PUBLIC UTILITIES: ELECTRICITY – LIGHT & POWER: DELINQUENT BILLS: 

Municipal utilities must use reasonable methods to compel payment for services and utility 

service may not be disconnected other than for good cause. Op. Atty. Gen. 624c-4 (Nov. 2, 

1938) superseded. 

624c-4

(cr.ref. 624d-5)
John T. Shockley 

May 16, 2019 

Page 2 

Courts in other states have discussed the methods municipal utilities may or may not use 

to enforce the collection of fees or utility charges. As you noted in your letter, the South Dakota 

Supreme Court held that a city wrongfully disconnected electrical and telephone service for 

nonpayment of garbage collection fees because garbage collection was a collateral matter. See 

Owens v. City ofBeresjord, 201 N.W.2d 890, 893 (S.D. 1972). Similarly, the Nebraska Supreme 

Court held that a city could not attempt to force collection of garbage fees by disconnecting 

water service. See Garner v. City ofAurora, 30 N.W.2d 917, 921 (Neb. 1948). On the other 

hand, the California Supreme Court held that, where a city used a single bill for municipal 

services (water, sewer, and garbage collection), the city did not violate due process by 

terminating all municipal services for failure to pay the garbage collection portion of the joint 

bill. See Perez v. City of San Bruno, 616 P.2d 1287, 1296-97 (Cal. 1980). The court cautioned, 

however, that "when a statutory or legislative scheme utilizes a means to reach its end and which 

is unduly harsh or exacts a penalty which may be deemed oppressive in light of the legitimate 

objections sought to be achieved, it may be held to be violative of constitutional due process 

guarantees." Id. at 1297. 

A Minnesota Attorney General opinion from 193 8 opined that a village providing water, 

heat, and electricity, all billed on one statement, may adopt a regulation allowing for 

discontinuance of any and all services for delinquency of one service. Op. Atty. Gen. 624c-4 

(Nov. 2, 1938). While Attorney General opinions are given careful consideration, they are not 

binding. Village of Blaine v. lndep. Sch. Dist. No. 12, Anoka Cty., 138 N.W.2d 32, 39 (Minn. 

1965). Given the substantial development of the law since 1938, regarding consumer protection, 

entitlements to provision of gas, electric, and water service, and the reasonableness of 

terminating services for nonpayment, this Office is not confident that the 193 8 opinion remains 

an accurate legal analysis and expressly overrules it. 

Ultimately, whether enforcement of a city ordinance that allows for disconnection of a 

utility service based upon nonpayment of another service is unreasonable turns on specific 

questions of fact and the construction of any local ordinance or resolution implementing the 

enforcement method. The Attorney General does not render opinions that require making such 

factual determinations or construing the meaning of terms in local ordinances or resolutions. See 

Op. Atty. Gen. 629a (May 9, 1975). You did not supply a specific ordinance, rule, or regulation 
John T. Shockley 

May 16, 2019 

Page 3 

implementing the enforcement method you discussed in your request. Given the breadth of the 

municipal services established in your inquiry, however, we do not believe that the law allows a 

municipality to disconnect utility service for nonpayment of the varied and unrelated municipal 

services stated in your letter. 

Enclosure: 

114479693-vl 

Sincerely, 

KEITH ELLISON 

Attorney General 

1'�4£t>' 

KATHERINE HINDERLIE 

Assistant Attorney General 

(651) 757-1468 (Voice)

(651) 297-1235 (Fax)

Op. Atty. Gen. 629a (May 9, 1975) 

Op. Atty. Gen. 624c-4 (Nov. 2, 1938) 
MINNESOTA LEGAL REGISTER 

MAY, 1975 Vol. 8, No. 5 Page 22 

Opinion, of the Attorney General 

Hon. WARREN SPANNAUS 

ATTORNEY GENERAL: OPINIONS OF: Proper subjects 

for opinions of Attorney General discussed, 

Thomas M. Sweeney, Esq. 

Blaine City Attorney 

2200 American National Bank Building 

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 

In your letter to Attorney General 

you state substantially the following 

FACTS 

May 9, 1975 

629-a

(Cr. Ref. 13) 

Warren Spannaus, 

At the general election in November 1974 a proposal to 

amend the city charter of Blaine was submitted to the 

city's voters and was approved. The amendment provides 

for the division of the city into three election districts and 

for the election of two council members from each district. 

It also provides that the population of each district shall 

not be more than 5 percent over or under the average population per di-strict, which is calculated by dividing the total 

city population by three. The amendment also states that 

if there is a population difference from district to di-strict 

of more than 5 percent of the average population, the charter commission must submit a redistricting proposal to the 

city council. 

