Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />June 4, 1999 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />opinion, if a utility fund is under the exclusive control of the public utilities <br />commission, there can be no legal transfer of the fund to the city's general fund <br />absent an agreement between the commission and the city pursuant to g 412.361, <br />subd. 5. See Op.Atty.Gen., 624-A-6, Aug. 16, 1955. This opinion dovetails with a <br />later opinion wherein the Minnesota Attorney General opined that a city council cannot <br />unilaterally interfere with the operation and management of utilities by a utilities <br />commission. See Op.Atty.Gen., 469-8-6, Feb. 18, 1957. <br /> <br />The above-mentioned sections further the public policy of assuring that any utilities <br />commission operates independent of city council political pressures. No doubt, this <br />is why no more than one commission member may be chosen from the city council: <br />this limitation serves as a further check on the city council and reaffirms the fiduciary <br />duty owed by each commissioner to the commission, the underlying utilities, and the <br />customers. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />With regard to the management of utility operations, a joint-management position <br />directly conflicts with the above-cited provisions and numerous Minnesota Attorney <br />General opinions. Under the aforementioned g 412.361, subd. 5, the "commission <br />shall have power to enter into agreements...on...relationships between the commission <br />and the council." However, based upon our initial research, any such agreements are <br />limited to contracts with third-parties and matters other than management of the <br />utilities and jurisdiction. For example, a council and commission may enter into an <br />agreement regarding the installation of a replacement street lighting system. <br />Op.Atty.Gen., 624-C-3, June 2, 1955. <br /> <br />Yet a council and a commission cannot enter into agreements transferring the <br />management of a utility from the commission to the council. Such an agreement would <br />violate g 412.391 which governs the transfer of a commission's jurisdiction over a <br />given utility back to the council. Under g 412.391, such a transfer can occur only if: <br />1) 1 5 percent or more of the electors voting in the last city election petition for an <br />election on the question of transferring the jurisdiction over the utility from the <br />commission to the council; and 2) a majority of voters in the election vote to transfer <br />jurisdiction over the utility from the commission to the council. In short, jurisdiction <br />over a given utility can be transferred from the Commission to the City Council only <br />by election. Accordingly, any joint-management position would violate g 412.391; for <br />any such position necessarily would take jurisdiction from the Commission and <br />combine it with authority from the City Council. This amounts to a transfer of <br />jurisdiction from the Commission to the City Council in violation of g 412.391. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In conclusion, the City Council has no authority to make unilateral decisions regarding <br />surplus utility funds for utilities under the Commission's jurisdiction; any such transfer <br />of said funds can occur only by agreement of the Commission. Further, any joint- <br />