Judiciary & Administration Committee - Regular Meeting

Thank you for your patience. All right. It is Tuesday, September 1st, 2026 at 6.04 p.m. I will call to order this meeting of the Judiciary and Administration Committee. We have all members present in council chambers except for Crystal Bedford, who is excused. For new business, we have 26-0788, various license applications pursuant to chapters 4, 6, and or 10 of the La Crosse Municipal Code for license period 2026-2027 in September. Any questions of staff? Just a minor clarification. Clerk Ellison, I know the item was revised and they're struck through on the CITCO license. The motion can just be made to approve, right? Okay. All right. If there are no questions, then I need a motion. You can raise your hand for a motion. Council Member Stein, speak your motion. Move to approve. Motion to approve by Council Member Stein, second by Council Member Podeski. We don't have our computers, so I'm gonna take it a little bit slow so our clerks can take minutes. All right, any discussion? Seeing none then, the motion on the floor is to approve subject to compliance. All right, please vote by saying aye or thumbs up. Maybe stick your hands up so we can help Lindsay get the vote.

Six yeses, that is approved.

26-0799, certified survey map for property located at 1325 St. Andrews Street in the City of La Crosse, tax parcel 17-10289-040, owned by Stizo Development LLC, in request for dedication of right of way and waiver of platting requirements. This was approved at City Plan Commission. Seven yeses, one recusal, recommended for approval by staff, including the condition that all engineering department requirements have been met. Did I get that right, planning? I think so. Thank you. Any questions? All right, if there are no questions, then I will need a motion. Council President. Motion to approve. Motion to approve as stated. Second by, excuse me, by Council President Dickinson. Second by Council Member Stein. Any discussion? Seeing no discussion, the motion on the floor is to approve with the condition as I stated. Please vote. And that is unanimous. 26-0821, an ordinance to amend section 18-64, parent B of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Crosse regarding the adoption of regulations of Wisconsin Administrative Code and National Fire Protection Association Fire Protection Code. Sponsored by Mayor Washington Spivey. This is recommended for approval. Any questions of staff? Sure. Do we have a staff overview of this item? For our and the public's awareness, Chief Schott is coming on up.

Thank you, Councilmember Mindell. This is more of a procedural matter. The state has taken its time with its recommendations on how they follow the NFPA code. There's been several upgrades. Unfortunately, the state has gotten a little behind. The good part about all this is that we are in line with what they mandate us to do, which is public fire inspections and certain private dwellings and businesses. So we're trying to just stay on pace with what they require us to do. I think the only thing that is significant about this is that technology has changed quite a bit in the last 10 years, decades, specifically with the energy, solar related. All the devices that we use with the lithium ion powered batteries have changed the game in terms of storage, how things are electrified, and just I think we're going to see an increase in issues with that as we move forward. But this helps us out a little bit in enforcing those codes, and it's just a recommendation by our division chief of Community Risk Management, Bijon, he has governance over this as the arm of my authority, and he recommended this directly to me.

Excellent. Any questions? Council Member Trost? So would you say that the public would know about this when some of your staff come in and do these inspections, these safety inspections?

Yeah, this would be a direct relationship to that. So everything that we use in software related to actually go in the field with our tablets and perform these fire inspections contains this information from the NFPA one code book so that all of the new things that we continue to find and cause, unfortunately, fires in the city like lithium ion batteries, when we see these types of hazards, we now have the ability to be a little bit more educational about what we have because it does contain that, but also just informative in the way that we go about our business, that we have better standards in place that have caught up to the technology that we see out there.

Any other questions for Chief Schott? Okay, I see none. Thank you, Chief Schott, for the explanation. Thank you. We appreciate it. All right, then I'll take a motion. Council President. Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt by Council President Dickinson, second by? Council member Weston, any discussion? All right. Seeing no discussion, the motion is to adopt. Please vote. And that is unanimous. 26-0833, an ordinance to amend subsection 115 to 110 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of La Crosse by transferring certain property from local business district to the single family residence district, allowing for the property to be converted to a residential unit with a garage and workshop on the first floor of the building at 616- St. Cloud Street. This is listed for public hearing, unanimously approved at city plan commission, recommended for approval by staff. Are there any questions? No? Okay. Let me just make sure. We have one person who is here in support, does not wish to speak, available for questions. Anyone else in the audience want to speak? Okay, then I believe I do not have to open public hearing if there is no one here, but we do have that noted for support on the record. Sure, Council Member Podeski.

I was just gonna make a motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Council Member Podeski. Thank you, second by Council Member Dickinson. Any discussion? All right, seeing no discussion, the motion on the floor is to adopt. Please vote. And that is unanimous. And thank you for being here. 26-0866, resolution approving amendment to stipulation regarding alcohol license for Odd Fellows Temple, LLC, doing business as Ruthie's. This is sponsored by Councilmember Kalo. Do you have questions for staff on this item? Yes, just an explanation?

Yeah, can we just get an explanation?

Yeah, Clerk Ellison, is that you or whomever is, could be?

Yeah, this was initiated or facilitated by Attorney Atterbury, but I think I can explain it well enough. So if you may recall that back in May, I believe it was, the city stipulated that with the Odd Fellows. They had not completed their remodel and had not opened within 90 days, which is required by our ordinance. So we stipulated giving them 90 days to open, which I believe is September 1st or October 1st. They are asking for additional time. Attorney Atterbury worked with them and drafted this stipulation, which both she and the Odd Fellow Temple member agreed to, so it's before you for approval tonight.

All right, so it sounds like staff recommend approval. Yes, that is correct. Okay, thank you, Clerk Elson. Any questions of staff? Yes, Council President, go ahead.

