**ROADS: TOWN**  **LINE: MAINTENANCE:**  **County boards**  **may determine**  **division of**  **maintenance responsibility for**  **town line**  **road established**  **prior to**  **enactment of**  **authorizing statute.**  **Op. Atty.**  **Gen. 379C-8(c).**  **September 1a.**  **1951 superseded.**  **Minn. Stat.**  **§ 164.12**  **(1996). 379C-8(c)** 

**November 5,**  **I ']98**  **David J.**  **Hauser Otter** **Tail County**  **Attorney Otter** **Tail County**  **Courthouse Fergus**  **Falls, MN**  **56537 Dear** **Mr. Hauser:**  **In your** **letter you**  **set forth** **substantially the-following:**  **FACTS Prior**  **to 1951,**  **there was**  **a six-mile**  **common town**  **road on**  **the boundary**  **between Oscar**  **Township in**  **Otter Tail**  **County and**  **Akron Township**  **in Wilkin**  **County running along**  **the county**  **line. In**  **1951, the**  **counties took**  **over the**  **northerly five**  **miles of** **the road.**  **Oscar Township,**  **Otter Tail**  **County, which**  **had been**  **originally responsible**  **for maintaining**  **the three**  **miles of**  **the road**  **has maintained**  **the one**  **mile remaining since 1951 but**  **feels that**  **Akron Township**  **should also**  **be responsible**  **to share** **the expense.**  **In 1951**  **the Attorney**  **General rendered**  **the opinion**  **that. pursuant**  **to an**  **agreement entered**  **between the two towns**  **in I** **885. Oscar**  **Township remained**  **entirely responsible**  **for maintaining**  **the remaining**  **mile of**  **town road**  **originally allocated**  **to it.**  

## C'r **Atty. Gen.**  **379C - SC.**  **Septembens,1951. However.**  **Minn. Stat.**  **§ 164.12.**  **enacted in**  **1959. now**  **provides that**  **"when part**  **of a**  **town line**  **road is**  **taken over**  **as a**  **county highway,**  **the town**  **boards are**  **to divide**  **responsibility for**  **the remaining**  **town road**  **equally between**  **them to**  **the extent**  **possible:· You**  **then ask**  **substantially the**  **following: QUESTION**  **In these**  **circumstances. when**  **counties have**  **taken over**  **control and**  **maintenance of** **a portion**  **of a**  **former township**  **road on**  **a town**  **line. who**  **is responsible**  **for maintaining**  **the portion**  **of the**  **road not**  **taken ovd?** **David J.**  **Hauser Page2**  **OPINION**