The Blaine Charter Commission in its preparation aqd 

drafting of this amendment intended that the difference in 

population between election districts would not be more 

than 5 percent over or under the average population for 

a district. Therefore, the maximum allowable difference in 

population between election districts could be as great as 

10 percent of the average population, 

You then ask substantially the following 

QUESTION 

Docs the Blaine City Charter, as amended, permit a 

maximum population difference between election districts 

of 10 percent of the average population per district? 

OPINION 

The answer to this question depends entirely upon a 

construction of the Blaine City Charter. No question is 

presented concerning the authority to adopt this provision 

or involving the application or interpretation of ·state statutory provisions. Moreover, it does not appear that the 

provision is commonly found in municipal charters so as 

to be of significance to home rule charter cities generally. 

See Minn. Stat. § 8.07 (1974), providing for the issuance of 

opinions on questions of "public importance."* 

• Minn. Stat. § 8.07 (1974) lists those officials to whom

opinions may be issued. That section provides as follows:

The attorney general on application shall give bis opinion, in writing, to county, city, town attorneys, or the 

attorneys for the board of a school district or unorganized territory on questions of public importance; and on 

application of the commissioner of education be shall 

give his opinion, in writing, upon any question arising 

under the laws relating to public schools. On all school 

matters such opinion shall be decisive until the question 

involved be decided otherwise by a court of competent 

jurisdiction. 

See also Minn. Stat, §§ 8,06 (regarding opinions to the legIN THIS ISSUB 

11■.,Jeet O•• lfe, 

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Opinions Of, 

629-a 5/9/76 

COUNTY: Pollution Control: Solid Waste, 

125a-68 5/21/76 

In construing a charter provision, the rules of statutory 

construction are generally applicable. See 2 McQuillin, 

Municipal Corporations § 9.22 (3rd ed. 1966). The declared 

object of statutory construction ls to- ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Minn. Stat. § 645.16 

(1974). When the words of a statute are not explicit, the 

legislature's intent may be ascertained by considering, 

among other things, the occasion and necessity for the law, 

the circumstances under which it was enacted, the mischief 

to be remedied, and the object to be attained. Id. 

Thus, an interpretation of a charter provision such as 

that referred to in the facts would require an examination 

of a number of factors, many of which are of a peculiarly 

local nature. Local officials rather than state officials are 

thus in the mo·st advantageous position to recognize and 

evaluate the factors which have to be considered in construing such a provision. For these reasons, the city attorney is the appropriate official to analyze questions of the 

type presented and provide his or her opinion to the 

municipal council or other municipal agency. The same is 

true with respect to questions concerning the meaning of 

other local legal provisions such as ordinances and resolutions. Similar considerations dictate that provisions of 

federal law generally be construed by the appropriate 

federal authority. 

For purposes of summarizing the rules discussed in 

this and prior opinions, we note that rulings of the Attorney 

General do not ordinarily undertake to: 

(1) Determine the constitutionality of state statutes since

this office may deem it appropriate to intervene and defend challenges to the constitutionality of statutes. See

Minn. Stat. § 555.11 (1974); Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 144;

Minn. Dist Ct. (Civ.l R 24.04; Op. Atty. Gen. 733G, July

23, 1945.

(2) Make factual determinations since this office is not

equipped to investigate and evaluate questions of fact.

See, e.g., Ops. Atty. Gen. 63a-11, May 10, 1955 and 121a-6,

April 12, 1948.

(3) Interpret the meaning of terms in contracts and other

agreements since the terms are generally adopted for

the purpose of preserving the intent of the parties and

construing their meaning often involves factual determinations as to such intent. See. Op. Atty. Gen. 629-a, July

25, 1973.

(4) Decide questions which are likely to arise in litigation which is underway or is imminent, since our opinions are advisory and we must defer to the judiciary in

islature and legislative committees and commissions and 

to state officials and agencies) and 270.09 (regarding opinions to the Commissioner of Revenue). 
23 

MINNESOTA LEGAL REGISTER 

Published monthly and containing all Opinions 

of the Minnesota Attorney General 

Pnbll�bed by The Progrees-Regieter 

200 Upper Midwest Bldg., Mlnne11,polls, Mn. 66401 

Sold only In combination with The ProgressRegister (weekly) at $15.00 per year In Minnesota.. Out-of-state $16.00 per y{'a.r. Payable 

In advance. Binder and Index aervlce Included, 

Second-cla.aa poatn.ge paid at Minneapolis, Mn. 

such cases. See Ops. Atty. Gen. 519M, Oct. 18, 1956, and 

196n, March 30, 1951. 

(5) Decide hypothetical or moot questions. See Op. Atty.

Gen. 519M, May 8, 1951.

(6) Make a general review of a local ordinance, regulation, resolution or contract to determine the validity

thereof or to ascertain possible legal problems, since

the task of making such a review is, of course, the responsibility of local officials. See Op. Atty. Gen. 477b-14,

Oct. 9, 1973.