Don't know if it's exactly a question, but it does say that if they don't have it open by October 30th, then they have agreed to surrender or agree to a replication of their application. So do we know what's delaying them is my real question.

It's my understanding, just through the whole process, it's taking a lot longer, and there were some construction setbacks. I don't know all the specifics, but that is my understanding, and you are correct. In the stipulation, it does state that if they do not open by October 30th, the license is automatically revoked. There is no opportunity for hearing. It would automatically revoke.

Okay, thank you, Clerk Elson. Any other questions? If not, I'll take a motion. Council Member Podeski.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make the motion to approve.

Motion to approve by Council Member Podeski, second by Council Member Stein. Any discussion? All right, I see no discussion. The motion on the floor is to approve. Please vote. That is unanimous.

All right, moving on.

I'm actually going to ask for unanimous consent to move 26-0935 up. Oops. We still have one more. Okay, I'm going to wait for that, but now you have a preview for what I'm going to ask you. 26-8094, a charter ordinance to amend various sections of the Charter of Municipal Code of Ordinances of the City of La Crosse regarding the appointment of various department heads. Sponsored by Mayor Washington Spivey. We have attorney Maddie ready to address the body.

So this legislation does three things. First of all, you made a prior decision to separate the finance director from the HR director, so this codifies that. Your ordinance did not say that previously. It also eliminates the lacrosse center manager, which you decided to eliminate previously. So in that regard, it's a housekeeping legislation. I was also instructed to write this legislation so that there's a one-year probationary period for all department heads. And the final issue, too, is it also creates the transit director to also be a for-cause employee after the probationary period.

Thank you, Attorney Maddie.

Questions?

Sure. Why are we doing this now?

I was instructed to put the legislation together, and it's in front of you.

It's just that charter ordinances are apparently a big thing, and so we have to be sure we really want to do them.

Attorney Maddie, remind me. So these positions are appointed by the mayor, subject to confirmation. Who oversees the probation period?

Not all positions are appointed by the mayor. So my position, for example, is appointed by the city council. So if there's a decision to, if you hire a future, if you appoint a future city attorney and you decide that within the probationary period that you want to let that person go, you would have to follow the statutory procedure in 17.12, and what that requires you to do is you as a city council would have to, by affirmative vote, three-fourths affirmative vote, you can then remove that person at pleasure, and all that entails, meaning you don't have to have any charges or require a hearing.

And as a follow-up, why are some, I know you've been here for, many years. So wondering if you have the background knowledge as to why some are appointed by the mayor and some are appointed by the Common Council.

The default rule under state statute is that all positions are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the council. And then it's home rule authority. You can decide which ones are, you want to elevate to a different position. I think off the top of my head, city attorney and finance director are appointed by the council. You have other positions that were appointed by governing bodies, such as the, a transit board, and used to have the aviation board used to a point, but you changed that one recently. So you do have some holdovers. Park board, I think, is another one. So it's all over the place. Other than historical accident, that's the best I can tell you. All right, thanks.

Any other questions? Yeah, Council Member Sleznyko, go ahead.

Attorney Matti, for removal of a department head from a position, whether it's after a probation or after that in a determined amount of time, what type of vote is required by the Common Council?

For a department head, a department head is considered a city officer. That's what requires 17.12 to apply. 17.12 says if you're removing somebody for cause, that's a three-fourths affirmative vote of the City Council. if it's appointed by a different governing body. So for example, if you adopt this legislation and you decide to remove a new transit director during a probationary period at pleasure, then the appointing authority, the transit board at that point could remove that position. I think that's the two-thirds vote, two-thirds supermajority vote. So there's different rules for different positions and different appointing authorities.

And if I could just follow up, when you said the three-fourths vote, is that by state statute or by a cross ordinance? No, these are by state statute. Thank you.

Sure, Councilmember Trost. So why are some department heads part of this charter ordinance and some department heads not included in this charter ordinance? And it seems like, I can think of three. Is it except for library, police, and fire? Is everyone else here?

Right, so library is not in here. So library is still considered a city officer. That library director can be removed by the appointed authority, which is the library board, with a supermajority vote, or for cause, again, and that for cause would come before you with a supermajority vote. The police and fire are governed by state statute. That's the police and fire commission. You cannot change that at all.

And so is this everyone else? Is this all of our directors now?

As I understand it, yes.

I was trying to think of if there's one I'm missing, but okay, all right, thank you.

And so I think this is pretty clear, but sometimes in local governments, when a new elected is voted in, like a mayor or a county exec, they change their cabinet completely. This structure does not allow for a mayor to be elected and then to just like reappoint department heads.

This is based off of the, a department head under this ordinance, if you enact these ordinance changes, the person would have to be within that one year window to remove that pleasure, regardless of who, and then depending on whatever mayor is in office at that time, may or may not have the ability to do so, depending if the mayor was the one who made the appointment or not. The same would apply for any governing body. So if that governing body makeup changed, you could have a different governing body that appointed somebody. We've had, for example, there's been mass resignations of governing bodies here. And there's even been a, there's a state case from what, the 1940s, where the entire police and fire commission of La Crosse quit and had to be reappointed. So there's circumstances where that could apply, not only the scenario that you identified with a new mayor. Okay.

Those are good questions and dialogue. Any other questions? Sure, Council President.

So since this is charter, will it eventually require nine votes at the council level?

Yes.

Sure. I would like to move this forward to the full council without a recommendation from us because it is a charter ordinance change. So that's what I move.

