OPINION
DANIEL F. FOLEY, Judge.This case involves a confrontation between a home rule charter city’s exercise of power in light of a state statute. Appellants, the City of Minneapolis and five city employees, challenge a judgment that permanently enjoins the city from providing health insurance benefits for city employees’ same sex domestic partners and blood relatives not authorized to receive such benefits under Minn. Stat. § 471.61 (1992).1 We affirm on grounds that, although it is a home rule charter city, the City of Minneapolis does not have the power to grant employee health care benefits to persons beyond those defined by statute.
FACTS
Appellant City of Minneapolis (the City) is a home rule charter city. The current city charter was adopted by election on November 2, 1920.
*109In 1988 and 1989, appellants Jane Anglin, Judith Bagan and Marie Hanson (Anglin appellants) sued the City and its Library Board for failing to provide health care coverage for the domestic partners of city employees. On January 25,1991, the Minneapolis City Council (City Council) passed the Domestic Partnerships Ordinance, chapter 142 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances (City Code). The City Code defines domestic partners as two adults who:
(1) Are not related by blood closer than permitted under marriage laws of the state;
(2) Are not married or related by marriage;
(3) Are competent to enter into a contract;
(4) Have no other domestic partner with whom the household is shared, or with whom the adult person has another domestic partner;
(5) Are jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life;
(6) Are committed to one another to the same extent as married persons are to each other, except for the traditional marital status and solemnities.
Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances Title 7, ch. 142, § 142.20 (1991).
On November 17, 1992, the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights determined that the City’s employee benefits program discriminated against lesbian employees of the Library Board based upon their “affectional preference.” On April 2, 1993, the City Council passed resolution 93R-106, authorizing limited reimbursement to city employees for health care insurance costs for same sex domestic partners and for qualified blood relatives who are “not considered a dependent under current City health plans.” The City acknowledges that resolution 93R-106 applies to grant reimbursement of monthly insurance costs for “adult children, adult grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew who resides with the employee during period reimbursement is claimed.” The resolution limits the reimbursement to
an amount not more than the difference' between the employer contribution for family insurance coverage and the employer contribution for single insurance coverage under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.
The resolution expressly excludes reimbursement for the employee’s domestic partner or family member who otherwise has access to other group health insurance coverage or to Medicare.
.On August 27, 1993, the City Council adopted resolution 93R-342, extending “health care coverage for the partners of employees in same sex domestic partnerships.” This resolution directed that the “limited reimbursement mechanism supporting the diverse families of the City’s work force who are not eligible for health coverage” be continued. In addition, the resolution directed that the City would “seek an affirmative inclusion of the term ‘domestic partners’ in state legislation on health care benefits.” Pursuant to this resolution, the city then contracted with two health maintenance organizations (HMO’s) to include same sex domestic partners effective January 1, 1994. Six city employees registered their domestic partners for health insurance benefits.
On December 20, 1993, respondent James A. Lilly, a resident and taxpayer of the City of Minneapolis, sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the City from implementing resolution 93R-342. Following a hearing on December 30, 1993, the district court granted the temporary restraining order. Lilly subsequently amended his complaint to enjoin the City from providing reimbursement for health insurance costs under resolution 93R-106.
The district court determined that the City of Minneapolis’ resolutions 93R-106 and 93R-342 were ultra vires under Minn.Stat. § 471.61 and that’ providing health care coverage for same sex domestic partners contravened state public policy and violated state law. The court granted Lilly’s motion for declaratory/summary judgment and for a permanent injunction. This appeal followed.
ISSUE
May the City of Minneapolis, a home rule charter city, provide employee health care *110benefits to persons not defined as “spouse” or “dependents” in a general statute concerning the grant of health care benefits to municipal employees?
ANALYSIS
Where, as here,' material facts are not in dispute, this court need not defer to the district court’s application of the law. Hubred v. Control Data Corp., 442 N.W.2d 308, 310 (Minn.1989). The only issue here concerns interpretation and application of Minnesota statutes and the City’s charter, ordinances and resolutions.2 The application and construction of a statute, charter, ordinance or resolution is a question of law. Hibbing Educ. Ass’n v. Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn.1985).
