PUBLIC UTILITIES: COMMISSION STATUTORY CITIES: City council is not authorized 

to delegate operation and management of telephone and cable television services to utility 

commission. Op. Atty. Gen. 624a-3, May 7, 1968, superseded. Minn. Stat.§ 412.351. 

624a-3 

November 2, 1998 

Paul J. Sandelin 

Crosslake City Attorney 

308 First Street 

P.O.Box 298 

Pequot Lakes, MN 56472 

Dear Mr. Sandelin: 

Your letter addressed to Attorney General Hubert H. Humphrey III, dated January 13, 

1998, �!ates the following 

FACTS 

The City of Crosslake is a statutory city of the fourth class that owns and operates its own 

telephone company and cable company. The city has adopted an ordinance that created a loca: 

utilities commission to manage and operate the telephone company and cable company. The 

commission establishes written policies to govern the day to day operations, but the city council 

retains general supervisory authority over the commission. The city council is now considering 

other options regarding the management and operation of the telephone and cable companies. 

The city's goal is to create a commission that would be independent of the city council. 

Then you ask the following 

QUESTION 

Does the City of Crosslake have the authority to create a utilities commission to manage 

and operate the Crosslake Telephone and Cable companies independent of the City Council? 

OPINION 

We answer your question in the negative. Except to the extent otherwise provided by 

statute, governance of the affairs of the city is vested in the council. See e.g0, Minn. Stat. 

§§ 412.111, 412.221, 412.241, 412.271 (1996). Caselaw, and prior opinions of this office havee

uniformly held that, absent specific statutory or charter authority, local governing bodies may not 
delegate their powers and duties calling for the exercise of judgment and discretion to other 

persons or bodies. See e.g., Muhring v. School District No. 31,244 Minn. 432, 28 N.W.2d 655 

(1947); Minneapolis Gas and Light Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 36 Minn. 159, 30 N.W. 450 

(1886); Ops. Atty. Gen. 1007, July 8, 1977; 1001-a, September 13, 1950. 

While there does appear to be authority for a statutory city to own and operate telephone 

exchanges and cable television services, 1 

we are not aware of any statutory provision authorizing 

the delegation of the authority to operate such city functions to a board or commission 

independent of the supervision of the city council. 

It could be argued that the council may delegate such operation to a public utility 

commission established pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.331 et seq. Unlike advisory boards and 

departments created at the discretion of the council to assist in management of city affairs, such a 

commission has substantial authority to operate the public utilities placed under its jurisdiction, 

independent of council control. See Minn. Stat. § 412.361-412.371. Ho,vever, while telephone 

and cable services would seem normally to fall within the term "public utilities," Section 

412.351 expressly limits the "public utilities" that may be placed und.::r the jurisdiction of the 

commission as follows: 

The council shall, in the ordinance establishing the commission, decide which of 

the following public utilities shall be within the commission's jurisdiction: (I) the 

city water system; (2) light and power system, including any system then in use or 

later acquired for the production and distribution of steam heat; (3) gas system; 

(4)esanitary or storm sewer system or both, including the city sewage disposale

plant; (5) public building owned or leased by the city; (6) district heating system.e

As used subsequently in s,:ctions 412.51 to 412.391, the term "public utility"e

means any water, light and power, gas or sewer system, or public buildings thuse

placed by ordinance under the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission.e

It is a general rule of statutory construction that "where a statute enumerates the persons 

or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others." Maytag Co. v. 

See e.g., Minn. Stat.§§ 237.19, 238.08, 412.014, 465.70. 

2 

1 
Comm'r. of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460,463, 17 N.W.2d, 37, 40 (1944). See also Lilly v. City of 

Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); A/AL, Inc. v. City of Faribault, 569 

N.W.2d 546 (Minn. Ct. App., 1997). 

Inasmuch as neither telephone nor cable television service is listed in section 412.351, we 

must conclude that management of those services may not be vested in a utility commission. We 

are aware that in Op. Atty. Gen. 62 4a-3, May, 7, 1968, this Office opined that a village council 

was authorized by Section 412.351 (1965) to delegate operation of a television transmission 

system to the village utility commission. However, we have reviewed the wording of Section 

412.351 as it existed in 1965 and in 1967, and cannot discern the statutory basis for that 

determination. Nor does the opinion itself supply any explanation of the process whereby that 

conclusion was reached. Consequently we do not find the pre"ious opinion persuasive, and 

supersede it to the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion. 

Very truly yours, 

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY III 

Attorney General 

KENNETH E. RASCHKE, JR. 

Assistant Attorney General 

3