Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />BARNA,GUZY&STEFFAN <br /> <br />No,9990 p, 2/4 <br /> <br />STATE OF MINNESOTA <br /> <br />omCE OF THE ATTORNEy GENERAL <br /> <br />MJK:& HATCH <br />Anoun GENDAL <br /> <br />Junll4, 2002 <br /> <br />m:i'AJl1l~ <br />"''''':lOll <br />tl'.l"IWL,i\fN55U13021(H; <br />~!1:&(4U)ZJNfI'" <br /> <br />Mr. James D. Hoeft <br />City Attorney <br />Bama Guzy Jt., Steffen, Ltd. <br />400 Northtawn Financial Plaza <br />200 Coon Rapids Blvd. <br />Minneapolis, MN 55433-5894 <br /> <br />Re: City of Centel.'ViIJe <br /> <br />RECt/1 ~ <br />VELJ <br />JUN <br />BARM 05200< <br />~ rJlJlr. '~ <br />.. " 8TEFf(/J <br />" I.Ta <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Hoeft: <br /> <br />Thank you far yout letter of April 17, 2002 requesting an opinion of the Attorney General <br />with respect to the issued described below. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />FACTS <br /> <br />Yall state that the City of CenterviUe's personnel policy provides that the City shall pay <br />for an employee's insurance benefits up to a specified amount. If an employee chooses single <br />coverage or is covered by a spouse's plan, the amount used will fall under the maximum limit set <br />by the City. The personnel policy then allows the difference between the amount that is being <br />used for health insurance coverage and the ttlSllllnum amount set pursuant to the personnel policy <br />to be contributed to an Internal Revenue Service Section 457, deferred compensation plan for the <br />employee. You say that the City has treated such payments as wages "to provide equal benefits <br />to all employees." You request our opinion as to whether the payments made to section 457 <br />deferred compensation plans are properly treated as employee wages, or should be considered <br />employer contributions limited by Minn. Stat. ~ 356.24. <br /> <br />LAW AND ANALYSIS <br /> <br />First, as creati<lns of the state, cities have only that power expressly granted by statute or <br />charter, and those reasonably implied therefrom. See, e.g., County Joe, Inc. v. City of Eagan, <br />560 N. W.2d 681 (Minn. 1997). That principle hllll been applied to questions involving authority <br />of local units of government to compensate their employees in various Ways. See, e.g., Ops. <br />Atty. Gen. 174, March 29, 2002 and 166b-4, January 24,1989. <br /> <br />Second, in that regard, the authority of local govemm.ents to provide employer-paid <br />benefits in addition to salary is limited to those specifically provided for by statute. See, e.g., <br />Wly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. Ct. App.1995) (No authority to provide <br />employee insurance benefits beyond those authcirized by statute). Ops. Atty Gen. 104a-9, <br /> <br />P....imi1e: (651) 297.):235' Tl'Y: (651i 281-25:<5' TollPtto u.." (800) 657.;787 (Voice), (SOO) l60-4812 (IT'i)' wwIV,:OU'.....o.mn,uo <br />At!: E,ua.l Oppoctu.ttfey Employ<< Who Ya,lUtlf ot~lty '0 Prltlt<<! an :509& recy~{ed papzr (15% P'J"COtl.umor ooa~t) <br />.. <br />