|
|
OAH 58-6020-20910-3 |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE
|
In the Matter of the Minnesota Currency Exchange License of New Money Express, Inc., d/b/a New Money Express, Inc. |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION |
The above matter came on
for hearing before Administrative Law Judge
Virginia D. Palmer, Assistant City Attorney, appeared on behalf of the City’s Office of Safety and Inspections (DSI).
Alice Gunderson, manager for New Money Express, Inc. (the Licensee), appeared on behalf of the Licensee.
Prior to hearing, the City Attorney learned that the two persons who had filed objections to the license renewal would not appear at the hearing. Given the absence of any testimony in opposition to renewal, DSI, through the City Attorney, took the position that there was no basis for denial of the application. The matter was submitted on DSI exhibits relating to the application and the testimony of the Licensee’s manager.
Should the currency exchange license of New Money Express be renewed?
Based on the evidence in the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Licensee has held a currency exchange license from the Department of Commerce (the Department) since at least 1999.[1] On September 25, 2009, the Department informed DSI that the Department had received applications to renew certain currency exchange licenses located within the City.[2] On October 5, 2009, DSI notified the Licensee it had received the Department information about the Licensee’s renewal application. DSI further informed the Licensee that the City had notified various neighborhood organizations about the renewal application. The notice to these organizations gave those organizations until October 20, 2009, to object to the renewal.[3]
2. The City received two letters objecting to renewal of the license. The first, dated October 13, 2009, argues against licensure of check-cashing establishments such as the Licensee.[4] The second is undated and criticizes the policy of allowing check-cashing establishments such as the Licensee to operate in the neighborhood. The letter further alleged that the Licensee’s parking lot has loiterers and vendors, as well as large amounts of trash.[5] Both letters are unsigned.[6]
3. At hearing, the manager for the Licensee testified that the Licensee does not allow loitering or sales of goods in the parking lot. Trash is not allowed to accumulate in the lot.[7]
Based on these Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1.
The St. Paul
City Council and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction in this matter
pursuant to St. Paul Legislative Code §§ 310.05, 310.06, and 381.02; and Minn.
Stat. § 14.55.
2.
The City of
3.
The City of
St. Paul has given proper notice of the hearing in this matter, including
proper notice in accordance with the requirements as set forth in Minn. Stat. §
53A and Sec. 381.02 of the Legislative Code of the City of St. Paul.
4.
Sec. 381.03(b)
of the St. Paul Legislative Code provides, in relevant part, that the following
constitute grounds for disapproval of an application:
(1) Violation of any provision of the state currency exchange
law contained in Chapter 53A.
(2) Any one (1) or
more of the reasons, conditions, or standards for adverse action under section
310.06 of the Legislative Code.
….
(4) (ii) The
existing currency exchange has caused significant adverse consequences or
impacts upon the neighborhoods within three hundred (300) feet of the exchange.
5.
Under section
310.01 of the St. Paul Legislative Code, “adverse action” against a license
means "revocation or suspension of a license, the imposition of conditions
upon a license, the denial of an application for the grant, issuance or renewal
of a license, the imposition of a fine, the assessment of the costs of a
contested hearing, and any other disciplinary or unfavorable action taken with
respect to a license.” It includes “disapproval of licenses issued by the
state under statutory provisions which permit the governing body to disapprove
the issuance of the license.”
6.
Section 310.06(b)
of the Code provides, in relevant part, that the council may take adverse
action against a licensee or applicant based on one or more of the following
reasons:
….
(6) a. The licensee or applicant (or any person whose
conduct may by law be imputed to the licensee or applicant) has violated, or
performed any act which is a violation of, any of the provisions of these
chapters or of any statute, ordinance or regulation reasonably related to the
licensed activity, regardless of whether criminal charges have or have not been
brought in connection therewith;
….
c. The licensee or applicant (or any person whose conduct
may by law be imputed to the licensee or applicant) has engaged in or permitted
a pattern or practice of conduct of failure to comply with laws reasonably
related to the licensed activity or from which an inference of lack of fitness
or good character may be drawn.
(7) The activities of the licensee in the licensed activity
created or have created a serious danger to the public health, safety or
welfare, or the licensee performs or has performed his or her work or activity
in an unsafe manner.
(8) The licensed business, or the way in which such business
is operated, maintains or permits conditions that unreasonably annoy, injure or
endanger the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable
number of members of the public.
7.
The record
does not demonstrate any violation of ordinance or statute justifying adverse
action against the license of the Licensee.
8.
Because the
record demonstrates no violation of ordinance or statute, there is no legal
basis for adverse action against the license of the Licensee.
Based upon these Conclusions, and for the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
Based upon these Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge recommends that: the City Council renew the currency exchange license of New Money Express, Inc.
Dated: November 5, 2009
s/
|
LINDA
F. CLOSE Administrative
Law Judge |
Reported: Digitally
recorded
No
transcript prepared
This report is recommendation, not a final decision. Under the St. Paul Legislative Code Section 310.05 (c)(c-1), the City Council will provide the licensee the opportunity to present oral or written argument to the city council before it takes final action. The parties should contact the St. Paul City Council to determine the procedure for presenting argument.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 53A.04, the St. Paul City Council is required to forward its approval or disapproval of the license application to the Commissioner of Commerce of the State of Minnesota for the Commissioner’s approval or disapproval. If the renewal application is denied, the Commissioner shall mail notice of the denial and the reasons therefor to the applicant. The applicant, upon denial, may request a further hearing as provided for in Minn. Stat. § 53A.04(b).
As required by City ordinance, this matter was scheduled for hearing based on written objections to the renewal of the license.[8] However, the letters are unsigned and their authors did not appear at hearing to testify. The letters have no probative value, under the circumstances. The record lacks credible evidence that the Licensee allows conditions on its premises to adversely impact the neighborhood. The ALJ concurs with the position of DSI that there is no basis to deny re-licensure or take other adverse action against the license.
L. F. C.
[1] Ex. 1-1.
[2] Ex. 2.
[3] Ex. 4. Ex. 6 is a copy of the letter sent to the neighborhood organizations.
[4] Ex. 9. The individual requested that his/her identity not be revealed, and the City Attorney agreed to removal of the signature from the letter, which is why it is unsigned.
[5] Ex. 10. This writer also requested anonymity, and the City Attorney submitted the letter unsigned.
[6] See Ex. 9-10.
[7] Testimony o fAlice Gunderson.
[8]