would have been the Thursday of that week." She said it included herself, Herrs, Schrage, Howard, the artist and friends Howard had invited. "And then Brad was there," she said. Howard, who said he did not remember the date, named Driscoll, Schrage "and Brad Anderson, I believe" as the city staff at a meeting at the Smoky Hill Museum. Benson, asked who attended the museum meeting, began his list with "Leslie Bishop, Brad Anderson."

Herrs said that at the museum meeting, the city raised the possibility of amending the sign code and told Howard to file a permit application. He testified that he gave Howard the city's written sign analysis "when we met at the Smoky Hill Museum. I believe I did if I remember correctly."

Anderson recounted what Howard said: "why can't you just let me paint what I want to paint. This is my vision and this is my dream for The Cozy Inn, and Colin has captured what I wanted to say. And you've got art all over town."

"He was very passionate about this work," Anderson said.

Monday, Nov. 13: The City Commission

At the Nov. 13 City Commission meeting, Schrage told commissioners that staff "met with Mr. Howard and his artist this morning." He said "staff's contact with him was not intended to be enforcement, per se, with a violation citation, but just agree to pause on proceeding with the project until we can sort through the codes." Driscoll said staff had asked Howard for time to research, "and he said that that was fine."

"I will say we have not issued a violation notice," Driscoll said. "We simply called and asked for a brief pause so we could research and asked for a meeting. That is the sum total of it." She added that "Mr. Howard did drop off his permit along with his application fee." (Document CI-11)

Document CI-11: Nov. 13, 2023, commission transcript: "we have not issued a violation notice" and Howard's permit drop-off. Doc. 105-5 at 42 — Nov. 13, 2023, commission transcript: "we have not issued a violation notice" and Howard's permit drop-off. Doc. 105-5 at 42

In the pretrial order, the city also said that "Unbeknownst to the City, Howard had already contacted the Kansas Justice Institute on November 11, 2023 to ask about representation in this case." The institute represents The Cozy Inn and Howard.

Feb. 8, 2024: The hold

Herrs testified that "when it came in, it was essentially put on hold because we couldn't approve it." Andrew testified that the application was placed on hold "When it was received." Asked whether the city code discusses procedures for placing a sign permit on hold, Andrew said, "It does not." Asked whether Howard consented, he said, "No. Because he already knew we couldn't approve it."

Asked who made the determination to place the applications on hold, Herrs, testifying for the city, said, "It was -- honestly, it was kind of just an assumption. Like nobody actually said we need to review this, because everyone knew that we couldn't approve it." Asked whether the city sent Howard any other written notice that his applications were on hold, Herrs said, "No. We thought we were of a common understanding from our verbal conversations that we were going through a comprehensive review of the sign regulations."

On Feb. 8, 2024, Michelson sent Howard a letter saying the city "will be placing your Certificate of Compatibility application and your sign permit application on-hold until our review of the sign regulations is complete." The letter described the sign permit application as "dated November 15, 2023." Howard said in his declaration that he submitted it on Nov. 13. (Document CI-12)

Document CI-12: The city's Feb. 8, 2024, letter to Howard placing his applications on hold. Doc. 105-27 at 2 — The city's Feb. 8, 2024, letter to Howard placing his applications on hold. Doc. 105-27 at 2

Michelson testified that Driscoll told him to place the applications on hold. "To clarify, I didn't place the permits on hold," he said. "This letter I was told to communicate what was happening." Andrew testified that Driscoll "instructed it."

"I did not consent to Salina placing my application on-hold," Howard said in his declaration.

The lawsuit and rulings

The Cozy Inn and Howard sued on Feb. 19, 2024.

On Nov. 19, 2025, Crouse ruled for The Cozy Inn and Howard on two of their three claims. He wrote that Salina had not offered evidence that would lead a reasonable juror to conclude Howard "voluntarily agreed to an indefinite hold of his permit application." The appeals court affirmed on Friday.

Anderson is not a party to the case.

Salina311's coverage of Friday's ruling: https://www.salina311.com/stories/2026-10-30-federal-appeals-court-rules-for-cozy-inn-in-salina-mural-case/

Documents referenced

All documents are filed in Cozy Inn, Inc., et al. v. City of Salina, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, No. 6:24-cv-01027-TC. Page numbers are the court's filed-document page numbers.

CI-01: City of Salina's responses to the plaintiffs' first set of interrogatories, verified July 12, 2024, Interrogatory No. 1. Doc. 105-24, page 4.
CI-02: Deposition of Lawrence Bradley Anderson, Sept. 12, 2024, page 40. Doc. 109-6, page 3.
CI-03: Deposition of Lawrence Bradley Anderson, Sept. 12, 2024, page 43. Doc. 109-6, page 5.
CI-04: Deposition of Lauren Driscoll, Sept. 10, 2024, page 34. Doc. 109-11, page 2.
CI-05: Transcript of the Salina City Commission meeting, Nov. 13, 2023, transcript pages 13-14. Doc. 105-5, pages 14-15.
CI-06: Amended pretrial order, the city's contentions (filed as Doc. 101 on Jan. 16, 2025). Doc. 109-3, page 14.
CI-07: Screenshots of text messages between Steve Howard and Colin Benson, Nov. 6, 2023 (Howard Deposition Exhibit V). Doc. 109-7, pages 15-17.
CI-08: Screenshots of text messages between Steve Howard and Colin Benson, Nov. 7, 2023 (Howard Deposition Exhibit V). Doc. 109-7, pages 18-19.
CI-09: Email from City Manager Michael Schrage to the mayor and city commissioners, "Cozy Inn Wall Sign," Nov. 8, 2023. Doc. 105-18, page 2.
CI-10: Colin Benson social media post, Nov. 9, 2023 (Benson Deposition Exhibit C). Doc. 109-10, page 1.
CI-11: Transcript of the Salina City Commission meeting, Nov. 13, 2023, transcript page 41. Doc. 105-5, page 42.
CI-12: Letter from planner Dustin Michelson to Steve Howard, Feb. 8, 2024. Doc. 105-27, page 2.