California Advisory Opinions March 17, 1982: Ca. Att. Gen Opinion 81-803

Advisory Opinion Text

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Attorney General

OPINION
of
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Attorney General
Victor D. Sonenberg Deputy Attorney General

THE HONORABLE L. B. ELAM, COUNTY COUNSEL, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, has requested an opinion on the following question:

When it is proposed to combine two special districts, formed pursuant to the same principal act, into a single district by dissolving one of the districts and simultaneously annexing all of its territory to the remaining district which will continue to operate in the combined territory, is such a proposal governed by the "reorganization" procedures of the district Reorganization Act or by the "consolidation" procedures of that Act?

When it is proposed to combine two special districts, formed pursuant to the same principal act, into a single district by dissolving one of the districts and simultaneously annexing all of its territory to the remaining district which will continue to

Page 2

operate in the combined territory, such a proposal is governed by the "reorganization" procedures of the District Reorganization Act and not by the "consolidation" procedures of that Act.

Confronted with a disorganized proliferation of special districts and an absence of a coherent and effective process for modifying or discontinuing such districts as the best interests of the community might require, the Legislature enacted the District Reorganization Act of 1965. ( Morro Hills Community Services Dist . v. Board of Supervisors (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 765, 770-771; Del Paso Recreation & Park Dist . v. Board of Supervisors (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 483, 490-491; 61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 497, 500-501 (1978); Final Report, Assembly Int. Comm. on Municipal and County Gov., pp. 39, 40-42, I Appen. to Assem. J. (1965 Reg. Sess.).) The purpose of this Act was to rationalize and bring uniformity to the processes of forming, altering and dissolving special districts in order to afford an effective means of making such processes more responsive to the continual changes in community needs for governmental services. ( Morro Hills Community Services Dist . v. Board of Supervisors , supra , 78 Cal.App.3d at pp. 770-771; Friends of Mount Diablo v. County of Contra Costa (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 1006, 1011; Del Paso Recreation & Park Dist . v. Board of Supervisors , supra , 33 Cal.App.3d at pp. 490-491; Final Report, Assembly Int. Comm., supra , at pp. 40-42, 48-50; 57 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 599, 600 (1974).) The Legislature has designated this Act as providing "the sole and exclusive authority and procedure for the initiation, conduct and completion" of such district reorganizing processes. (§ 56001; Morro Hills Community Services Dist . v. Board of Supervisors , supra , 78 Cal.App.3d at p. 771; Del Paso Recreation & Park Dist . v. Board of Supervisors , supra , 33 Cal.App.3d at p. 491.)

Briefly outlining the procedures under the District Reorganization Act, we note that the process of instituting changes is initiated either by a petition submitted by the voters or by an application submitted by the legislative body of any affected county, city or district (§§ 56130, 56140, 56195). The petition or application setting forth the proposed change is submitted to the executive officer of the local agency formation commission (LAFCO) (§§ 56151, 56196). The matter is then set for public hearing before LAFCO (§§ 56157, 56198, 56262). LAFCO has the power to review the proposal and to disapprove it or to approve it "with or without amendment, wholly, partially or conditionally . . . ." (§ 56250.) In some circumstances, LAFCO may, prior to making a determination on the proposal, first submit it to a "reorganization committee" for its report and recommendations. (§§ 56211-56212.) After a hearing before LAFCO on the proposal,

Page 3

LAFCO makes its determination disapproving or approving the proposal subject to any terms and conditions LAFCO may specify pursuant to its authority. (§ 56270.)

After such approval, the proposal, if it involves more than one district, is submitted to the board of supervisors for the conduct of proceedings for a change of organization (§ 56291) in compliance with LAFCO's determination. (§ 56292; see also §§ 56380, 56430.) Following a public hearing before the board of supervisors (see §§ 56383, 56433), the board makes its determination either disapproving or approving the proposal and submitting it, except in specified circumstances, to the voters for their approval or rejection. (See §§ 56386, 56439.)

The present question requires an interpretation of specific provisions of the District Reorganization Act and arises out of a factual situation involving a proposal to unite two districts into a single district. This is to be accomplished by the process of dissolving one district and simultaneously annexing all of its territory into the territory of another district. The annexing district, with the same governing body, would continue to exist with its territory thus expanded as a result of the annexation. In this factual situation both of the districts were formed pursuant to the same principal act. The specific question we consider is whether such a process must be undertaken pursuant to the "reorganization" procedures of the District Reorganization Act (§§ 56430-56444) or do the Act's "consolidation" procedures (§§ 56380-56388) govern in the circumstances outlined above.

The significance of this question lies in the fact that a reorganization can be accomplished with the approval of a majority of voters of only the annexed territory of the district to be dissolved (§ 56440, subds. (a), (c), § 56443), whereas a consolidation must be approved by a majority of voters in each of the districts involved (§ 56388).

Page 4

Controlling the resolution of this question are the Act's definitions of the pertinent terms.

