COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company's land is subject to water contracts of which $12,730,000 is expected to be paid in 2023. These estimated water contract payments consist of SWP, contracts with Wheeler Ridge Maricopa Water Storage District, TCWD, Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, Dudley-Ridge Water Storage District and the Nickel water contract. The SWP contracts run through 2035 and the Nickel water contract runs through 2044, with an option to extend an additional 35 years. As discussed in Note 6 (Long-Term Water Assets), the Company purchased the assignment of a contract to purchase water in late 2013. The assigned water contract is with Nickel and obligates the Company to purchase 6,693 acre-feet of water annually through the term of the contract. The Company's contractual obligation for future water payments was $277,653,000 as of December 31, 2022.

As of December 31, 2022, the Company has fulfilled its financial obligations to the Tejon Ranch Conservancy as prescribed in the Conservation Agreement that was entered into with five major environmental organizations in 2008.

The Company exited a consulting contract during the second quarter of 2014 related to the Grapevine Development and is obligated to pay an earned incentive fee at the time of successful receipt of litigated project entitlements and at a value measurement date five years after litigated entitlements have been achieved for Grapevine. The final amount of the incentive fees will not be finalized until the future payment dates. The Company believes that net savings from exiting the contract over this future time period will more than offset the incentive payment costs.

The Tejon Ranch Public Facilities Financing Authority, or TRPFFA, is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and TCWD to finance public infrastructure within the Company’s Kern County developments. For the development of TRCC, TRPFFA has created two Community Facilities Districts, or CFDs: the West CFD and the East CFD. The West CFD has placed liens on 420 acres of the Company’s land to secure payment of special taxes related to $19,540,000 of outstanding bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-West. The East CFD has placed liens on 1,931 acres of the Company’s land to secure payments of special taxes related to $72,055,000 of outstanding bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-East. At TRCC-West, the West CFD has no additional bond debt approved for issuance. At TRCC-East, the East CFD has approximately $44,035,000 of additional bond debt authorized by TRPFFA that can be sold in the future.

In connection with the sale of bonds, there is a standby letter of credit for $4,393,000 related to the issuance of East CFD bonds. The standby letter of credit is in place to provide additional credit enhancement and cover approximately two years' worth of interest on the outstanding bonds. This letter of credit will not be drawn upon unless the Company, as the largest landowner in the CFD, fails to make its property tax payments. The Company believes that the letter of credit will never be drawn upon. The letter of credit is for two years and will be renewed in two-year intervals as necessary. The annual cost related to the letter of credit is approximately $10,000.

The Company is obligated, as a landowner in each CFD, to pay its share of the special taxes assessed each year. The secured lands include both the TRCC-West and TRCC-East developments. Proceeds from the sale of West CFD bonds went to reimburse the Company for public infrastructure costs related to the TRCC-West development. At December 31, 2022 there were no additional improvement funds remaining from West CFD bonds. There are $9,763,557 of additional improvement funds remaining within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of public infrastructure costs during future years. During 2022, the Company paid approximately $2,899,000 in special taxes. As development continues to occur at TRCC, new owners of land and new lease tenants, through triple net leases, will bear an increasing portion of the assessed special tax. This amount could change in the future based on the amount of bonds outstanding and the amount of taxes paid by others. The assessment of each individual property sold or leased is not determinable at this time because it is based on the current tax rate and the assessed

value of the property at the time of sale or on its assessed value at the time it is leased to a third-party. Accordingly, the Company is not required to recognize an obligation at December 31, 2022.

Centennial

On April 30, 2019, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors granted final entitlement approval for the Centennial project. On May 15, 2019, Climate Resolve filed an action in Los Angeles Superior Court (the Climate Resolve Action), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and the California Planning and Zoning Law, against the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively, LA County) concerning LA County’s granting of approvals for the Centennial project, including certification of the final environmental impact report and related findings (Centennial EIR); approval of associated general plan amendments; adoption of associated zoning; adoption of the Centennial Specific Plan; approval of a subdivision map for financing purposes; and adoption of a development agreement, among other approvals (collectively, the Centennial Approvals). Separately, on May 28, 2019, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court (the CBD/CNPS Action) against LA County; like the Climate Resolve Action, the CBD/CNPS Action also challenges the Centennial Approvals. The Company, its wholly owned subsidiary Tejon Ranchcorp, and Centennial Founders, LLC are named as real parties-in-interest in both the Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action.

The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action collectively allege that LA County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action have been deemed “related” and have been consolidated for adjudication before the judge presiding over the Climate Resolve Action. The Climate Resolve Action and CBD/CNPS Action seek to invalidate the Centennial Approvals and require LA County to revise the environmental documentation related to the Centennial project. The court held three consolidated hearings for the CBD/CNPS Action and Climate Resolve Action on September 30, 2020, November 13, 2020, and January 8, 2021.

On April 5, 2021 the court issued its decision denying the petition for writ of mandate by CBD/CNPS and granting the petition for writ of mandate filed by Climate Resolve. In granting Climate Resolve’s petition, the court found three specific areas where the EIR for the project was lacking. The court ruled that California’s Cap-and-Trade Program cannot be used as a compliance pathway for mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts for the project and therefore further ruled that additional analysis will be required related to all feasible mitigation of GHG impacts. The court also found that the EIR must provide additional analysis and explanation of how wildland fire risk on lands outside of the project site, posed by on-site ignition sources, is mitigated to less than significant. On April 19, 2021 CBD filed a motion for reconsideration with the court on the denial of their petition for writ of mandate to be granted prevailing party status in the Climate Resolve Action (“Motion for Reconsideration”). The hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration originally scheduled for August 13, 2021, was rescheduled to December 1, 2021.

On November 30, 2021, the Company together with Ranchcorp and Centennial, entered into a Settlement Agreement with Climate Resolve. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed: (1) to make Centennial a net zero GHG emissions project through various on-site and off-site measures, including but not limited to installing electric vehicle chargers and establishing and funding incentive programs for the purchase of electric vehicles; (2) to fund certain on-site and off-site fire protection and prevention measures; and (3) to provide annual public reports and create an organization to monitor progress towards these commitments. The foregoing is only a summary of the material terms of the Settlement Agreement and does not purport to be a complete description of the rights and obligations of the parties thereunder and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Settlement Agreement. In exchange, Climate Resolve filed a request for dismissal of the Climate Resolve Action with prejudice from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On December 3, 2021, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted and entered Climate Resolve’s dismissal with prejudice concluding the Climate Resolve Action. On December 1, 2021, the Los Angeles Superior Court continued CBD/CNPS Motion for Reconsideration to January 14, 2022, directing CBD/CNPS to evaluate the Settlement Agreement reached in the Climate Resolve Action to address issues surrounding remedies should CBD be granted prevailing party status in the Climate Resolve Action, and to evaluate the potential to settle or otherwise address CBD’s objections to the Centennial project. To that end, the Company met and conferred twice on January 4, 2022 and January 20, 2022. On January 14, the Los Angeles County Superior Court heard CBD/CNPS Motion for Reconsideration and issued its decision granting CBD/CNPS prevailing party status in the Climate Resolve Action. The Los Angeles County Superior Court set a tentative hearing date of February 25, 2022 concerning the entry of final judgment and awarding of appropriate remedies. Upon mutual request of the parties and approval by the Court, the February 25, 2022 hearing date has been extended on four separate occasions, originally to March 30, 2022, and then again to May 13, 2022, July 1, 2022 and most recently to September 7, 2022. On September 7, 2022, the Parties appeared before the Court concerning the entry of final judgment and the setting of appropriate remedies. The Court upon hearing oral argument ordered the parties to continue to meet and confer for an additional 30 days and continued the September 7th hearing to October 7, 2022. On October 3, 2022, the Court issued an order on the Court’s own continuance to further continue the October 7, 2022 hearing to October 21, 2022. Upon mutual request of the Parties and approval by the Court, the Parties extended the October 21, 2022 hearing date to October 26, 2022. At the October 26th hearing, the Court agreed to: (a) hear the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration as to the successful challenges Climate Resolve prevailed upon within the Climate Resolve Action and ordered the Parties to appear on December 14, 2022 to hear the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration and (b) rule on the entry of final judgment and

setting of remedies at a February 17, 2023 hearing date. At the December 14, 2022 hearing, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration (finding that the Company’s motion failed to support the statutory elements necessary to prevail on such motion). At the February 17, 2023 hearing, the Court took into submission the Parties’ legal briefs and oral arguments and notified the Parties that a decision on entry of the final judgment would be soon forthcoming. Prior to and subsequent of final judgment being entered, appellate litigation may follow. To the extent there may be an adverse outcome of the claims still pending as described above, the monetary value cannot be estimated at this time.

Proceedings Incidental to Business

From time to time, the Company is involved in other proceedings incidental to its business, including actions relating to employee claims, real estate disputes, contractor disputes and grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies.

The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, the Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows either individually or in the aggregate.