(7) Construe provisions of federal law. See textual dis•

cussion supra.

(8) Construe the meaning of terms in city charters and

local ordinances and resolutions. See textual discussion

supra.

We trust that the foregoing general statement on the 

nature of opinions will prove to be informative and of 

guidance to those requesting opinions. 

WARREN SPANNAUS, Attorney General 

Thomas G. Mattson, Assist. Atty. Gen. 

MAY, 1985 
'') 

·,,r_

\ \ 

,: 

.) .,�

:r �� 

,, '-.S)

----.j �-

INDEX: Villages •- Water and light depa.rtment - services ... _ 

Disoontinuance o� service for failure to pay tor same. 

Kr. He.l:l.man. Sokoohat 

Tillage Attorney 

Ool.eraine, H.innosota 

Dar 31r: 

Thia will acknowledge reeeipt ot yov le�ter to 

A'l.torney General. ··,1111&& s. 1�2: .. ,in wb.eroin 7ou ato.t.e u4 

laqulre: 

•sltlUl.ticll: 'l'lle Tillage wnter, 11.&ht, •'••

• s�eioa me11• the 'three tollowl .... rT1eeMa 

$11:Ne 

(1) .. ter, {I) heat, a.ad (S) •l.atri•l'T• TM

11- are billed on oa.e e\a�a,, alt •"CJl

1, :e4 aepuatelJ'. Coanaer, 1n oar .... ,

,-,-. 'Q kla n.ur aad elaieU'i.el,7 1Ja 1"11l.l.1 lea.Y111& tu hM.\ •.u.ra•• unpa.14. a.a \he • laalea tlNoall.JIM •1 '-lier ot t.11• eta• ••"ri. •••

(Witter or:.eleolr101,7) �ou ado»,1oa et no.ti a 

r11l.lag u 1- •� ,he �ea\ 1� not pa1�t" 

Jdaa. SYS, ou- S.,reae Oou-\ llel4 \.t:.st; a -.miolpall'7 •7 

a6Dp, reaaoD&llle rul,■ u• r-s'!!l.a\lou lo ea.tore• _p�t 

et •M%'�•• ror •�•� aenl••� r .. Acred ,� •ODaWrs 7 t..11• 

..aieipal.l\7. 

Ille AN or POW8ll Ye City or Dlll•'-ll• 91 JliJul. N, , .. 

o-liga,10 oa, par, of lh ooa .... r a n••1Ye &Jltl par

ror atak ••rTl••• re•�• lll)Oll oon,rae1i a.JUI. it tile -'-aof. ot 

enrore ..... � ot P•JJ18•t f'•r n er::;.op�•4 by tu ...,.1•1• 

pa11,7 1• reaaopllle ud. no" proh11t1�ry he eoanaar nit• 

JNt■ alaa•ll '-o \ho nil.es alld. regal.atioaa o� ,he auaielpal.lt7 

pertailliq to aueh JU'thol ot pay:aea1.. 
Ua4•r '.b.• ru1• laid down 'by our Supr ... Oour\ 1D 

\Alt abo•• reterre4 1lo eaaea 1 we are ot the oplDloa i1:1at 

■a14 water and 118.b.t oc:aa1aa1on -T adopt a regul ,1on

prondlag that wh&DeY•l" &llJ of t;lle obarpa tor ••rd .... 

t.rniehe4 by the water an4 llgh\ 4epar'-ta, of-.. Yillap 

NOCNM telhqueat an7 or all 01 ��oh aenl••• -1 N laeon•laae4 uatU •11 oon■umar p 7■ auoh 4•11nqueat �ill••

You alao 1aq_u1r• a 

•;.rou:!.4 it make MJ' 41tterttno• if, wbaa l••• 

the.a�• ,o,a1. 4ue oa t.ll• •--1••1 ••

ett.. te11•nt 1• pa:l4• it the r elp' wre aarlce4 

'pe.Jllll.e•t OD ••ooUAt' Ulllt •• or ,...,_., 1a 

t\111 for water an4 eleotr1el\J ,o ____ 

,,�

It tlae oomaiea1onll\op,a a re \tl t1iln prn14� t 'i 

.... t.bli onarge tor any or the •-nioe■ tlll"niahed ,. • OOD• 

et � •....-le•• aa7 b• 41aaont 111ae4 uatil th• •oar&•• �-=•tu 

m ,-ta.· ,.. lt•lleT11 t.bat '-• oo-s•�iga• • riebt �a ,1.., 

B7 

Yours Yery trul.J 

WILLIAM n. ;�IN 

A•tor••� Genaral 

»WIQHS.' N. lOHNSOK

I'■ wou.14 DO'C 'be 

$peoial .:.aaiatail't .·� t\orAeJ Oen•ral.