Okay, that's a motion to refer to next week's council meeting with no recommendation. Second, made by Councilmember Trost, second by Councilmember Podeski. Any discussion? All right, I see no discussion then. The motion on the floor is to refer to next week's council meeting with no recommendation from this body. All those in favor, please raise your hand, hold them up for vote. That is unanimous. Thank you. Now I'm going to ask for unanimous approval to move 26-0935 up one, so we're basically just flip-flopping them, Is there any, and that's strictly because of hearing procedure. Okay, I see no objection, therefore that is approved. So, let me get another document out. Okay, so we are going to take up both items together. 26-0780935 first. And I am going to switch gears a little bit, and we are going to serve as the Administrative Review Board and Judiciary Administration Committee. Any questions? Okay. Yeah, I will read both. I'll read the first item number first. So the first item, 26-0935, appeal of TAC Citgo Inc., doing business as Citgo on state, regarding the denial of application for cigarette, tobacco, and electronic vape device license at 1914 State Road. Okay. Please note the committee and or council may convene in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin Statute 19.85, parent 1, parent 8, to deliberate its decision. Then we'll take up, secondly, 26-0780, application of tax at go doing business as sitco on state for a Class A liquor license and Class A beer license at 1914 state. And also the same note for closed session. Okay, thank you for letting me get that out of the way. Today, the Judiciary Administration Committee will be hearing two matters in one hearing. So again, specifically 26-0780, the application, and 26-0935, the appeal regarding the denial of application for cigarette, tobacco, and electronic vape device license. With regard to the alcohol license, the Judiciary and Administration Committee will be making a recommendation to City Council on whether to grant the requested alcohol license. Since this is a request for a new license, there is no right to a contested hearing. The City Council will make the final decision next week. With regard to the tobacco vaping license, the Judiciary Administration Committee will be making a decision as an administrative review board on the application of the denied license.

Here, the administrative review board's decision will be final.

Since the matter concerning the tobacco vaping license provides certain due process rights, the Judiciary and Administration Committee will meet first as the Administrative Review Board, and then afterwards it will take up the alcohol license matter and recommendation. Okay, so this administrative review hearing is considered a contested evidentiary hearing between the two parties. This means that this governing body will be making a decision based upon the evidence presented tonight. This is not a legislative decision. There is no right to public participation at this hearing. The public is free to observe the proceedings. Each party will be provided the opportunity to present evidence for its case. A witness must be sworn in before providing testimony. Each side can be presented by legal counsel of its choosing. Each side can cross-examine witnesses of the opposing party. At the end of the evidentiary hearing, the parties may argue their position before this governing body, before it deliberates. This body will deliberate in closed session, and it is likely that this governing body will adjourn today and reconvene another day in order to issue its written determination. The Administrative Review Board has 20 days to issue its decision. All right, now I'll ask for... administration of the oath. I'll have attorney Maddie here administer the oath. For those of you who will be providing testimony tonight, please stand and raise your right hand. All right, thank you. You may be seated. Okay, the appellant, you may proceed with your presentation of evidence. And if you could, state your name and who you represent. Yeah. And you will come right up to the podium. There's a little button that looks like a person speaking. Press that.

All right, you may begin. Hello, council. My name is Christine Taylor and I'm the sole owner of Taxsitco Incorporated doing business at Sitco and State. I come here today to appeal the denial of the tobacco and vape license and to consider my application for my liquor license. I have recently lost my job as a high school art teacher of 22 years due to CPS budget cuts in Chicago. When this happened to me in late July, my whole world shifted. Over the 19 years my family has run Sitco and State, and I would often visit, my family told me one day I could possibly take it over when they retire. Due to several circumstances and my parents' willingness to retire, the opportunity to take over presented itself earlier rather than later. I absolutely love La Crosse and its people, and I have fully planted my two feet here to run the store. I promise, alongside my new agent Sheila Woodman, to run the store and follow all the rules and regulations set forth by Wisconsin and the City of La Crosse. I have one other person I want to hire, but I cannot hire her without the money made from tobacco. So I respectfully ask permission to grant me at least the tobacco license so I can begin to finally run the store and have new employees. Thank you.

Is there any cross-examination? All right, so Attorney Wertheimer will come up, provided cross-examination. Sure, you can sit there for that.

Okay. So I have a couple of questions. So first, your parents are Indris and Margaret Chigurh, correct? Yes. Okay. And you're familiar that they lost their cigarette and alcohol license in June?

Yes.

Okay. So I guess I'll start with, you stated that you, and I apologize, but you stated that you lost your job in late July, correct? Okay, so I guess the first thing I would like to ask you is when you submitted your second appeal, you included a lease agreement with your mother And that lease started on July 1st. Okay. So why did the lease start on July 1st?

I mean, I'm not sure why it was set for July 1st. Maybe that was just a mistake on my mom's end.

Okay. So... So I'm going to show you the lease. This was part of your second appeal. And I'm just going to show that to you. That should be on Legistar. So I'm just going to show that. That was signed by you on July 1st. Is that accurate?

Yeah, but I... Yes.

So...

I mean, I could have signed the lease, but it doesn't mean that I have another place in Chicago, but I'm not going to be living there. I will be living here. I swear to you that I am going to be living here.

So I guess my question is, were you supposed to live here? Why is there a discrepancy there between...

I don't know why it wasn't put for August 1st. I don't know why.

Okay. And so you also, I guess I want to kind of go through the timeline of some of these applications. So were you familiar with your mother's application at all after the license was not renewed?

my my mother's application before before in july um yes she did tell me about that and they realized that they just want they just were tired of it too you know like i they want me to succeed and they want me to go forward with this And I know they tried, of course. They didn't even tell me for a while. I didn't even know. But I found out about everything, you know. But I am fully going to be here running the store. Okay. And, you know, that's all I have to say.

So when you... created this TatGo SitGo LLC. Were you familiar that that was the day after your mom's application was rejected?

I wasn't aware of the timeline, no.

