On the federal level, a presidential memorandum issued in 1966 recognized the problem and requested federal agencies to coordinate and establish the multi-jurisdictional planning units with boundaries congruous with state planning and development districts.  Subsequently, circulars A-80 (1967) and A-95 (1969) were issued by the Bureau of the Budget encouraging the establishment of these state planning and development districts. The catalyst of circular A-95, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, requested the creation of mechanisms to evaluate and review federal programs that heavily influence local planning and development.

In conjunction with federal developments, the State Advisory Planning Committee, under supervision of Governor Calvin L. Rampton, issued the report Recommended Preliminary Utah State Multi-County Regions in 1966. The Committee originally proposed five main regions and three sub-regions, later deciding on eight full-scale regions. The Governor released the official multi-county district boundaries in an executive order on May 17, 1970, to take effect two months later (July 1, 1970).

Although eight districts were defined, seven multi-county districts were created, numbers two and three combined from the beginning to form the Wasatch Front Regional Council. The table below lists the original districts, their name (with their current name, if changed, in italics/parentheses), and constituent counties. Originally, the multi-county districts were not all named Associations of Government. Since then, all the districts, except the Wasatch Front, have been renamed to reflect the term Association of Governments. 

Along with these assumptions, the Planning Committee chose the following factors as the criteria for determining the regional boundaries and groupings:
 

• Economic and demographic development patterns
• Organized inter- and intra-county relationships
• Existing intra-state and federal classifications recognized by government agencies, state-wide organizations, and other non-governmental groups and planners
• Natural economic subdivisions.

The organization of each AOG was to reflect the population, economic patterns, resources, and problems of its particular region. However, to avoid a wide array of differences in local organization and to ensure effective operation between the associations, their constituents, and the state, official guidelines for organization were established in the governor's executive order in compliance with the Utah Inter-Local Cooperation Act of 1965.

The executive order called for an executive board, consisting of representatives of city and county governments and other local agencies. The role of the executive board is defined as follows:
 

• develop goals and policy for the entire region
• strengthen role of locally elected officials in the region
• serve as a vehicle for communication between local and state levels
• act as a coordination tool.

 

With regards to the functions of the AOGs, the following is taken from the original document by the State Planning Coordinator that establishes the AOGs.  The functions of a multi-county association of government should include, but not be limited to, the following:

1. Preparing, adopting, and from time to time, revising or amending plans and guideline for the development of the district. Such plans and guidelines should be adequate for the purpose of making policies and directing a coordinated effort in the economic, physical and social development of the district which will, in accordance with present and future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, order, prosperity, and welfare of its citizens.

2. Providing information to officials in departments, agencies, and instrumentalities; to federal, state, and local governments; and to the public at standing of the objectives and functions of the district and to stimulate public interest and participation in the orderly, integrated development of the district.

3. Cooperating with and providing assistance to instrumentalities or planning agencies within the district for coordinating district or area-wide planning with planning activities of the counties, municipalities, special districts or other local governmental units within the district as well as of neighboring districts, and with the programs of federal departments and agencies.

4. Receiving designation as a recognized sponsoring agency to receive federal grants for planning and development purposes, which may have district-wide significance, including:
 

a. Section 403, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (economic development districts).
b. Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 (multi-county planning) .
c. Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968 (law enforcement planning).
d. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (human resources planning).
e. Area-wide Health Planning Act of 1965.
f. Resource conservation and development programs.
g. Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963.
h. Any other state and federal programs providing funds for multi-county planning, coordination, and development purposes.
 

6. Employing staff and contracting with consultants, federal and state departments and agencies to provide services as required and offering technical assistance and advice to units of local government on intergovernmental actions and relationships.

7. Preparing studies on the district's resources, with respect to existing and emerging problems of industry, commerce, transportation, population, housing agriculture, public services, local governments and any other matters which are relevant for the associations efforts.

Additionally, the regional executive boards act as area-wide clearinghouses for the State of Utah, in which they review local applications for federal and state assistance. The Office of the State Planning Coordinator, which oversees the State-wide Clearinghouse, established this role with the AOGs to help implement the Federal Assistance Management Program Act of 1969 and Bureau of the Budget Circular A-95.

The AOGs were originally funded out of contributions and matching funds from participating local governments, direct grants from various federal or state agencies, and revenue from gifts, donations, or fees. Revenue from the state legislature included the Multi-County Assistance Grant. The legislature did not mandate the use of the general fund appropriation, but allocated the grant in support of multi-county planning to be used at the AOGs' discretion. In most cases, the revenue supported administrative costs and was used as matching funds for other programs.

In 1986, the Permanent Community Impact Board (CIB) became the source of the multi-county assistance funds. The CIB was commissioned to oversee the appropriation of the mineral lease funds back to the local governments.

The legislature tied strings to the CIB funds in 1990, requiring the associations to perform:
 

1) Economic development planning and coordination.
2) Travel and tourism planning and coordination.
3) Capital planning and infrastructure development.
4) Intergovernmental coordination.
5) Cultural resource development and coordination.

1) Support for city and county planning.
2) Assist in plan implementation.
3) Participate in state initiatives.
4) Maintain and strengthen intra-regional coordination.
5) Maintain and distribute economic and demographic data to local governments.
6) Report on planning activities.
7) Support Utah Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations (UACIR) activities.

Likewise, GOPB has defined the state's role in the mandate attached to the funds:
 

1) Improve access to state resources.
2) Provide referral services to other state agencies.
3) Raise the awareness of local government concerns.
4) Establish federal government contacts for the AOGs and their local governments.
5) Provide technical assistance with economic and demographic information.
6) Support regional planning.