The general term applicable to all types of modifications in the organization of districts is the phrase "change of organization." This term is defined in section 56028 to mean:

". . . an annexation or detachment of territory to or from a district, a minor boundary change, the dissolution or consolidation of any district or districts, a merger or the establishment of a subsidiary district, and, in the case of a reorganization, also includes district formations, annexations to, detachments from, and disincorporations of, cities when the affected cities do not object to such annexations, detachments, or disincorporations, and the incorporation of new cities when the board of supervisors does not object to such incorporations." (Emphasis added.)

With respect to the terms which are the specific subject of the question before us, the term "consolidation" is defined in section 56035 as:

"[T]he uniting or joining of two or more districts into a single new successor district, all such districts having been or being formed pursuant to the same principal act."

The term "reorganization" is defined in section 56068 to mean:

"(a) Two or more changes of organization proposed for any single subject district; or

"(b) One or more changes of organization proposed for:

"(1) Each of two or more subject districts, including cities, landowner-voter districts or resident-voter districts and may include the formation of

Page 5

one or more new districts consisting of all or any part of the territory of any of the subject districts; or

"(2) Any single such subject district and shall include the formation of one or more new districts consisting of all or any part of the territory of such subject district." (See also § 56210.)

Analyzing the present transaction in terms of these definitions we note such transaction consists of at least two "changes of organization": the annexation of territory and the dissolution of a district. (A "detachment" of the territory from the district being dissolved is also an implicit component of this transaction.) Further, these changes involve two districts. The transaction thus comprises the elements of a "reorganization" as specified in subdivision (b) of section 56068: "One or more changes of organization proposed for: (1) Each of two or more subject districts . . . ." Likewise a "consolidation" also consists of changes of organization involving at least two districts, and thus it too satisfies such criteria of a "reorganization." However, a "consolidation" is a specific type of multidistrict transaction: that which involves the combining of only those districts formed under the same principal act and which results in the formation of a new successor district. (§ 56035; see also § 56380(a).) As noted, the transaction considered here also consists of the combining of two districts that have been formed under the same principal act. To this extent it manifests elements of a "consolidation." However, the transaction is distinguishable from a "consolidation" in that it is not devised so as to result in the establishment of a "new successor district." Instead, the transaction contemplates the continuation of the annexing district enhanced by the annexed territory. Therefore, the proposed transaction is not of the type specified as being subject to the "consolidation" procedures of the District Reorganization Act. (§§ 56380-56388.) But since it involves at least two "changes of organization" affecting two districts, the transaction would be subject to that Act's "reorganization" procedures. (§§ 56430-56444.)

While it is true that the community would be left with much the same governmental configuration after either a consolidation or the transaction considered here, in that one district of a particular type would be serving the same territory that was formerly served by two districts of that type, the fact that the proposed transaction would not create a new governmental entity, as would a consolidation, constitutes a distinction of sufficient substance between the two types of reorganizing operations to warrant divergent treatment by the Legislature. Most pertinent in this regard is the fact that creation of a "new successor district" under the consolidation procedures requires the establishment and selection of a new governing body with jurisdiction over all of the newly united territory. (§ 56112.) This, of course, is a matter of some consequence that is equally significant to all of the voters in both of the joined districts. The fact that the voters in both of the districts being consolidated have essentially an equal and significant interest in such an organizational

Page 6

change is reflected in section 56112, which provides that an elective governing body and officers of a consolidated district shall be selected at the same election that is conducted to confirm the consolidation, and in section 56388, which provides that such consolidation must be approved by a majority of the voters "in each district ordered to be consolidated." (Emphasis added.)

On the other hand, where, as in the transaction considered here, one of the combined districts continues in existence with the same governing personnel, the significance of the change to the voters of such continuing district would be far less than it would be to the voters in the territory of the dissolving district who would, as a result of the change, be coming under the jurisdiction of a different governmental entity. (§ 56480.) Consequently, in a reorganization involving an annexation and dissolution and the continuation of the annexing district, such as is proposed here, the matter is presented for approval of the voters only in the annexed territory of the district which is being dissolved. (§ 56440, subds. (a) and (c); § 56443.) (See Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist . v. Local Agency Formation Com . (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 648, 675-681, concerning the propriety of confining an election only to the territory ordered to be detached.)

It can thus be seen that joining districts in a manner that results in the continuation of an existing district, as opposed to the creation of a new district, to exercise jurisdiction over the entire combined territory constitutes a substantial variation from the organizational changes contemplated by the consolidation provisions of the District Reorganization Act. Thus where an existing district will be continued, there would be no basis for applying the consolidation provisions with its requirement of an election in the territories of both of the districts being joined.

We therefore conclude that the reorganization provisions (§§ 56430-56444) and not the consolidation provisions (§§ 56380-56388) are applicable to the process of combining the territory of two districts by annexation where one of the districts is dissolved and the other district continues to function with jurisdiction over the entire combined territory.