MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP GEORGE SONEFF BURG DAVIDojaiflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FLOW-Declaration-of-Mora… · 1 DECLARATION OF DAVID T. MORAN 2 I DAVID T. MORAN declare

1 MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLPGEORGE M. SONEFF State Bar No. 117128

2 EDWARD G. BURG State Bar No. 104258DAVID T. MORAN State Bar No. 217647

3 11355 West Olympic Boulevard

Los Angeles California 90064-1614

4 Telephone 310 312-4000

Facsimile 310 312-4224

5Attorneysfor Petitioner

6GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY

7

8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

10

11 CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATERDISTRICT and CASITAS MUNICIPAL Case No. 56-2016-00481628-CU-EI-VTA

12 WATER DISTRICT COMMUNITYFACILITIES DISTRICT NO 2013-1 Assigned For All Purposes Hon. Vincent J.

13 OJAI ONeill Jr. Dept. 41

14 Plaintiffs DECLARATION OF DAVID T. MORAN IN

15 vs.SUPPORT OF SPECIAL MOTION TOSTRIKE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT

16 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY a PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL

California Corporation and DOES 1 PROCEDURE 425.1617 through 50 inclusive

Date August 3 2016

18 Defendant. Time 830 a.m.

Dept 41

19

Action Filed May 12 201620 Trial Date None set

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MANATT PHELPS

PHILLIPS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW DECLARATION OF DAVID T. MORANLos ANGELES

1 DECLARATION OF DAVID T. MORAN

2 I DAVID T. MORAN declare as follows

3 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all courts in the state of

4 California. I am a partner at the law firm of Manatt Phelps Phillips LLP counsel of record for

5 Defendant Golden State Water Company Golden State in the above-captioned action. I make

6 this declaration of my own personal knowledge. If called as a witness I could and would testify

7 competently to the facts contained herein.

8 2. On March 26 2013 Golden State filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and

9 Complaint to Determine Validity the Petition. The Petition sought to ascertain the validity of

10 three resolutions passed by Casitas Municipal Water District on March 13 2013. Taken together

11 the Resolutions declared the necessity of issuing $60M in bonds to finance Casitas eminent

12 domain takeover of Golden States property authorized the levy of a special tax against

13 properties within the geographic area affected by the takeover to pay the bond debt and called for

14 a special election to authorize the issuance of the $60M in bonds and the special taxes to pay the

15 bond debt.

16 3. In the Petition Golden State argued among other things that the Mello-Roos Act

17 only authorized the purchase of real or tangible property with an estimated useful life of five

18 years or longer and that Casitas intended to utilize the bond proceeds to fund the condemnation

19 of intangible property and other interests with an estimated useful life of less than five years and

20 to pay for litigation expenses. As a result Golden State sought to invalidate the Casitas

21 Resolutions and to enjoin the levying of special taxes and incursion of bonded indebtedness to

22 finance the takeover. A true and correct copy of Golden States Verified Petition and Complaint

23 is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

24 III

25 III

26 III

27 III

28 III

MANATT PHELPS

PHILLIPS LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW DECLARATION OF DAVID T. MORAN

Los ANGELES

1 4. On March 13 2014 the Court issued its ruling denying Golden States Petition. A

2 true and correct copy of the Courts March 13 2014 Ruling on Petition for Writ of Mandate is

3 attached hereto as ExhibitB-45 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

6 is true and correct and that I executed this declaration on July 5 2016 in Los Angeles California.

7

tt

8

9DAVID T. MORAN

10

11

317073487.1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MANATT PHELPS

PHILLIPS LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW DECLARATION OF DAVID T. MORAN

Los ANGELES

EXHIBIT A

1 MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLPGEORGE M. SONEFF State Bar No. 117128

2 DAVID T. MORAN State Bar No. 21764711355 West Olympic Boulevard

3 Los Angeles California 90064-1614

Telephone 310 312-40004 Facsimile 310 312-4224

5 Attorneys for Petitioner

GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY6

7


9 FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA

10 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY a Case No.California Corporation

11

Petitioner/Plaintiff

12vs.