To determine whether the City may lawfully provide medical insurance benefits for same sex domestic partners of city employees and reimburse employees for medical insurance costs of relatives who live with them is a ease of first impression, requiring an analysis of Minn.Stat. § 471.61 (1992) which deals with the same subject matter. That statute provides:
A county, municipal corporation, town, school district, county extension committee, other political subdivision or other body corporate and politic of this state, other than the state or any department of the state, through its governing body, and any two or more subdivisions acting jointly through their governing bodies, may insure or protect its or their officers and employees, and their dependents, or any class or classes of officers, employees, or dependents, under a policy or policies or contract or contracts of group insurance or benefits covering * * * medical and surgical benefits and hospitalization insurance or benefits for both employees and dependents. * * * A payment is deemed to be additional compensation paid to the officers or employees.
Minn.Stat. § 471.61, subd. 1. There should be no serious dispute that the terms “municipal corporation” and “other political subdivision or other body corporate and politic of this state” include home rule charter cities, such as the City of Minneapolis. The statute’s exclusion of the state and departments of the state further clarifies that the statute encompasses all other political subdivisions, including home rule charter cities. See Maytag Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 218 Minn. 460, 464, 17 N.W.2d 37, 40 (1944) (the exclusion of one thing includes all others).
The dispute here centers on the effect of the statute’s definition of those who may receive benefits. Appellants argue that the statute is permissive, that it does not require a city to provide insurance benefits and that it does not indicate legislative intent to limit a city’s power to extend benefits or provide reimbursement for insurance premiums to persons not listed in the statute. To the contrary, the statute is permissive in as much as a city “may,” but is not required to, provide medical insurance benefits to employees and their dependents. As the district court concluded, however, Minn.Stat. § 471.61 limits the persons to whom the City may provide health care benefits. “Where a statute enumerates the persons or things to be affected by its provisions, there is an implied exclusion of others.” Maytag, 218 Minn. at 463, 17 N.W.2d at 40. The statute defines “dependents” to mean “spouse and minor unmarried children under the age of 18 years and dependent students under the age of 25 *111years actually dependent upon the employee.” Id. at subd. la. Domestic partners and the expansive list of relatives contained in the City’s resolutions are outside the definition of dependents provided by Minn.Stat. § 471.61.
The City claims that it has the authority to provide health care benefits to its employees by virtue of its charter. In “matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state, save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld.” State ex rel. Lowell v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 528, 91 N.W.2d 81, 83 (1958) (emphasis added). Here, the city contends that its action is of a local concern only and does not conflict with state law. We disagree.
A municipality has no inherent powers, but only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or are implied as necessary in aid of those powers which are expressly conferred. * * * [I]f a matter presents a statewide problem, the implied necessary poivers of a municipality to regulate are narrowly constmed unless the legislature has expressly provided otherwise.
Welsh v. City of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117, 120 (Minn.1984) (emphasis added). In another case involving the City of Minneapolis, this court held that Welsh “requires a narrow construction” of the City’s powers to regulate a “statewide problem.” City of Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights v. University of Minn., 356 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Minn.App.1984).
To support its claim that its resolutions do not conflict with Minn.Stat. § 471.61, the City relies on a test provided in American Electric Co. v. City of Waseca, 102 Minn. 329, 113 N.W. 899 (1907). Respondent Lilly relies on the analysis contained in a more recent case, Mangold Midwest Co. v. Village of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 143 N.W.2d 813 (Minn.1966). A key factor in applying either case is whether the local legislation involves an area of statewide concern. Id. at 358, 143 N.W.2d at 821; American Electric Co., 102 Minn, at 334, 113 N.W. at 901. Most significantly, however, if the local legislation involves a statewide problem, we must apply the supreme court’s most recent directive to “narrowly construe” the city’s power to act “unless the legislature has expressly provided otherwise.” Welsh, 355 N.W.2d at 120.
Political subdivisions, including the City of Minneapolis, have heretofore operated under the assumption that Minn.Stat. § 471.61 governs their ability to provide insurance benefits. Significantly, one of the city resolutions at issue here contains a mandate to “seek an affirmative inclusion of the term ‘domestic partners’ in state legislation on health care benefits.” Minneapolis, Minn., Resolution 93R-342 (Aug. 27, 1993).
