Can Campbell County use its snow removal equipment on the streets of Mound City and Artas at county expense, or does it need a formal agreement first?

Plain-English summary

Campbell County, in north-central South Dakota, had been using its county-owned snow removal equipment to clear snow from the streets of Mound City and Artas, two small municipalities within the county. Mr. Renz asked the AG whether the county had legal authority to do that at county expense.

AG Kermit Sande's answer was that the county could do it, but only under a contractual agreement with the affected municipalities. The county couldn't simply send its equipment into the villages and bill the cost to the county budget without that legal foundation.

The two statutes that mattered were SDCL 1-24-3 (the general intergovernmental cooperation authorization) and SDCL 31-12-41 (the specific authorization for counties to contract with municipalities for street and alley maintenance). SDCL 1-24-3 allows any two or more political subdivisions to enter into agreements for joint or cooperative action. SDCL 31-12-41 zooms in on street maintenance specifically and authorizes counties to contract with municipalities within their borders for that purpose, when the county commissioners conclude it's in the best interests of the municipality and the public interest.

The opinion is short and procedural. Snow removal across jurisdictional lines is allowable; it just has to be formalized in a contract. The contract can specify cost-sharing, equipment use, schedules, liability allocation, and any other operational details the parties want.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in the mid-1970s by AG Kermit Sande. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. South Dakota's intergovernmental cooperation statutes (SDCL chapter 1-24) and the street-maintenance contract statute (SDCL 31-12-41) may have been amended or recodified since this opinion. Before relying on it for a current arrangement, check current statutes and any modern AG opinions or county/municipal handbook guidance.

What the opinion meant at the time

For Campbell County and other SD counties providing snow removal to small municipalities, the opinion was a clear directive: formalize the arrangement with a written contract. The historical practice of informally helping out small towns with county equipment was legally questionable without that documentation.

For small SD towns like Mound City and Artas, the opinion meant they could not rely on a handshake arrangement with the county for snow service. They needed a contract that allocated costs and responsibilities.

For county commissioners and municipal councils, the opinion provided a clear legal framework for negotiating and entering into shared service agreements. The contract should reflect the parties' shared interest in keeping streets clear during winter, with cost-sharing that reflected the relative burden on each entity.

For SD's broader intergovernmental cooperation framework, the opinion was a routine application of SDCL 1-24-3's general authorization. The principle that political subdivisions can cooperate but only under formal agreement is foundational to how SD local government works.

Common questions

Q: Could the county just do snow removal for free as a community service?
A: Not without a contract. SD counties have only the powers expressly conferred or reasonably implied. Free snow removal of municipal streets isn't an inherent county power; it requires statutory authorization through the contractual mechanism in SDCL 31-12-41.

Q: What would a typical snow removal contract include?
A: Cost-sharing (some agreements have the municipality reimburse the county at an hourly equipment rate; others share costs proportionally), schedules (which streets get cleared and when), liability allocation (which entity is responsible for property damage), and termination provisions.

Q: Could the village hire the county on an as-needed basis instead of a continuing contract?
A: Yes. The contract under SDCL 1-24-3 and 31-12-41 could be structured as a single-event service agreement, an annual contract, a multi-year contract, or a continuing arrangement with renewal terms.

Q: What about other shared services beyond snow removal?
A: SDCL 1-24-3 is broad. It authorizes joint or cooperative action on essentially any subject within the political subdivisions' authority. Many counties and municipalities share law enforcement, fire response, equipment, and various other services through intergovernmental agreements.

Q: What happens if the county is doing snow removal without a contract?
A: A formal challenge could question whether the county has authority to expend funds for service to non-county streets. The county commissioners' decision to use county equipment outside their direct jurisdiction without a contract could be subject to a taxpayer challenge or audit finding. The fix is to enter the contract.

Q: Can the county refuse to enter into a contract?
A: Yes. SDCL 31-12-41 says the county commissioners enter into the contract "when it will be to the best interests of the particular municipality and in the public interest." That's a discretionary judgment; the commissioners can decide it's not in the public interest and decline.

Background and statutory framework

South Dakota has a strong tradition of intergovernmental cooperation, especially in rural areas where small municipalities lack the equipment or staff to handle major tasks like snow removal, road grading, or emergency response. The legal framework that supports these arrangements has been in place for decades.

SDCL 1-24-3 is the general authorization. It says political subdivisions can cooperate on essentially anything within their respective authorities, formalized in a written agreement.

SDCL 31-12-41 supplements that general authority. It specifically addresses county-municipal contracts for street and alley maintenance, and the county's snow removal equipment is a natural fit for the provision.

The opinion's brevity reflects the routine nature of the question. The legal framework was settled; the question was only whether it required a formal contract. The answer was yes.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• SDCL 1-24-3 (intergovernmental cooperation authority)
• SDCL 31-12-41 (county-municipal contracts for street maintenance)

Source

• Landing page: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/OfficialOpinions/opinionhtml.aspx?id=325

Original opinion text

The county using its snow equipment to remove snow from the streets of villages.

Dear Mr. Renz:

You have requested an opinion based on the following factual situation:

Campbell County snow equipment is used to remove snow in the streets of Mound City and Artas.

You have asked the following question:

Does Campbell County have a legal right to use the county equipment to remove the snow in Mound City and Artas with the county snow removal equipment at county expense?

SDCL 1-24-3 represents a general grant of authority to political subdivisions of the State. Any two or more of these subdivisions "... may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action ...." SDCL 31-12-41 specifically provides that counties may contract with municipalities within its borders for the maintenance of public streets and alleys. The board of county commissioners is authorized by this statute to enter into contractural relations with a municipality when it will be to the best interests of the particular municipality and in the public interest.

Based on the above, it is our opinion that county snow equipment can be used on village streets, if the county and village have entered into a contractual agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

Kermit A. Sande

Attorney General