Okay. And so you created the LLC, and then two days later, you already signed the lease for the sit-go.

Well, yeah, we wanted to get it going just so, I mean, I lost my job. I wanted to get it going. We just wanted to get it going because I didn't know what I was going to do either.

And all of that was in... Late July as well, correct?

Around maybe mid-July.

Okay.

It was like, I don't know, I'll have to see when my principal called me, but yeah.

Okay. And then I guess I have one additional question for you. Yeah. Has Indorus or is Indorus' other name Tony? Does he go by Tony?

Yes.

Okay. Has Indorus been involved in any of these applications?

No.

Okay. Um, so in your Excuse me one second. In your first appeal to, of the clerk's decision.

Yes.

You sent some emails. Yes. To Ms. Elson, do you recall? Yes. Okay.

Yes, but I don't have them in front of me because.

Did you ever communicate with Tony about those emails?

No.

Okay. So I'm going to show you this one.

I don't think so.

Okay. So I'm going to show you this one. This is also on Legistar. And I'm going to go, this is going to be at the bottom of page four of the application that should be from 8-24. and I'm just going to point you at the bottom right there for an email that was sent on August 13th at about 1 p.m. Who did you send an email to? Do you see that?

Yeah, but what is this from? This is just to show him what I think it was. What was this for?

So this is your appeal.

Yeah.

And so you were at some point communicating with...

He's my stepdad, okay? So I know he made a mistake, okay? He's my stepdad. There's no denying that. I'm... Yes, he's still involved in my life. I'm not cutting him off. But just because I've sent him this does not mean he's a puppet for me. I am my own person. I am ready to run this business. I know it's strange. The circumstances are odd. But I am ready. I'm really ready. I'm here. I'm taking a huge risk. I'm putting both feet.

Christine, we'll give you the opportunity to be able to respond. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

You're good. You're good.

So, okay. And then, I guess, so I just, I want to also make sure, I know you changed the agent from your original application due to some concerns. Right. I assume he is not, so Isar Khan, I don't know how to pronounce his name.

Yeah, Sam.

Sam. So he's not involved in the running, correct?

No, no, and no.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure of that just to make clear for the record. That's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay, so I believe, Christine, you can respond.

Well, I think I already have responded already, but... Yes, I know everything that's happened. I know it seems strange, but I have moved here. I have fully committed. I've told everybody in my life that I'm moving to La Crosse. I put all of my eggs in one basket to move here. I will run it. I'll run it right. Tony is not in charge of me. And I'm going to listen to him for some things, of course, because he knows a lot of things, but I am, as I learn, but I know that I am responsible for this business. And I'm the one that is in charge. So, but I'm not here to hide anything or that's not what I'm doing. I am here.

Quickly, Attorney Matti, we can ask questions during cross-examination, right? Or when? Yeah, like if the committee has questions, when's the right time? Okay. Does anyone on the committee have questions before me? Okay, Councilmember Podeski.

Well, thank you for wanting to invest in La Crosse. I do appreciate that. The question I have then is, are the employees going to be all new, yourself and new employees?

So it's going to be me. It's going to be Sheila. It's going to be this girl, Meredith. I think Tony will help just on the outside, and he's just going to slowly transition me to become fully operational. But yes. There's going to be new employees.

Okay.

And I just want to hire one more. I need to have that. I just want to have at least tobacco so I can bring her here. But it's all going to be women.

Nothing wrong with that.

Right.

I'm surrounded by some strong ladies up here myself, so no problem with that.

I guess my other question would be then, you do realize that as fast as you can get a license, it can be taken away again.

I do understand. Okay. I 100% understand. Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions? I have a question.

The City of La Crosse has a set number of licenses and our responsibility is to ensure that the licensees are stewarding the licenses. And so our job is to make sure that we are keeping our citizens safe. And so the revocation of Sitco was really recent. Yes. It has been a big safety concern and hazard for quite some time. And so where I'm at is I guess I'd like to hear from you. The revocation obviously went through. It's been just a matter of months. Why should we entrust you with a license at the same establishment with such a bad and unsafe record for our citizens that elected us?

I know that I could run it safely. I know that... lessons were learned and I know that my family wants to protect me and make sure that I am safe. And I know that it is very important to keep the community safe and I will do everything to make sure that we are carding everybody, we are making sure that nothing is going on that is illegal. I know that there's been issues, but I know that I can run it correctly, safely, and make sure that the community is good, there's nothing wrong.

And as a follow-up, and I appreciate you answering these very forward, blunt questions, because we are entrusted by our constituents to keep it safe, and so we have really high responsibility. So if Tony is still going to be somewhat involved, even in the transition, you know, like Tony and Sam allowed illegal items to be sold. No, no.

So how do we know? I will 100% not allow that. That will not happen.

Because it's just really hard for me to know that you will still have communication and he will still have some, even peripheral, because this person violated the rules.

Do you know what I mean? Well, it's not going to happen under me. It won't. I'm going to have new... I'll have my Meredith there, I have Sheila. Tony's very protective of me and doesn't want me harmed, even though, you know, he's made some, but I know that I will run it right, I will run it correct, and it's my name, it's not his. So, I'm definitely, Tony is not going to be completely gone in the beginning. But he is going to transition. I mean, he's not going to be... I just know that it will not happen. I will make sure it's not happening. I'm in charge. So it will slowly fade out. They are going to retire. Tony does love the store. But, you know, it's... It's time, you know, for me. And he wanted it to be for me before. And my mom did. So it's just about the timing. And I know it seems weird and it is strange, but it is what it is. Sure. Do you have a follow-up?

One last follow-up. So what will you do if you do not get this license granted? What kind of items will you be selling at the store? Will it change?