When first enacted in 1943, Minn.Stat. § 471.61 only provided insurance benefits for officers and employees of political subdivisions. 1943 Minn.Laws eh. 615, § 1. Since then, the legislature has, at the request of political subdivisions, twice amended the statute to expand the class of persons to whom a political subdivision could provide insurance benefits. The 1957 amendment added “dependents,” defined as “spouse and minor unmarried children * ⅜ * actually dependent upon the employee.” 1957 Minn.Laws ch. 321, § 1. The 1971 amendment added “dependent students under the age of 25 years actually dependent upon the employee.” 1971 Minn.Laws, Extra Session ch. 48, § 16. Finally, in 1973, the legislature reduced the age of coverage for minor children from 19 to age 18. 1973 Minn.Laws ch. 725, §§ 68, 69. Accordingly, the district court concluded that
the statewide application of § 471.61, and the legislature’s prior amendments in accordance with the desires of state political subdivisions, indicates that the provision of insurance coverage for political subdivisions’ employees and their dependents is a matter of statewide, not purely local, concern.
We agree.
Further, the city’s actions also concern the statewide problem of discrimination. This court has previously held thát discrimination is a statewide concern and therefore, the authority of the City of Minneapolis to combat discrimination must be narrowly construed. City of Minneapolis Comm’n on Civil Rights, 356 N.W.2d at 843. The preambles to both resolutions at issue here *112demonstrate that the City viewed its grant of insurance benefits to same sex partners of employees as a means to combat discrimination. The preamble to the City’s first resolution states that the order of the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights in the Anglin appellants’ discrimination complaint against the City and its library board was a motivating factor to temporarily provide medical insurance reimbursement for same sex domestic partners pending a judicial resolution or settlement of that decision. Minneapolis, Minn., Resolution 93R-106 (April 2, 1993). The second resolution contained the following relevant statements in its preamble:
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis is committed to the ideal of equity in the work place; and
Whereas, the City of Minneapolis wishes to provide equal benefits for equal work, regardless of sexual orientation.
Minneapolis, Minn., Resolution 93R-342.3 Although appellants, three of the amici and the dissent to this opinion propose that the City’s grant of employee health care benefits is a purely local matter concerning the compensation of municipal employees, the impact on statewide concerns and the state legislature’s previous and continuing exercise of its power to define the scope of municipal employees’ health care benefits is indisputable. The issue here is not purely of a local concern.
In 1993, the Minnesota Legislature considered the issue of benefits to same sex domestic partners when it amended the Minnesota Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. At the same time, the legislature adopted Minn.Stat. § 363.021 which provided:
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to * * * mean that the state of Minnesota condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle [or to] authorize the recognition of or the right of marriage between persons of the same sex.
Id. at (1), (4); 1993 Minn.Laws ch. 22, § 7. Prior to the vote approving the addition of sexual orientation to the MHRA, the senate author of the bill stated:
There is nothing in here about the domestic partners benefits. Nothing that could lead to it. There is nothing in here about homosexual marriages. In fact, the law of the State of Minnesota states very clearly that marriage must be between a man and a woman. * * * Many of you have received calls in opposition to this bill. I am aware that there is a highly motivated group of people in this state who fear what this bill would do. But I would also point out to you that the polls consistently show that most Americans oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They may not approve of the gay life style, but they think that discrimination is wrong. And this bill, regardless of what the opponents say, is simply about discrimination. It is not an endorsement of any life style.
Senate Floor Debate on S.F. No. 444 (March 18, 1993) (statement of Sen. Allen Spear).
Given the legislative history provided in Senator Spear’s remarks and the requirements for interpretation of the sexual orientation amendments provided in Minn.Stat. § 363.021, it is apparent that the legislature did not intend to expand the list of health care benefits in Minn.Stat. § 471.61 to give the same health care benefits to employees with same sex domestic partners as are available to employees who are married. The legislature met again in 1994 and made no change to allow a grant of benefits to domestic partners. As Minn.Stat. § 471.61 stands, without inclusion of benefits to same sex domestic partners, it does not violate the MHRA prohibition against discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Cf. Hinman v. Department of Personnel Admin., 167 Cal.App.3d 516, 530, 213 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1985) (denial of dental benefits does not constitute sexual orientation discrimination, but instead merely distinguishes eligibility on the basis of marriage), pet. for rev. denied (Cal. Aug. 15, 1985); Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Comm’n, 167 Wis.2d 205, 482 N.W.2d 121, 127 (App.1992) (it is not sexual orientation *113discrimination under state law to extend employee health insurance coverage only to married spouses of state employees). In Phillips, the court stated:
[W]hile she complains that she is not married to Tommerup only because she may not legally marry another woman, that is not a claim of sexual orientation discrimination in employment; it is, as we have noted earlier, a claim that the marriage laws are unfair because of their failure to recognize same-sex marriages. It is a result of that restriction, not the insurance eligibility limitations in the statute and the DETF rule, that Phillips is unable to extend her state employee health insurance benefits to Tommerup. And, as we said at the outset of this opinion, any change in that policy is for the legislature, not the courts.
Phillips, 482 N.W.2d at 127 (emphasis in original). The present marriage laws of Minnesota are consistent with these foreign cases. Cf. Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 312, 191 N.W.2d 185, 186 (1971) (state law prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex) appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 810, 93 S.Ct. 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972).
In conclusion, while the City contends that its extended list of benefit recipients is consistent with the statute, Welsh requires that we narrowly view the City’s power to grant benefits where, as here, the grant of those benefits involves a statewide concern. Welsh, 355 N.W.2d at 120. Because the legislature has specifically defined “dependents,” neither the City nor the courts have the power to engraft an exception to grant benefits to persons not listed as “dependents” in Minn.Stat. § 471.61. See State v. Tennyson, 212 Minn. 158, 161-62, 2 N.W.2d 833, 835 (1942) (court will not engraft exceptions onto a statute that has broad and comprehensive language).
DECISION
A home rule charter city is exactly that — “home rule” on matters of a purely local nature. A home rule city may not exceed statutory authority by its mere fiat as was done here. Minnesota Canal & Power Co. v. Koochiching Co., 97 Minn. 429, 437, 107 N.W. 405, 408 (1906). The City of Minneapolis cannot expand the statute with respect to persons who may receive medical benefits and premiums paid at the request of a city employee when the legislature by clear definition has made the subject matter one of statewide concern and has defined who may receive such benefits. Further, discrimination, as well as the definition of family relationships and dependent status, are statewide concerns. The Welsh doctrine requires that we narrowly construe the power of a city to legislate on a matter of statewide concern. Accordingly, the action taken here by the City, whether by resolution or ordinance, is ultra vires, beyond the limits of the power granted to the home rule charter city, and is without legal force or effect. See id. at 436, 107 N.W. at 408. Having ruled against the City for the reasons expressed in this opinion, we deem it is unnecessary, after careful review of the arguments raised by amici and the Attorney General, to consider them further.
Affirmed.
. The Minnesota Attorney General, Hennepin County and the Minneapolis Professional Employees Association each filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the district court’s decision. The Minnesota Family Research Council, an advocacy organization based in Minneapolis, and the Family Research Council, an advocacy organization in Washington, D.C., jointly filed an amicus curiae brief in support of respondent taxpayer.
. The Anglin appellants have raised one other issue, that being whether Lilly's arguments concerning the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the Minnesota and United States Constitutions should be stricken because Lilly is raising issues which are outside the scope of appellants' statements of the case under Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 133.03. We think not. Contrary to appellants' claim, the statement of the issues contained in an appellant's statement of the case does not limit the reviewability of issues on appeal. The nature of the appeal and the course of the trial court proceedings determine our scope of review. See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 103.04 ("appellate courts may reverse, affirm or modify the judgment or order appealed from or take any other action as the interest of justice may require”). Further, the district court here ruled in Lilly's favor on the issues appellants seek to strike. Lilly is not required to file a notice of review of these issues because they do not "adversely affect him.” See Minn.R.Civ.App.P. 106 (prescribes a procedure for respondent to seek review of a judgment or order "which may adversely affect him”). We deny appellant’s motion to strike issues discussed in Lilly's brief.
. Soon after passing the second resolution, the city withdrew its appeal of the City Civil Rights Commission order. See Anglin v. City of Minneapolis, No. C4-93-1202 (Minn.App. Doc. 7, 1993) (order dismissing appeal).