13 CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF

DISTRICT a quasi-municipal corporationMANDATE AND

14 CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER COMPLAINT TO DETERMINEDISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES VALIDITY AND DECLARATORY

15 DISTRICT NO. 2013-1 OJAI a RELIEFpurported community facilities district

16 ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THEVALIDITY OF CASITAS MUNICIPAL

17 WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTIONSNOS. 13-12 13-13 AND 13-14 and

18 DOES 1 through 50 inclusive

19Respondents/Defendants

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MANATT PHELPS

PHILLIPS LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT

LOS ANGELES

1 SUMMARY OF ACTION

2 1. For over a century Golden State Water Company Golden State and its

3 predecessors have provided public water service to the City of Ojai California. Golden State

4 owns all of the water system facilities - the water wells pumps tanks water mains easements

5 water rights etc. - necessary to serve Ojai and provides service pursuant to rates set by the

6 California Public Utilities Commission.

7 2. Casitas Municipal Water District Casitas MWD which provides agricultural

8 and municipal water in areas adjacent to Ojai has decided to attempt to expand its operations to

9 become the water service provider to the City of Ojai. Golden State has made clear that its Ojai

10 water system is not for sale. Accordingly Casitas MWD intends to exercise the power of

11 eminent domain to take Golden States Ojai water system thus supplanting Golden State as Ojais

12 water service provider.

13 3. To generate the funds necessary for its eminent domain litigation and takeover

14 plan Casitas MWDs Board has passed resolutions for the formation of a Community Facilities

15 District - Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 Ojai the

16 CFD. A CFD is a type of financing district created pursuant to a statutory scheme known as

17 the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 the Mello-Roos Act codified in

18 Government Code Section 53311 et. seq. Casitas MWDs plan is to have its newly-created CFD

19 entity sell up to $60 million in bonds subject to voter approval at a special election to be held on

20 August 27 2013. The bond proceeds would be used to fund all costs of the attempted eminent

21 domain taking against Golden State. The bonds would be repaid by new property taxes levied

22 upon every parcel of land in the City of Ojai secured by tax liens against each parcel. The new

23 CFD is to be controlled by Casitas MWDs Board of Directors.

24 4. This lawsuit is necessary because Casitas MWDs plan violates the law. The

25 Mello-Roos Act funding mechanism may not as a matter of law be used to finance a taking by

26 eminent domain. The Mello-Roos Act was promulgated in the wake of Proposition 13 to provide

27 developers and local governments with an alternative method to finance new facilities and

28

MANATT PHELPS


LOS ANGELES

1 services such as roads schools or parks in developing areas - not for the taking by eminent

2 domain of existing facilities that are already devoted to public use.

3 5. Casitas MWDs formal Resolutions passed on March 13 2013 make clear that it

4 plans to use the proceeds from $60 million in Mello-Roos Act bonds to pay for all costs of the

5 eminent domain litigation - for all damages and compensation awarded to Golden State and for

6 lawyers appraisers expert witnesses etc. - and even for all damages awarded to Golden State in

7 the event the eminent domain takeover is not allowed by the Court a strong possibility.

8 6. Further Casitas MWD has attempted to build a failsafe mechanism into its novel

9 use of the Mello-Roos Act. Specifically Casitas MWDs Resolutions include the provision that it

10 may abandon the takeover effort after the eminent domain trial if its Board decides in its sole

11 discretion that the jurys verdict setting the compensation to Golden State is more than Casitas

12 MWD can responsibly pay. However as explained below that failsafe is fundamentally

13 flawed because under the law Casitas MWD may not be permitted by the Court to simply

14 abandon the eminent domain taking regardless of the size of the verdict. Thus all of Casitas

15 MWDs customers could suffer the impact of a large juryverdict beyond what the bond funds can

16 cover and it may not be avoided by the expedient of simply abandoning the taking. The

17 failsafe provision is illusory.

18 7. Thus there is a probability that the end result ofCasitas MWDs proposedMello-19Roos-funded eminent domain plan would be that 1 Ojai residents are left with nothing but tax

20 liens on their property for decades simply to pay litigation expenses for all parties and a

21 judgment in favor of Golden State for damages stemming from an attempted taking that was

22 rejected by the Court or 2 the eminent domain taking is allowed but the verdict is larger than

23 anything Casitas MWD thinks it can responsibly pay and Casitas MWDs effort to abandon is

24 denied by the Court leaving all Casitas MWD customers including those outside of Ojai to pay

25 the eminent domain judgment and all other litigation expenses of both parties. If the taking is

26 allowed it cannot be known in advance how high the monetary award to Golden State will be as

27

28

MANATT PHELPS 2


LOS ANGELES

1 under the California Constitution the amount of just compensation owed for a taking can be

2 decided only by a jury.

3 8. This sort of risky litigation gambling use of the Mello-Roos Act is not allowed.

4 The Act authorizes funding for the purchase of real or tangible property that is used for certain

5 community facilities. Govt. Code 53313.5. But the law distinguishes between purchase and

6 taking by eminent domain and the two are not the same. As explained below while the

7 statutes were being deliberated the Legislature made changes to the language of the Mello-Roos

8 Act to ensure that it could not be used to fund a taking by eminent domain. Nor can the Act be

9 used in any way to finance the acquisition of intangible rights such as business goodwill and

10 water rights which Casitas MWD would need to take by eminent domain to operate Golden

11 States system. Finally the definitions for costs and incidental expenses in the Mello-Roos

12 Act see Govt. Code 53317c and e do not permit the financing of unknowable litigation

13 costs and damages awardable to a property owner in the prosecution of an eminent domain

14 lawsuit - costs and damages that Casitas MWD admittedly plans to finance using theMello-15Roos Act.

16 9. Because Casitas MWD has scheduled an election of Ojai voters on August 27

17 2013 in which they will be asked to decide whether to endorse this unauthorized use of the

18 Mello-Roos Act financing plan Golden State seeks prompt relief from this Court declaring

19 Casitas MWDs implementing resolutions invalid. Depending on the schedule for hearing and

20 decision provisional injunctive relief may be necessary.

21 THE PARTIES

2210. Petitioner/Plaintiff Golden State Water Company is and at all times mentioned

23was a California corporation doing business in the County of Ventura State of California.

24Golden State is the owner of real and personal property within the territory of the CFD and owns

25and operates the real tangible and intangible property sought to be taken by Casitas MWD.

26Golden State operates its Ojai water system pursuant to the regulatory authority of the California

27Public Utilities Commission.

28

MANATT PHELPS 3

PHII.I.IPS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LA- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT

Los ANGELES

1 11. Respondent/Defendant Casitas MWD is and at all times mentioned was aquasi-2municipal corporation formed as a municipal water district doing business in the County of

3 Ventura State of California.

4 12. Respondent/Defendant Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities

5 District No. 2013-1 OJAI the CFD is a Community Facilities District formed by Casitas

6 MWD on or about March 13 2013 and intends to do business in the County of Ventura State of

7 California.

8 13. Defendants All Persons Interested in the Validity of Resolutions Nos. 13-1213-913 and 13-14 are any such persons with an interest in the validity of the Resolutions who may

10 join the action to determine the validity of the Resolutions at a later date.

11 14. The true names or capacities whether individual corporate associate or

12 otherwise of Respondents/Defendants Does 1 through 50 are unknown to Golden State. Each

13 Doe Respondent/Defendant contributed to or is somehow responsible for the conduct alleged

14 herein. Golden State will amend this Petition to show the Doe Respondents/Defendants true

15 names and capacities when ascertained.

16 THE PERTINENT FACTS AND LAW

1715. Golden State is a California Corporation authorized by the California Public

18Utilities Commission CPUC to provide retail water service pursuant to the Public Utilities

19Code. Golden State owns and operates a water system in Ojai California providing water to the

20residents of the City ofOjai. Golden State is regulated by the CPUC which among other things

21sets the rates that Ojai residents pay for water delivered by Golden State. Golden State owns real

22property in the City of Ojai that would be subject to the special taxes to be levied under the

23Mello-Roos Act as described below.

2416. Golden States Ojai water system is comprised of wells system storage booster

25stations and interconnections. The system has five different pressure gradients. There are over

2644 miles of water distribution mains ranging in size from four 4 inches to twelve 12 inches in

27diameter. Water storage facilities consist of five reservoirs located throughout the distribution

28

MANATT PHELPS 4PHILLIPS LLPATTORNEYS AT LAM VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRri OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT

LOS ANGELES

Isystem. The current total storage capacity of the Ojai system is 1.49 million gallons although the

2 actual storage is less than that since the tanks are operated with several feet of free board as a

3 result of a seismic and structural review. Water to the Cityof Ojai is supplied by the five

4 company owned wells which pump from the Ojai Valley Groundwater Basin.

5 17. Golden State holds a vested appropriative right to pump over 2000 acre-feet of

6 water annually from the wells it owns overlying the Ojai Valley Groundwater Basin. Golden

7 State has no plans to sell either its water system or its water rights. Golden States Ojai water

8 system including its water rights potentially has a cumulative market value exceeding $100

9 million under the valuation standards applicable to the determination ofjust compensation in

10 eminent domain.

I 1 THE UNPRECEDENTED TAKEOVER PLAN

1218. Over the past couple of years some Ojai residents became vocal in their

13opposition to the level of water rates approved by the CPUC. In or about 2012 a group from

14outside of Ojai which champions the notion of locally owned water began to promote a plan

15that would have Casitas MWD - a water district that presently serves about half the number of

16retail water customers as Golden State serves.in Ojai - replace Golden State as Ojais water

17provider. Their plan calls for Casitas MWD to take Golden States Ojai system by eminent

18domain litigation using funding from the sale ofbonds issued under the Mello-Roos Act.

19However there is no legal precedent or statutory authorization for using the Mello-Roos Act to

20finance a taking by eminent domain.

2119. A takeover of Golden States system is enticing to Casitas MWD because it would

22considerably expand Casitas MWDs operations and also give Casitas MWD access to Golden

23States valuable water rights in the Ojai Valley Groundwater Basin. However Golden States Ojai

24

25The outside group has used the Mello-Roos Act once before to fund an attempted eminent domain

26 takeover of a water system in Felton California. It appears that the Felton takeover was the only time that

the Mello-Roos Act has ever been used to fund a taking by eminent domain - despite the fact that the

27 Mello-Roos Act has existed for over 30 years and has been used to fund tens of billions of dollars of

public infrastructure for new development projects which is the purpose of the Act. The legality of the28 Felton takeover scheme was never tested in the courts.

MANATT PHELPS 5


LOS ANGELES

1 water system is not for sale and even if it were Casitas MWD lacks the funds to purchase the

2system. Casitas MWD now believes that it can establish a new district a CFD under theMello-3Roos Act then have the CFD sell $60 million in bonds to provide the funding for Casitas MWD

4 to take Golden States system - all with essentially no up-front investment by Casitas MWD.

5 Casitas MWD has also argued that its financing plan creates no financial risk to its current

6 customers outside of Ojai because the bonds would all be repaid solely from property taxes paid

7 by the residents of Ojai.

8 20. Accordingly Casitas MWD has formallyresolved to create the CFD and issue

9 bonds under the Mello-Roos Act in an effort to finance the takeover. The CFD is comprised

10 solely of the parcels within Ojai which are currently serviced by Golden States water system

11 and will impose a special tax on each of those parcels. The amount of the tax will depend on

12 litigation costs and the outcome of the litigation.

13 RESOLUTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE EMINENT DOMAIN TAKEOVER ATTEMPT

1421. On January 29 2013 the Casitas MWD Board of Directors held a public hearing

15to consider initiating the formation of the CFD to finance the taking of Golden States Ojai water

16system. At that time Casitas MWD adopted a Resolution of Intention to Establish the CFD and

17to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes therein. Casitas MWD also set a public hearing for

18March 13 2013 to conclude the formation of the CFD as well as approval of the bonded

19indebtedness special taxes and call for an election to support the financing scheme.

2022. On March 13 2013 the Board of Directors of Casitas MWD held a public hearing

21in which they passed and adopted three resolutions the March 13 Resolutions

22Resolution No. 13-12 establishing the CFD listing the Facilities to be acquired

23and authorizing the levy of a special tax to be levied against properties within the

24boundaries of the CFD Exhibit I hereto

25Resolution No. 13-13 declaring the necessity to issue $60 million in bonds to

26finance the costs of the Facilities and submitting the question of incurring bond debt

27to an election Exhibit 2 hereto and

28

MANATT PHELPS 6


LOS ANGELES

1 Resolution No. 13-14 calling a special election on the question of issuing $60

2 million in bonds and levying special taxes to pay the bond debt Exhibit 3 hereto.

3 23. As set forth below the March 13 Resolutions implement a financing plan that is

4 not authorized under the Mello-Roos Act.

5 24. In passing Resolution No. 13-12 which established the CFD the Mello-Roos Act

6 required that Casitas MWD must identify the facilities or services to be funded Govt. Code

7 53325.12. Thus Resolution No. 13-12 includes a List of Authorized Facilities Exhibit A

8 to the Resolution to be funded by the CFD bonds. That list of purported Facilities includes the

9 following description

10LIST OF AUTHORIZED FACILITIES

11The Authorized Facilities to be financed by Casitas Municipal Water District

12 Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 Ojai include both of the following

131. All costs incurred by the District to acquire the real personal and intangible

property and property rights owned or held by the Golden State Water Company14 .. Said costs shall include... legal costs appraisal and expert witness fees

litigation expenses incurred with respect to any eminent domain action . the

15 amount of just compensation paid to Golden State Water including without

limitation the fair market value for the property taken severance damages if any16

costs for loss of business goodwill if any relocation expenses if anypre-17condemnation damages interest property taxes and litigation expenses payableto Golden State Water and any other payments of any type or nature whether

18 paid pursuant to negotiated agreement settlement judgment or other court orderand if for whatever reason any eminent domain action initiated by the

19 District is dismissed or abandoned including without limitation due to a

20judicial determination that the District does not have the legal right to take

the Golden State Water property or due to the District Boards determination

21that the amount of just compensation awarded to Golden State Water exceeds

the amount the District can responsibly pay for Golden State Waters22 property the damages payable to Golden State Water pursuant to California

Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1268. 510 and 1268.610 et seq.23

Ex. A to Resolution No. 13-12 emphasis added24

2525. The above carefully-worded List of Authorized Facilities is designed to cover

26the risks litigation costs and potential damages to Golden State arising from the attempted

27eminent domain takeover. The language used to describe the Facilities reveals the following

28

MANATT PHELPS 7PHILLIPS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINTLOS ANGELES

1 The CFD bonds will finance eminent domain litigation against Golden State

2 including the fees of lawyers expert witnesses and all other costs of litigation.

3If the eminent domain litigation is dismissed by the Court - i.e. if Casitas MWD does

4not prevail in the right to take phase of the litigation - the CFD will finance the

5damages payable to Golden State under the Eminent Domain Laws provisions for

6damages following dismissal Code Civ. Proc. 1268.610.

7

If Casitas MWD manages to win the right to take phase of the eminent domain8

lawsuit such that the case proceeds to the second phase the valuation phase the9

CFD will finance the payment of just compensation to Golden State awarded by a10

1

jury in the valuation phase the compensation may also include other damages1

awarded to Golden State e.g. for loss of business goodwill or for severance damages12

as well as payment of Golden States litigation expenses if awarded by the Court13

14Code Civ. Proc. 1250.410 and

15If after receiving the jurys verdict ofjust compensation Casitas MWD thereafter

16determines the amount ofjust compensation is more than it can responsibly payfor

17Golden States property then Casitas MWD believes it can elect to abandon the

18 condemnation in which case the CFD will finance the payment of Golden States

19 litigation expenses and any damages that may be awarded to Golden State as a result

20 of the abandonment. Code Civ. Proc. 1268.510 et. seq.

21 All of the above elements of the bond funding/eminent domain litigation takeover plan are

22 reflected in the language of the List of Authorized Facilities that is attached to Resolution No.

23 13-12 - however as demonstrated below none of these elements are allowed under theMello-24Roos Act. The Act may not be used for taking by eminent domain nor to fund eminent domain

25 litigation.

26

27

28

MANATT PHELPS 8

PHILLIPS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINTLos ANGELES

1 TAKING BY EMINENT DOMAIN IS NOT A PURCHASE UNDER THE MELLO-RODS ACT

226. Section 53313.5 of the Mello-Roos Act provides that a community facilities

3district may finance the purchase construction expansion improvement or rehabilitation

4ofany real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five years or longer or may

5finance planning and design work that is directly related to the purchase construction expansion

6or rehabilitation of an real or tangible Em hasis added. The taking of ro ertY bany ý property. P P P Y

7eminent domain is not a purchase construction expansion improvement or rehabilitation of

8

property-927. The Mello-Roos Act Assembly Bill 3564 was first introduced in the Legislature

10by Assemblyman Michael Roos in March 1982. As initially drafted the Act proposed to allow

11funding for the acquisition of facilities. That initial version of the Act contained the following

12definition of acquisition

13 a Acquisition means any of the following

14 ..

15 2 Any real property rights-of-way easements or interests in real

property acquired or to be acquired by gifts purchase or eminent domain

16 and which are necessary or convenient in connection with the construction

or operation of any facility... AB No. 3564 Roos March 15 198217 Section 7001 emphasis added

18

19

28. Thus the Legislature understood that a purchase ofproperty is not the same

thing as acquiring property by gift or by eminent domain. 2Accordingly during the

20

21legislative process a critical change was made to the Mello-Roos Act the language was modified

to delete the authorization for acquisition - and to delete funding by acquisition through22

eminent domain. The Mello-Roos Act as ultimately passed by the Legislature in August 198223

24allows only the purchase construction expansion improvement or rehabilitation of property.

25

262

Note also the Eminent Domain Law makes clear that a taking by eminent domain and a purchase are two

27 legally distinct forms of acquiring property. It provides in pertinent part whether property necessary

for public use is to be acquired by purchase or other means or by eminent domain is a decision left to the

28 discretion of the person authorized to acquire the property. Code of Civ. Proc. 1230.030

MANATT PHELPS 9

PHILLIPS LLP


1 Govt. Code 53313.5 The drafters of the Mello-Roos Act clearly understood the distinction. A

2 purchase is authorized by the Mello-Roos Act a taking by eminent domain is not.