I mean, it'll be very hard. We're going to just do the basic, the minimum. I won't be, we'll be just breaking even probably. I don't know if I'll be able to hire another person. So, you know. just the chips and the drinks. And there's no food, so no hot food. I mean, maybe I could appeal for hot food, get a license for that. I don't know.

So currently you guys just sell non-alcoholic beverages. Yeah. Do you sell any other items?

There is some other items, but there's the novelty pipes, of course. And there are the butane tanks, I think. And sometimes I think you can sell, I know it's like close to not selling, you're not supposed, you can still sell it, but the nitrous too. Okay.

And just out of curiosity, do you sell like toiletries or other? gas station.

Yes, there's toiletries, there's food, there's just like packaged foods and things of that nature. But it's just so far like the novelty pipes and things like that. But there's no no pills or anything like that. Okay.

Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. I have a few, a series of questions. Yeah. How much time have you spent in lacrosse overlapping while this business was previously owned?

How much time have I spent in lacrosse as just in, uh, between this time?

Nope. Since, I mean, I hear you, um, you're moving here now you want to own this business. Have you spent time in lacrosse previously? Yes. And how much time was that?

Oh God. months. I mean, I will be here in the summer. I'll come out in the summer, stay with my family. I get three months off. Well, I'm not going to get that anymore. But I used to come a lot, yeah. And that's why I say I do love La Crosse a lot. I mean, it's beautiful here.

So my next question is less about the previous. Well, my next question is, have you purchased? I haven't looked at real estate transactions. Okay, so I haven't purchased anything.

No, that's what he was saying about the lease. There's a house that my mom has. They were going to maybe retire in that, but they don't like it as much. So I'm going to be living there as well. You know, I'm renting it from my mom.

The store?

No, no, no.

Have you purchased the store?

No, no. The store is not purchased.

So who owns the physical store?

Bulk Petroleum.

Okay.

So we just do business on the inside.

Got it. So my question is, as you've spent time here, although there was a whole lot of information that came out after the decision about the revocation happened. So it was not part of the decision. But the general outpouring of public commentary about how long that business had been a problem was significant. And so I'm actually less worried about your stepdad or your mom than I am about the regulars who are expecting a certain level of legal or just off the books legal activity and i'm curious about what your plan is is to nip that in the bud well there's gonna be a lot of uh disappointment but um

There are certain things that people like about the store, too. I mean, there is a community part of it that Tony has made to make it fun. But I mean, I don't know about all of the issues that have gone exactly with everything. I've just heard of what's happened before. I'm gonna be in there. So he will have to listen to me. I mean, this is, I mean, like you said, that they can be revoked. So if I'm not doing it right, revoke me. Any other questions from the body?

Sure, Councilmember Trost.

So do you own the business? I own TAC, yes.

And I have... What does TAC stand for?

Well, Tracy and Chrissy. That's my sister.

Is that a new name?

Yeah. My sister's name is Tracy. Okay. And so that was MEMA Enterprises? That was what it was before, yes.

And now it's TAC. Yes.

And so you bought MEMA from them? No, no, I purchased, I have the inventory here and the report and everything. So it has been purchased.

So did MEMA Enterprises go away?

Yes, it's gone.

Okay, and now it's TAC.

Yeah, well, yeah. Okay.

Okay.

I'm still transitioning, I'm getting, there's still a lot of things I have to do. Yes.

Apparently my mic was still on. Councilmember Podeski and I kind of border. We all sort of like converge at this spot. I've gotten neighbors mentioning that they're buying like bicycles, like motorbikes at the store.

So, okay. It's not motor, it's... It's not motorbike, it's e-bike. Yeah, it's motor, but it's an e-bike. It doesn't go faster than 15 miles per hour, I don't think. Okay. Yeah, they're not really fast.

So if you don't, so I'm just trying to think about like the ways you have to adjust the business for not selling alcohol and tobacco. So you're having to be pretty creative. Okay. Any other questions from the body? Attorney Matti, can you check me on this? Do we offer cross-examination again, or do we ask for conclusions? Okay. Okay. So hopefully that you've heard that, Christine, but I'll just state it because we're recording. So at this point, you are able to present any further evidence, respond to any questions or things you heard from Attorney Wertheimer.

Do you have any other? I know I'm taking on a big job, and I know that it won't be easy to like Ms. Trost was saying, excuse me, Ms. Weston was saying, how I'm going to address those changes. But I really believe that even though there's been things, there's still community and people that care. And I think that I will make sure that people are safe. I want to help. I mean, I'm an art teacher. I've been an art teacher for 22 years. You know, I wanna, it's nice to own my own business. I know it's not gonna be easy, the transition, but you know, I think I, for the straight and narrow, I think I can do, I really think I can do it. And it's my name, you know, this is on me. It's not on Tony, it's on me. All right. Christine, do you have any, have you concluded your case? Yes, I'm good.

Okay. Thank you. And if you could just hit that little person button. Thank you. And Attorney Wertheimer, yeah, go ahead.

I may have misunderstood.

Do you have additional evidence and witness to speak? Yeah. Come on up. Just turn that button on. State your name.

Sheila Woodman. I applied as agent to help her be a representative in the town and help at the store. And I haven't physically read the report, but there was something about police contact or something in regards to me that was a concern that was brought up. I went down to the police station to request a copy of all my records to try to see what they're talking about, because I've never had any charges or anything in the past. But I haven't gotten that back yet. So, I don't have any questions.

Oops, I keep unmuting myself. Okay. I believe, Attorney Gideon, then you can cross-examine.

Sure. I guess a little bit of the concern is, well, let's start with, you had, I would say, foster kids living with you at points, correct?

For seven years.

And so police would occasionally be called to your residence with regard to issues with them. Is that accurate? Sorry, you're going to – because we are recording. Yes, that would be accurate.

