Court Rules E911 Didn’t Have Authority To Enter Into Agreement

Court case between Mahaska County Board of Supervisors and Mahaska County E911 Service Board and Mahaska County Emergency Management.

Mahaska County District Court Judge Crystal Cronk made a ruling in regard to the ongoing battle between the Mahaska County Board of Supervisors and the E911 Service Board and Mahaska County Emergency Management.

At the center of the argument is the E911 Service Board’s ability to enter into 28E agreements.

Cronk wrote, “The Court’s analysis begins with the issue of whether an entity, created by a 28E agreement, may then enter into 28E agreement. The parties agree that the matter should be heard by the Court, as there are no material facts in dispute. The Court, finding the issue is one solely of law, concurs that summary judgment is proper.”

“Unlike private contracts that are governed primarily by the common law, agreements made under 28E are subject to the express provisions of the statute enacted by the legislature. As such, the Court turns to the text of Iowa Code chapter 28E. The stated purpose of chapter 28E is to “permit state and local governments in Iowa to make efficient use of their powers by enabling them to provide joint services and facilities with other agencies and to cooperate in other ways of mutual advantage.” Iowa Code § 28E.1. Section 28E.3 allows a public agency of the state to exercise its powers, privileges, or authority jointly with any other public agency of the State of Iowa, of another state, or of the United States. To that end, a public agency may also enter into an agreement with another public or private agency for the joint action. Iowa Code § 28E.4.”

“In applying chapter 28E, the Court is to construe it liberally to promote its purpose of permitting efficient joint use of governmental power. Iowa Code § 28E.1. However, “if the text of a statute is plain and its meaning clear” the court “will not search for a meaning beyond the express terms of the statute or resort to rules of construction.” Matter of Estate of Franken, 944 N.W.2d 853, 859 (Iowa 2020) (quoting In re Estate of Voss, 553 N.W.2d 878, 880 (Iowa 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Only public or private agencies may enter into a 28E agreement pursuant to section 28E.4. A public agency is defined as “any political subdivision of this state; any agency of the state government or of the United States; and any political subdivision of another state” or “any federally recognized Indian tribe.” Iowa Code § 28E.2. A private agency is “an individual and any form of business organization authorized under the laws of this or any other state.” Id.”

“The entity at issue here is the Service Board, which was created by a 28E agreement pursuant to Iowa Code 34A.3. Defendants have admitted, at paragraphs 61-66 of their Resistance to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, that the Service Board is not an individual, private business organization, political subdivision of Iowa or any other state, agency of Iowa or of another state or of the United States, or a federally recognized Indian tribe. By their own admissions, the Service Board is not a public or private agency.”

“Defendants argue that the Service Board is a legal entity and operates in a quasi-governmental function, which grants it the authority to enter into a 28E agreement. Defendants do not argue the statute is ambiguous or that its meaning is unclear. As such, the Court need not look beyond the plain language of the statute. The authority to enter into a 28E agreement was granted by the legislature only to public and private agencies as defined in the statute. To find the Service Board possesses such authority would be to contravene the statute and the clear intent of the legislature. Therefore, the Court finds that the Service Board lacked authority to enter into a 28E agreement. ”

“The power to contract under chapter 28E comes from the legislature, and a contract entered into in violation of the legislative’s directive regarding that power is void. Madrid Lumber Co. v. Boone Cnty., 121 N.W.2d 523 (Iowa 1963). With the Service Board lacking the authority to enter into the 2020 agreement, the Court determines the agreement is void. As this finding is dispositive, the Court need not reach the other arguments made by Plaintiff.”

RULING

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, for the above stated reasons, that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”

———-

According to Mahaska County Emergency Manager Jamey Robinson, the E911 Service Board and the EMA Commission will hold a meeting to discuss the ruling and its next steps.

Robinson wanted to express to the people of Mahaska County that, “We will do whatever it takes to insure services are there when needed.”