XML 47 R12.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Commitments and Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE D – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES A total of 5,488 acres of the Company’s land is subject to water contracts with the Wheeler Ridge Maricopa Water Storage District, or WRMWSD, requiring minimum future annual payments for as long as the Company owns such land. The estimated future minimum annual payments are $2,500,000 before any potential credits are received, whether or not water is available or is used. The Tejon Ranch Public Facilities Financing Authority, or TRPFFA, is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and the Tejon-Castac Water District, or TCWD, to finance public infrastructure within the Company’s Kern County developments. TRPFFA has created two Community Facilities Districts, or CFDs, the West CFD and the East CFD. The West CFD has placed liens on 271 acres of the Company’s land to secure payment of special taxes related to $30,000,000 of bond debt sold by TRPFFA for Tejon Ranch Commerce Center, or TRCC-West. The reduction in land liens placed on lands in the West CFD when compared to year-end 2011 is due to a refinancing that occurred during February 2012 that allowed for the release of liens on 1,457 acres. The East CFD has placed liens on 1,931 acres of the Company’s land to secure payments of special taxes related to $12,670,000 of 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 $107,000,000 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 $2,189,000 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 land owner 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 a two-year period of time and will be renewed in two-year intervals as necessary. The annual cost related to the letter of credit is approximately $33,000. 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 related to the TRCC West development. At this time there are no additional reimbursement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds or East CFD bonds for reimbursement of cost. During 2011, the Company paid approximately $1,061,000 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. As this happens, the Company’s obligation is correspondingly reduced. This amount could change in the future based on the amount of bonds outstanding and the amount of taxes paid by others. Tejon Mountain Village CBD Suit: On October 5, 2009, the Kern County Board of Supervisors granted entitlement approval for the Tejon Mountain Village Project (“TMV”). On November 10, 2009, a group consisting of the Center for Biological Diversity, Wishtoyo Foundation, Tri-County Watchdogs and the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (collectively, “CBD”) filed an action in the Kern County Superior Court under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, against Kern County and the Kern County Board of Supervisors, or collectively, the County, concerning the County’s granting of approval for TMV, including the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, approval of associated Kern County General Plan amendments, adoption of associated Zoning Maps, adoption of Special Plan No. 1, Map 256, exclusion from Agricultural Preserves Nos. 4 and 19, and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 6720 and 6717, among other associated approvals. TMV and the Company were named as real parties in interest (“Real Parties”) in the action. The action alleged that the County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA including failure to identify, analyze and mitigate impacts to air quality, biological resources, hydrology and water quality, traffic, cultural resources, hazards, and failure to adequately describe the project and the environmental setting. The action also alleged that the County violated the Planning and Zoning Law and the Kern County General Plan. With these allegations CBD was attempting to get the EIR and approvals from Kern County for TMV overturned. On November 5, 2010, Kern County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Twisselman ruled in favor of the County and Real Parties when he found that the County had properly analyzed and evaluated the environmental effects of TMV. In his ruling, Judge Twisselman rejected all of the claims made by CBD. On February 8, 2011, CBD appealed the court’s decision. On April 25, 2012, the California Fifth District Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) panel issued its unanimous 89-page unpublished opinion affirming the trial court’s favorable judgment against CBD in every respect and awarding costs on appeal to the County and Real Parties. On May 10, 2012, CBD filed a timely petition for rehearing, which the Court of Appeal summarily