I would call the police on numerous occasions to assist with the safety of the minor children in my home.

Okay. So I – And then with some of those foster children, they received pretty serious charges at points. Is that correct? Okay. Including felony charges.

Confidential, obviously.

What?

Confidential, obviously. Yes. In regards to them.

Including what would be felony charges, I would say, if they were committed by an adult. Yes. Okay. Maybe, yeah. So I guess the issue, I guess, do you have confidence that, you know, obviously there were some issues that happened at your residence with what could be considered serious charges, being able to control what could be problematic behavior that occurs at Sitco?

I feel that I'm fully capable of maintaining any form of dangerous situation. If I need to call the police for help, I would certainly do so.

Okay.

Whether it's for a child, an adult, an elderly person, or a dog, you know, if I need help, I'll ask for it.

Okay.

So, okay, yeah, that's all I have. So, Sheila, you can respond. You kind of did, but you can further expound on any of that if you'd like to provide context.

Well, any form of police contact I ever had was because I called for them to help me with some very high-risk teens that I had taken in over a period of seven years through the county. I no longer do that, I stopped doing that as of December. I have a four-year-old nephew, a three-year-old niece, and a nine-week-old niece that now live with me instead of teenagers. So it's been much more quiet at home. If you can imagine that being quieter.

So, yeah. So happy to have questions from the body, but would you say that any past I guess what we're trying to get to is whether you have suitability to serve in this capacity and make sure that you assist in the responsibility of a license. Do you feel like you can do that? Oh, yeah. Definitely. Any questions from the body? All right. Anything else you wish to share as part of evidence?

Okay.

All right. Thank you. All right, so my understanding then, Christine, is this concludes your case. Okay. Okay, so thank you both very much. We know that this is a new, maybe uncomfortable. We get it. We understand. We appreciate your time. Now I'll have the city proceed with its presentation of evidence.

City calls Sergeant Mandahano. Sergeant, can you just state your name and spell it for the record, please?

Yeah, Sergeant Danny, D-A-N-N-Y Mandujano, M-A-N-D-U-J-A-N-O. And how are you currently employed? I'm a sergeant with the La Crosse Police Department, specifically assigned to the Investigative Bureau Neighborhood Resource Officer Program.

And how long have you been with the police department? Coming up on 12 years. And how long have you been in your current position?

I was a neighborhood resource officer for five years and then a supervisor for coming up on six months.

Are you familiar with the business Sitco? Yes. Are you familiar with them?

Multiple occasions, several compliance checks that we conducted over the last alcohol license a year, as well as other random bar checks as well.

Okay. And the previous business, just to hurry it along, but we did an alcohol non-renewal and CTV revocation with them in June, correct? Yes. Okay. And that was with Memma Enterprises. Yes. And the owners of Memma Enterprises were Andrus Shigarin and Margaret Anderson Shigarin. Yes. Okay. So are you familiar with after we, after this board didn't renew those licenses, what occurred after that? Yes. Okay. So I'm just going to kind of hand you some documents and we'll kind of go through them. So after that first non-renewal, do you know what Memma Enterprises attempted to do?

Yes, they went to a sale agreement of the business to Ms. Taylor.

Sorry. So the incident on July 6th was a share? Oh, yeah. Okay.

Yeah, so Tony, the original owner, transferred ownership to Margaret.

Okay. And then Margaret asked for a CTV license?

Correct.

Okay. Okay. And then that CDV license was denied, correct? Yes. Okay. And that was denied on July 23rd? Yes. Okay. The next document in there is the formation of the new LLC tax sit-go. What date did that happen?

July 24th.

Okay. So the day after the original denial? Correct. And then that new LLC was with Ms. Taylor as the president? Yes. Okay. When did she then sign a lease for the premises of where Sitco is right now?

Two days later on the 26th.

Okay. So and then when was this application for a CTV license submitted?

The next day on the 27th.

Okay. So we have the denial on the 23rd and then a new license application four days later? Yes. Okay. um so the other uh documents in there um that i guess i'm gonna ask you about is do you that original application had uh Mr. Kahn as the agent, correct? Yes. And that was concerning to you?

Yes, it was concerning to me just because Mr. Kahn or Sam was present during our compliance checks with the Department of Revenue where the illegal substances were located. He was behind the counter and did admit to selling those to people for $7 under the direction of Tony.

Okay. And the timeline of all those incidents, you do have a timeline in front of you in terms of how all these incidents occurred, correct? Yes. Okay. So I'm then going to just kind of ask you, why are you concerned, I guess, about these license applications?

Yeah. So the police department doesn't necessarily have a specific stance or recommendation on what this body should do. What we want to do is provide you guys with the facts that we have And then also just give you some of our concerns in looking for specific answers from the new owner of this. So, we're looking if there has been a genuine, actual change of ownership and operation for this business. Like we kind of talked about, and as you guys can see in front of you, the timeline in front of you seems to be very convenient. The individuals involved, we talked about Mr. Kahn being an agent and the concerns that go with him. And then also with Ms. Woodman as well. I can provide a little more context on that specifically here in a little bit. But our biggest concern or question that we want answered is, okay, we do have a transfer of ownership, but is this business or the individuals reaching for straws just to keep the business here? Or are they actually going to make changes and what are those changes going to be? So that is what we're trying to answer here or ask.

You're a little concerned about the quickness of the timeline. Correct. Is that correct? Okay. And then you were mentioning about some of your concerns with the new agent, Ms. Woodman. What are some of those concerns?

