Opinion ID: 2621435
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: CUCC and the Interlocal Cooperation Act

Text: ¶ 32 Plaintiffs challenge CUCC's status as an interlocal agency, charging that it was improperly formed under the Interlocal Cooperation Act and thus unable to invoke the protections of the Immunity Act. In considering plaintiffs' challenge, we review the requirements of Utah's Interlocal Cooperation Act and examine CUCC's formation under that statutory scheme. Because we discern no fatal deficiency in CUCC's formation, we affirm the district court's determination that CUCC constitutes an interlocal agency. ¶ 33 The stated purpose of the Interlocal Cooperation Act is to permit local governmental units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to co-operate with other localities. Utah Code Ann. § 11-13-2 (1990). In furtherance of this purpose, the Interlocal Cooperation Act empowers public agencies, including counties, to enter into agreements with one another for joint or co-operative action. Id. §§ 11-13-5 (1977), 11-13-3(7)(a) (1991). ¶ 34 Counties may create a separate legal or administrative entity to accomplish the purpose of their joint or cooperative action, which entity is considered a political subdivision of the state. Id. § 11-13-5.5(1) (1991). An agreement creating a separate legal entity must include several items relating to the organization, purpose, and powers of the entity. Id. § 11-13-6 (1977). ¶ 35 The legislature has expressly permitted counties to create interlocal agencies in the mental health arena. Under Utah Code section 17A-3-602(1) (1990), counties can join to provide mental health prevention and treatment services. Counties doing so must follow the formation procedures outlined in the Interlocal Cooperation Act. Id. § 17A-3-602(3)(j). ¶ 36 Plaintiffs contend that because the six counties that created CUCC failed to follow these procedures, CUCC is not a separate legal entity entitled to the protections of the Immunity Act. Specifically, plaintiffs highlight the counties' noncompliance with the statutory requirement that participating counties adopt certain resolutions  before any [interlocal] agreement may enter into force. Id. § 11-13-5 (emphasis added). Apparently, only one of the six counties passed the required resolution before the execution of the 1990 agreement. The remaining five did not do so for several years; the final resolution was passed on January 19, 1993. Plaintiffs contend that this procedural misstep was fatal. We disagree. ¶ 37 While it appears that the counties were not exact in their compliance with this particular requirement, this inexactness was corrected on February 2, 1993, five years before plaintiffs' cause of action accrued. Plaintiffs have articulated no theory as to why this apparent misstep rendered the 1990 agreement irreversibly defective. We therefore reject their contention that this defect was incapable of correction. ¶ 38 Plaintiffs also assert that the content of the 1990 agreement did not conform to the requirements of Utah Code section 11-13-6. Specifically, they assert that the 1990 agreement lacks specification of the powers delegated to CUCC, id. § 11-13-6(2), language to the effect that CUCC's governing board serves at the pleasure of the governing bodies of [the six counties], id., and provisions relating to the financing and budgetary management of CUCC, id. § 11-13-6(4). ¶ 39 Plaintiffs' argument is simply not supported by the evidence. Our review of the 1990 agreement and CUCC's bylaws, which were incorporated by reference in the agreement, reveals that these documents conform to the applicable requirements. The 1990 agreement clearly establishes a legal and administrative entity that is empowered to operat[e] and maintain[] . . . a mental health/alcohol and drug service program for the benefit of the residents of the [six counties]. It also establishes a governing board, which is given extensive management and budgetary powers under Article V of CUCC's bylaws. In addition, the agreement explains that the six counties agree to financially support CUCC. Finally, the bylaws establish that the members of the governing board serve pursuant to the appointment of the county appointing such person. Because our review of the 1990 agreement and the bylaws establishes compliance with the statutory requirements, we have no basis on which to disturb the district court's conclusion that CUCC is a properly formed interlocal agency and was therefore entitled to a notice of claim under the Immunity Act.