denied on May 15, 2012. Thereafter, no petition for review by the California Supreme Court was filed and the time for such review has now expired. The Court of Appeal issued its remittitur on June 25, 2012, and the Court of Appeal’s unpublished decision became final and no longer subject to review as of that date. Robinson Suit: On November 10, 2009, an additional suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno division) by David Laughing Horse Robinson (“plaintiff”) an alleged representative of the federally-unrecognized “Kawaiisu Tribe” alleging, inter alia, that the Company does not hold legal title to the land within the TMV development that it seeks to develop. The grounds for the federal lawsuit were the subject of a United States Supreme Court decision in 1924 where the United States Supreme Court found against the Indian tribes. The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. On January 24, 2011, the Company received a ruling by Judge Wanger dismissing all claims against the Company, TMV, the County and the federal defendants. However, the judge did grant a limited right by the plaintiff to amend certain causes of action in the complaint. During April, 2011, the plaintiff filed his second amended complaint against the Company, alleging similar items as in the original suit. The plaintiff filed new materials during July, 2011 related to his second amended complaint. Thereafter, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge McAuliffe. On January 18, 2012, Judge McAuliffe issued an order dismissing all claims in plaintiff’s second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and/or for lack of jurisdiction, but allowing the plaintiff one more opportunity to state certain land claims. The court also indicated that it was considering dismissing the case due to the lack of federal recognition of the “Kawaiisu Tribe”. The court then granted plaintiff an extension until March 19, 2012 to file his third amended complaint. Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on March 19, 2012. At the request of the U.S. Department of Justice acting on behalf of the Department of the Interior, defendants (including the Company) were given an extension to April 30, 2012 in which to respond to the third amended complaint. Defendants filed motions to dismiss all claims in the third amended complaint without further leave to amend on April 30, 2012. Plaintiff thereafter substituted in new counsel and with leave of court filed his opposition papers on June 8, 2012. Defendants filed their reply papers on June 22, 2012. The Court heard oral arguments on July 20, 2012 and we are now anticipating that the court will issue its ruling early August 2012. The Company believes that a negative outcome in this case is remote at this time and the monetary impact of an adverse claim, if any, also cannot be estimated at this time. National Cement The Company leases land to National Cement Company of California Inc., or National, for the purpose of manufacturing Portland cement from limestone deposits on the leased acreage. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or RWQCB, for the Lahontan Region issued several orders in the late 1990s with respect to environmental conditions on the property currently leased to National:
| (1) | Groundwater plume of chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds. This order directs the Company’s former tenant Lafarge Corporation, or Lafarge, the current tenant National, and the Company to, among other things, clean up groundwater contamination on the leased property. In 2003, Lafarge and National installed a groundwater pump-and-treat system to clean up the groundwater. The Company is advised that Lafarge and National continue to operate the cleanup system and will continue to do so over the near-term.
| (2) | Cement kiln dust. National and Lafarge have consolidated, closed and capped cement kiln dust piles located on land leased from the Company. An order of the RWQCB directs National, Lafarge and the Company to maintain and monitor the effectiveness of the cap. Maintenance of the cap and groundwater monitoring remain as on-going activities.
| (3) | Former industrial waste landfills. This order requires Lafarge, National and the Company to complete the cleanup of groundwater associated with the former industrial waste landfills. The Company is advised that the cleanup is complete. Lafarge continues to monitor the groundwater.
| (4) | Diesel fuel. An order of the RWQCB directs Lafarge, National and the Company to clean up contamination from a diesel fuel tank and pipeline. The Company is advised that Lafarge and National have substantially completed the groundwater cleanup and that groundwater monitoring remains an on-going activity.