Yes. So I just want to be clear that this is my personal experience. This is not hearsay. I've dealt with Ms. Woodman's residence as well as her personally. So I just want to make that clear that I'm not doing any speculation or hearsay on this. I believe Ms. Woodman is a very kind, heartfelt person. She took in troubled kids. For foster care, I frankly could never do that myself, so I give her all the props in the world for that. However, when we are talking about running a business, we do question, you know, does the person that is going to be the agent possess the characteristics that, you know, should help with a successful business. I think over the last five years, since 2020, over at Ms. Woodman's residence, there have been 50 calls for service, specifically with the police department. With that, like we kind of talked about before, there have been criminal activity going on that we were concerned about. But my biggest concern is Ms. Woodman's ability to oversee employees. We talk about fostering children and guiding them and mentoring them. I'm sure she tried her best and did so very well, or tried so very well. But I remember sitting outside of Ms. Woodman's residence for 30 minutes waiting for her to come to the door because we had issues going on at her house. I remember waiting for over an hour after calling her, saying, hey, we are out with one of your foster children. We need you to come here and pick her up. And we waited for an extended period of time. So if she was unable to do this with children, what's to say that she is going to be able to do this with adults? Like I said before, I believe that Ms. Woodman is a very kind and caring person, but when you're in a supervisory management role, you do have to possess certain characteristics and qualities, and I don't believe she does.

That's all I have. So just, well, actually, so the documents that we were talking about, that's all in front of you. And I would submit those. Some of those are on legislature. Some of the other ones aren't. But I'll submit that to the body. And that's all I have.

So then. We can invite cross-examination if you'd like. And that means that you can respond to the questions that were presented or provide context or reasoning for the actions or the facts presented.

I mean, I understand your concern. I do know that it will take some work. But regarding Sheila, I know she's a very nice person, but that doesn't mean she can't help out and run a business. Just because she's a kind person, that doesn't make you weak. She had many kids in her house. She probably bit off more than she could chew. But running a business is totally different than having some foster kids in your house. I don't think that means anything to me. I'm also a nice person, but I'm also pretty strong. I mean, I've worked in Chicago public schools for 22 years. So I know kids. I know high school kids. And I think kindness and being gentle, you don't want to be exactly their friend, but you need to know that that there is some understanding with these children or these kids or these people that are having trouble. And Sheila knows a lot about kids that are in trouble. And maybe some of our clientele are those kids that need help, that need somebody to listen to. And I understand that there might have been some things. Maybe. I don't know. I wasn't in the store. I don't know every single thing about that. But I do know that I will make sure that the kids are safe.

Christine, can I, just for clarification, some of the comments made, some of the items presented to be addressed was first the genuine change in ownership Is the owner reaching for straws? And what will the legitimate changes be?

I understand. I 100% understand. And it is strange. But it is true that I lost my job. I mean, it's crazy. And they didn't tell me about all of it right away. But they didn't know until I told them. And then they were like, okay. let's do this, you can do this. And I'm excited about running it and I'm going to get their help a little bit, of course, but I'm gonna run it correctly. And like I said, I'm not, they are, I'm not going to lie that they're not my parents, you know, like that's silly.

Can you speak to the quickness of the turnaround? So the denial, so transferring ownership to Margaret, Margaret requesting the license, the license being denied, you becoming the owner and then submitting a new request.

Well, they, you know, right. I mean, they realized that they didn't want to lose it. They didn't want to give what they've worked for for 19 years away to not a family member or anything. They were worried. I mean, they're of retirement age. I mean, my mom's 77. Tony's 70. It is time. I know it seems odd. I don't know what else to say. I mean, it is what it is. I'm fully in.

That's all. And then the other question I think to address is for Ms. Woodman. I think the point is, so again, everything that we're asking is based on the responsibility of the license. So Sheila, could you address that? If it took you over an hour to respond to something illegal happening, what can you say to us to make us feel like we would approve a license where you would be stewarding this responsibility?

I don't know that he was saying I didn't respond to something that was illegal happening. He was saying that he called me and it took me an hour to get to the child that was in question. I'm not 100% sure without looking. Like you said, multiple police calls over a multitude of children. So I'm not sure which situation he's speaking on. Sometimes you can't just stop in the middle of what you're doing and show up immediately. Okay, so if there was... So I'm not sure what the scenario was, and I don't think we could legally even state the exact scenario at this point. Okay. When it came to the kids, I would drop everything and go straight to whatever I needed to get to. If it... I don't know. He said he was waiting outside my house. I'm not sure what the nature of that is.

Either in a situation there has been many...

that can't be spoken due to confidentiality reasons, which could have prevented me from getting to a door in order to prevent a self-harm situation. I'm not sure, okay? Sometimes you can't just leave a person alone in a situation and walk away, even to open a door, if that makes sense. And being responsible for another person's life, I take very seriously. So if that was the scenario, I'm not sure, again, because there's many, okay?

Sure.

But I couldn't just leave and open the door for that.

Okay, so I think we answered the questions that were asked. Thank you. So I'll turn it back to Attorney Wertheimer.

I mean, I have nothing else, I guess, because you asked them questions if the body has any additional questions for Sergeant Mandahano.

Okay, I believe we do.

Consular patrols? Just clarification. So was, is it MEMA or MEMA? Yes, it's MEMA. MEMA, okay. So MEMA Enterprises was originally owned by both of your parents. And then in July, it was switched to only be owned by your mother. And then a couple days later, it was switched to be you with a different name. Is that correct? That's the order of the business transition? And so MEMA has gone away? Yes.

That is correct. Yeah. Okay.

And so neither of your parents are part of TAC?

No. No, it's just I am the owner, the sole owner. Okay. Okay.

Thanks. Other questions for Sergeant Mondahano? Yeah.

Yeah. Do we issue a license to a business or a person?

But that's a question for you.

