XML 30 R20.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.23.3
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Water Contracts
The Company has secured water contracts that are encumbered by the Company's land. These water contracts require minimum annual payments, for which $11,657,000 is expected to be paid in 2023. For the first nine months of 2023, the Company has paid $10,700,000 for this water. These estimated water contract payments consist of SWP contracts with WRMWSD, TCWD, Tulare Lake Basin, Dudley-Ridge, 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. Contractual obligations for future water payments were $290,313,000 as of September 30, 2023.
Contracts
The Company exited a consulting contract during the second quarter of 2014 related to the Grapevine Development, or Grapevine project, and is obligated to pay an earned incentive fee at the time of its 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 fee will not be determined until the future payment dates. As of September 30, 2023, the Company believes the net savings resulting from exiting the contract during this future time period will more than offset the incentive payment costs.
Community Facilities Districts
The 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 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 the 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 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 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 $62,000.
As a landowner in each CFD, the Company is obligated 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. As of September 30, 2023, there were no additional improvement funds remaining from the 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 fiscal 2023, the Company expects to pay approximately $2,775,000 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 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 was not required to recognize an obligation on September 30, 2023.
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 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 EIR 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 CBD and the 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 CFL 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, while not consolidated under court rules or the rules of civil procedure, the Los Angeles Superior Court judge (or Court) trying both cases determined during early trial management conferences to hold one set of hearings and issue one ruling on the matters as part of the adjudication. 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 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 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 and further rescheduled as noted below.
On November 30, 2021, the Company, together with Ranchcorp and CFL, 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 Court. On December 3, 2021, the Court granted and entered Climate Resolve’s dismissal with prejudice concluding the Climate Resolve Action. On December 1, 2021, the 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, 2022, the Court heard CBD/CNPS' Motion for Reconsideration and issued its decision granting CBD/CNPS prevailing party status in the Climate Resolve Action.
The Court set a tentative hearing date of February 25, 2022 concerning the entry of final judgment and awarding of appropriate remedies, which was continued several times in 2022 either on the Court's own motion or at the request of the parties and was ultimately set for hearing on 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. On March 22, 2023, the Court decided in favor of CBD/CNPS when the Judge signed CBD/CNPS’s proposed form of judgment, which included a full rescission of the Centennial project approvals previously issued by Los Angeles County. On May 26, 2023, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court, thereby appealing the Superior Court’s decision to the Second District of the California Court of Appeal. On June 27, 2023, CBD/CNPS cross-appealed the Superior Court’s ruling. During the appeal process the Superior Court’s order of the rescission of project approvals have been placed on hold.
As the Company’s options to reinstate the project approvals remain pending, the monetary value of any adverse decision, if any, 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 believes the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, either individually or in the aggregate.