To date, the Company is not aware of any failure by Lafarge or National to comply with the orders or informal requests of the RWQCB. Under current and prior leases, National and Lafarge are obligated to indemnify the Company for costs and liabilities arising directly or indirectly out of their use of the leased premises. The Company believes that all of the matters described above are included within the scope of the National or Lafarge indemnity obligations and that Lafarge and National have sufficient resources to perform any reasonably likely obligations relating to these matters. If they do not and the Company is required to perform the work at its own cost, it is unlikely that the amount of any such expenditure by the Company would be material. Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases On November 29, 2004, a conglomerate of public water suppliers filed a cross-complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking a judicial determination of the rights to groundwater within the Antelope Valley basin, including the groundwater underlying portions of the Company’s land in Los Angeles County. Three phases of a multi-phase trial have been completed. Upon completion of the third phase, the court ruled that the groundwater basin is currently in overdraft and established a current total sustainable yield. The court has encouraged mediation sessions to settle remaining regional issues, such as groundwater pumping allocations and appointment of a regional water master. Several such mediation sessions have occurred, the most recent of which was May 30, 2012. Through these sessions, progress was made toward reaching a settlement on groundwater allocations and counsel for the various parties have since worked to draft a Stipulated Judgment that may serve as a framework for settlement of the cases, although substantial conflicts remain to be resolved. Given the incremental progress toward resolution, the trial judge has scheduled the next phase for trial for February 2013, allowing additional time for mediation and settlement discussions and encouraging further progress in order to avoid future trial costs. It is too early to ascertain whether a settlement agreement will be reached and what effect, if any, this case may have on the Centennial project or the Company’s remaining lands in the Antelope Valley. Because the water supply plan for the Centennial project includes several sources of water in addition to groundwater underlying the Company’s lands, and because the creation of an efficient market for local water rights is frequently an outcome of adjudication proceedings, we anticipate that sufficient water to supply the Company’s needs will continue to be available for its use regardless of the outcome of this case. State Water Resources Control Board Lawsuit On May 12, 2010, the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State Water Resources Control Board, filed a complaint in the Alameda County Superior Court for civil penalties and a permanent injunction against a number of TravelCenters of America LLC, or TA, facilities in the Central Valley of California. The travel centers in the Petro Travel Plaza Holdings LLC, or TA/Petro, were also included in the complaint. The lawsuit alleges violations of various reporting, operating and monitoring regulations related to operation and maintenance of underground storage tanks. In addition to the TA/Petro entity and its respective member entities, the lawsuit also names the Company and Tejon Industrial Corporation as defendants. The Company has tendered defense of the lawsuit to TA, under the “defend and indemnify” clause in the TA/Petro LLC’s operating agreement, and has also secured the services of an outside law firm to work with TA’s outside counsel under a joint defense agreement. On September 16, 2011, the Company and Tejon Industrial Corp. were dismissed from the law suit, without prejudice. The parties remaining are currently engaged in the discovery process and have had very preliminary discussions regarding a possible negotiated resolution. At this point, however, the Company has an insufficient basis to address the merits or potential outcomes of the lawsuit. The monetary value of a potential adverse outcome on the claim likewise cannot be estimated at this time. Water Bank Lawsuits On June 3, 2010, the Central Delta and South Delta Water Agencies and several environmental groups, including CBD, filed a complaint in the Sacramento County Superior Court against the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Kern County Water Agency and a number of “real parties in interest,” including the Company and TCWD. The lawsuit challenges certain amendments to the State Water Project contracts that were originally approved in 1995, known as the “Monterey Amendments.” The original EIR for the Monterey Amendments was determined to be insufficient in an earlier lawsuit, and the current lawsuit challenges the remedial EIR that DWR prepared as a result of the original lawsuit. Among other allegations, the current lawsuit also challenges the transfer of the Kern Water Bank, or KWB, from DWR to Kern County Water Agency and in turn to the Kern Water Bank Authority (KWBA), whose members are various Kern and Kings County interests, including TCWD, which TCWD has a 2% interest in the KWBA. A parallel lawsuit was also filed against Kern County Water Agency, also naming the Company and TCWD as real parties in interest, which has been stayed pending the outcome of the other action against DWR. The Company is named on the ground that it “controls” TCWD. TCWD has a contract right for water stored in the KWB and rights to recharge and withdraw water. Counsel for the Company is pursuing a dismissal of the Company from these lawsuits. Given the preliminary nature of these lawsuits, the Company has an insufficient basis to address the merits or potential outcomes of the lawsuit. The monetary value of a potential adverse outcome on the claim likewise cannot be estimated at this time.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6952336&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name FASB Interpretation (FIN) -Number 14 -Paragraph 3 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 6: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 7: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) -Number 5 -Paragraph 9, 10, 11, 12 -LegacyDoc This reference is SUPERSEDED by the Accounting Standards Codification effective for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. This reference is included to help users transition from the previous accounting hierarchy and will be removed from future versions of this taxonomy. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration