Saint Paul council refers MFK Enterprise license case to administrative law judge after repeated license-condition violations

The St. Paul City Council voted to refer a Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) request for adverse action against MFK Enterprise — doing business at 830 Robert Street South — to an administrative law judge for a formal hearing, after staff described repeated license-condition violations going back to 2018.

Department of Safety and Inspections staffer Teresa Scarda told the council the department recommended a $1,000 matrix penalty and revised license conditions after complaint inspections in May, October and November 2024 documented vehicles parked in the right of way, exterior storage of tires and rubbish, evidence of vehicles being worked on outside an enclosed building, and hazardous-material concerns. "The request from DSI is to impose the thousand dollar matrix penalty and the new license conditions," Scarda said during her staff report.

Scarda summarized the license history presented to council: a 2018 resolution imposing a $500 matrix penalty that was stayed for six months pending no same-or-similar violations; a 2020 adverse-action resolution in which council similarly imposed and stayed a $500 penalty; and later notices tied to violations observed in July 2023 and spring–late 2024. Scarda also described reinspection reports from October and November 2024 that photographed vehicles parked in the roadway, motor oil and rubbish outside the premises, and a vehicle on jack stands with missing parts.

Licensee Mo Kia spoke under the five-minute opportunity the council provided to the licensee. Kia said his operation consists of two small dealerships sharing one location and that the businesses are licensed for ten cars each. Kia said he "admit[s] the fact" of some findings but disputed that all observed items were his businesses' responsibility, asserting some vehicles that inspectors photographed were not his and that contract trash and oil pick-up arrangements exist. "We do have a license for repair, but we don't do too much repair," Kia said. "We have a barrel inside the garage that we save the used oil, and they come and pick it up. We have no reason to leave the oil outside." Kia also said the site has been in operation for about 25 years.

Council members and staff discussed whether facts were admitted. Council members expressed concern that Kia's remarks, which included questioning some factual findings, meant the council should allow a full evidentiary hearing. Council member Johnson asked for the timeline of prior resolutions and violations; Scarda explained how the penalty-matrix and time-outs on prior violations affect the current recommended matrix level.

Council President moved to refer the matter to an administrative law judge for a hearing to allow fact-finding before deciding penalties. The council adopted the referral motion unanimously. The clerk announced the vote: "7 in favor, none opposed; the resolution is adopted as amended." The council did not impose the $1,000 matrix penalty at the meeting.

The action effectively pauses any monetary sanction by the council itself and sends the record, evidence and questioning to an administrative law judge who will take testimony and issue findings and a recommendation back to the council. Inspector names and internal DSI reports cited by staff were identified in the packet as evidence supporting the department's recommendation.

The council record shows multiple past resolutions and notices related to the license; the notice of violation giving the licensee until Feb. 20, 2025, to respond was referenced during the staff report. The council's referral preserves procedural due process while allowing a full hearing on contested facts.

The council's action does not itself change the license conditions; any penalty, condition revision, or adoption of DSI's recommended conditions will depend on the ALJ's hearing and subsequent council consideration.