**As noted**  **above, Minn.**  **Stat. §**  **164. 12,**  **subd. 5**  **requires the**  **neighboring towns,**  **in such**  **circumstances to enter an agreement**  **when a**  **portion of**  **the road**  **is taken**  **over dividing**  **responsibility between** **them. Fur** **thermore, subdivision**  **6 of** **that section** **provides: When** **the town** **boards cannot**  **agree upon** **a division**  **as provided**  **in subdivision** **2 or** **subdivision 5,**  **or upon**  **the petition**  **of eithe** **r town**  **board when**  **a division**  **previously agreed**  **upon has** **proved to**  **be inequitable,**  **the county**  **board, or**  **where the road is**  **on a**  **county line the**  **county boards** **of the** **counties concerned,**  **shall determine** **the proper division**  **ofresponsibility.**
**In our**  **view this**  **provision applies**  **to the**  **mile of**  **road lying**  **between Oscar**  **and Akron**  **Townships, described in** **the facts**  **presented. it**  **has been**  **argued that.**  **inasmuch as**  **Minn. Stat.**  **§ 164.12**  **did not**  **exist when**  **the counties**  **took over**  **five miles**  **of the**  **road in**  **1951, its**  **enactrnem in 1959**  **can have**  **no effect**  **upon the**  **allocation of**  **maintenance responsibility**  **under the**  **pre-existing 1885**  **agreement. It**  **is true**  **that statutes**  **enacted by**  **the legislature**  **will not**  **be cons** **tr ued**  **to be**  **" re** **troactive unless**  **clearly and**  **manifestly so**  **intended by**  **the legislature."**  **Minn. Stat.**  **§ 645.21.**  **Because of** **this presumption**  **and constitutional**  **prohibitions against**  **impairm ent**  **t h** **e o b** **ligation s**  **of contracts.**  **statutes ar** **e o ft**  **en held**  **inapplicable to**  **contrncts in**  **existence at**  **the time**  **of their**  **enactment. See**  **e.g., Jacobsen**  **v. Anheuser**  **Bush. Inc.**  **392 N.W.2d**  **868 (Minn.**  **1986). Such**  **is not**  **always the**  **case, however,**  **especially in**  **cases involving**  **agreements between**  **units of** **local g** **overnn1ent. As**  **creatures of** **the state.**  **local governn1ents**  **and their**  **contractual relationships**  **with one**  **ano\her do**  **not enjoy**  **the**
**same constitutional**  **protectioas from legislative**  **modification as**  **private persons.**  **Crescent Township**  **v. Citv**  **of La**  **Crescent. 515**  **N.W.2d 608**  **(Minn. Ct.**  **App. 1994),**  **wherein the**  **court upheld**  **application or** **a new**  **statute permitting cities**  **to annex**  **certain property**  **by ordinance.**  **notwithstanding a**  **pre-existing agreement between**  **the city**  **and town**  **that arguably**  **prohibited such**  **an annexation.**  **See e.g.,**  **La David** **J. Hauser**  **Page3 In**  **the instant**  **case it**  **seems clear**  **that the**  **legislatur e**  **intended Minn.**  **Stat. §**  **164.12, subd.** **5 to**  **apply to**  **previously existing**  **maintenance agreements.**  **The plain**  **wording of**  **subdivision 6**  **speaks retrospectively**  **in providing**  **for resolution**  **by the county boards**  **"when a**  **division previously**  **agreed upon**  **has proved**  **inequitable, ...**  **" (Emph.asis**  **added). At**  **the time**  **it took**  **effect in**  **1959, that**  **language could**  **only have**  **applied to**  **agreements entered**  **into prior**  **tc its**  **enactment. Furthermore,**  **the remedial**  **nature of**  **the provision**  **argues in**  **favor of** **its application**  **to pre-existing**  **divisions ofresponsibility.**  **Cf. Olsen**  **v. Special**  **School District** **#1, 427** **N.W.2d 707**  **(Minn. Ct.**  **App. 1988) (repeal**  **of damage discount**  **law given retroactive**  **effect due,**  **in part,**  **to remedial**  **nature of**  **legislation). We**  **can perceive**  **no reason**  **why the**  **legislature would**  **have intended** **to perpetuate existing** **"inequitable" divisions**  **ofresponsibility. Thus**  **it is**  **our view**  **that, while it**  **is presently**  **the responsibility**  **of Oscar**  **Township to**  **maintain the**  **one mile**  **of town line**  **road in**  **question, the**  **Town may**  **attempt to**  **negotiate a**  **modification of**  **the 1885**  **agreement or**  **may seek**  **a reapportionment**  **of responsibilities**  **upon a**  **determination by**  **the county**  **boards of** **Otter Tail**  **and Wilkin**  **counties that**  **the previously**  **agreed division**  **has proved**  **inequitable. Op.**  **Atty. Gen.**  **3 79C-8-C,**  **September l** **8; 1951**  **is superseded**  **to the**  **extent inconsistent herewith.**  **Very truly**  **yours. HUBERT**  **H. HUMPHREY**  **JlI Attorney**  **General**

**KENNETH E.**  **RASCHKE. JR.**  **Assistant Attorney**  **General**

**AG:62513 ,,**  **I**