Do you know the answer? I think that Claire Gelson could probably explain that a little bit better than I can. I can tell you, but she knows better.

Is Claire Gelson allowed since she's under oath right now in a different role?

Yes.

Got it. OK. My apologies. Any further questions for the current witness? OK. I see none. And Attorney Wertheimer may have accidentally asked questions during your cross-examination. Do you have any other cross-examination?

I have no more questions.

OK. Does that conclude your, I guess I should ask, Attorney Matti, do I need to ask if the city concludes their case or catch me up here?

I'll call Clerk Allison. Got it. Okay.

Thank you. Do you have any other witnesses? Yes.

Clerk Allison, can you state your name and spell it for the record, please?

Nikki Elson, N-I-K-K-I-E-L-S-E-N. And how are you currently employed? I'm the city clerk.

How long have you been the city clerk?

Six years.

Okay. Well, I guess the first question I would have is, can applications be given to both individuals and businesses?

Yes, licenses can be issued to both individuals or businesses. It depends on how they apply.

Okay. For the record, you are the administrator, the municipal authority who denied this application, correct?

That is correct, for the cigarette, tobacco, and electronic vape device.

Thank you for clarifying. And that was partially, I guess, based off discussions you had with the police department, correct? Correct.

Yes, in review of the application and discussion and documents provided by the police department.

Okay. And the documents on Legistar with regard to this case are the documents that you received from Ms. Taylor with regard to the application, correct?

Yes, there are some redactions to some of it, but otherwise they are the identical documents submitted.

Along with your responses to those submittals?

Yes, correct.

Okay.

That's all I have for Clerk Elson.

Is there cross-examination? Are you speaking about what was redacted?

Mine? What was redacted was redacted by the city clerk's office. We usually redact any personal identifiable information. So for example, one of the documents you submitted was your driver's license. Yes. We redact personal identifiable information on that. We also have started redacting emails and personal phone numbers. So when I mentioned the redaction, that was done by the clerk's office before they're attached to the electronic file.

Okay, thank you.

Attorney Wertheimer, anything else?

No.

And you have no further evidence to present and no further witnesses?

That is correct.

And so you have concluded your case, is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay. Does the applicant or the appellant wish to provide a closing argument?

Yes. I feel like I've said a lot already, but I know I'll do good. I'm going to do my best. And I will be, like I said, I mean, I'm not going to be alone for a little while, but I have three women that are going to help me. Sheila, Meredith, and myself. And there will be some help in the beginning for transition, learning how to do it, and helping out. And my mother and my stepfather are retiring, and that's all I have to say. And I am here. I will be here, and I will make sure that the city is safe, the children are safe, and I'll do my best. Thank you. Thank you.

Does the city have any further, excuse me, does the city wish to provide a closing argument?

Yes. So ultimately, it's up to you whether you want to approve these two licenses. I think I... I just gave you the information. I guess some of the concerning things that I myself have to do a little bit with the truthfulness. I am concerned first, I guess, just with the whole history of the transition here and whether it is a full clean break from the problematic Issues with the with her parents. I hope it is, but it is concerning that while first they attempted to basically. And when I say they I mean, her mother tried to eliminate. her, I believe, stepfather from the from Memma Enterprises by just selling a stake, though they're married. So I don't even know you could do that. And then literally when that was rejected the next day, they create this LLC and have the have a brand new lease. So obviously Memma Enterprises is canceled their lease in two days. And so then there was a new lease with Tatsuko. So that is concerning. The other concerning thing here is obviously in one of her appeals, it does appear like she was emailing Tony or Inderus, which again is concerning that he is still involved in this given the multitude of issues that – were spoken about in June. I was also concerned with her answers to, I'm pretty sure it was my first question, which was she signed a lease for her house with her mother on what appears to be July 1st, and yet she was not terminated until late July. And I don't know quite the answer for that. misconception there. So there are some concerns kind of about truthfulness and a clean break from the past. And it's up to you what you want to do with that. With Ms. Woodman, it does I do have some experience in my previous position with some of her foster kids. I think sometimes it is kind of biting off a little bit more than you can chew. I think that was a statement that was made, and I think sometimes that is maybe what happened. I do appreciate that she was willing to take in foster kids, especially some of them who are troubled or were troubled. But it is a concern about helping run the business that Sergeant Mandahano talked about some of the not timely answers and the waiting that he had. Ultimately, it is up to you though, whether they are appropriate for these two licenses. And that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, attorney. So this governing body will deliberate in closed session pursuant to Wisconsin State Statute 19.85 , while acting within its quasi-judicial capacity. We will not return to open session, so that means we will adjourn the meeting from closed session, so you do not need to wait here. Attorney Matti, can you clarify how they'll be, sort of the next processes for the appeal and the application?

So the next step will be, you will be deliberating, and then for the Administrative Review Board, we need to have a written decision, so I will have to need time to put that together for you. There will be a subsequent meeting where you would then review that document, I prepare for you, and then you decide whether it's ready to be adopted or not. And we have a time frame to do that within a certain period of time. Given the posture of everything here, we're trying to get that all resolved before next week's city council meeting since everything appears to be all part of the same evidence, the same course of conduct, the same. So we're trying to get it all done in that time. I don't have a specific timeline at this point or a specific date.

Okay, thank you. I just want to clarify that for the folks who may be waiting. All right. Then may I have a motion to go into closed session? Motion by Councilmember Weston. Clerk Ellison, do we have to each say aye? Voice vote for closed session. All right, there's a motion. Do we need a second? Do we have a second? Council President Dickinson, can I have a show of hands? Those who say aye. One, two, three, four, five, six. Got it. Okay, that is unanimous. We will go into closed session. Thank you all. We will take five minutes for a restroom break, yes.