3 29. Moreover the necessary procedures under the Mello-Roos Act confirm that it

4 cannot be used to fund a taking by eminent domain. For example before a Resolution to

5 establish a CFD for purchase of completed facilities can be passed the Mello-Roos Act requires

6 that the legislative body prepare reports demonstrating the need for the facilities and estimating

7 the fair and reasonable cost of those facilities or incidental expenses. Govt. Code 53321.5

8 53325.1a Here since there is no purchase the cost of the facilities cannot be reasonably

9 calculated because in eminent domain only a jj yr can make that determination Cal. Const. Art. 1

10 19 based upon testimony from qualified appraisers who follow the valuation rules set forth in

11 the Eminent Domain Law. Thus Casitas MWD could not comply with the requirements of the

12 Mello-Roos Act because the outcome of eminent domain litigation is not knowable.

13 EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION EXPENSES AND DAMAGES

14 MAY NOT BE FINANCED BY A CFD

15 30. The Mello-Roos Act authorizes financing for planning and design work that is

16 directly related to the purchase. Govt. Code 53313.5 However planning and design work

17 cannot reasonably be interpreted to include financing the list of eminent domain litigation

18 expenses potential awards for damages awards of attorneys fees and other costs to the property

19 owner arising from abandonment and dismissal etc. - all of which Casitas MWD seeks to

20 finance as set forth in its List ofAuthorized Facilities accompanying Resolution No. 13-12.

21 31. The litigation expenses and potential damage awards Casitas MWD seeks to

22 finance are not authorized anywhere in the Mello-Roos Act. The Act allows financing of the

23 cost and the incidental expenses of purchasing property.3 Section 53317 of the Act contains

24 the following definitions

25 c Cost means the expense of constructing or purchasing the public

facility and of related land right-of-way easements including incidental

26

273 As noted the Mello-Roos Act requires the cost and incidental expenses for purchase of facilities to

28 be estimated in a report. Govt. Code 53321.5 and 53325.1aMANATT PHELPS 10

PHILLIPS LLPATTORNEYS AT LA- VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT

LOS ANGELES

expenses and the cost of providing authorized services including

incidental expenses.

2

3 e Incidental expense includes all of the following

41 The cost of planning and designing public facilities to be financed

pursuant to this chapter including the cost of environmental evaluations of

5those facilities.

2 The costs associated with the creation of the district issuance of bonds6

determination of the amount of taxes collection of taxes payment of taxes

7or costs otherwise incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of

the district.

8 3 Any other expenses incidental to the construction completion and

9inspection of the authorized work.

10 32. The open-ended and incalculable obligations to pay eminent domain-related

11 expenses and damages referred to in Casitas MWDs List of Authorized Facilities are not

12 encompassed in the above definitions. In the planned eminent domain action expenses may

13 include millions of dollars in legal fees incurred by both Casitas MWD and Golden State as well

14 as untold damages to Golden State if for example the condemnation is dismissed by the Courts

15 or if Casitas MWD is permitted to abandon the action after receiving the jurys verdict of just

16 compensation. Casitas MWDs scheme to finance these expenses through bonds issued by a CFD

17 is not authorized in the Mello-Roos Act.

18 THE ABANDONMENT PLAN CREATES A SERIOUS FINANCIAL RISK TO

19ALL CUSTOMERS OF CASITAS MWD

20 33. Casitas MWDs List of Authorized Facilities attached to Resolution No. 13-12

21 specifically cites Code of Civ. Proc. 1268.510 the Abandonment statute in the Eminent

22 Domain Law. The List states that after the amount ofjust compensation awarded to Golden

23 State is determined - i.e. after the jurysverdict - Casitas MWD may then determine that the

24 verdict .. exceeds the amount the District cafe responsibly payfor Golden States property...

25 In that event the term Facilities will include all litigation expenses and damages 12U ablele to

26 Golden State following such voluntary post judgment abandonment of the eminent domain

27 litigation. Exhibit 1 hereto emphasis added In other words Casitas MWD has tried to put a

28 failsafe in its Mello-Roos funding scheme so that if the jury verdict is higher than Casitas

MANATT PHELPS 1 1


LOS ANGELES

1 MWD decides it can responsibly pay it will abandon the eminent domain takeover process and

2 Ojai residents will be left holding the bag by paying the bonds - through the new property taxes -

3 covering all of the attorneys fees and other litigation costs for both parties as well as any

4 damages awarded to Golden State under the Eminent Domain Law.

5 34. Bad as this failsafe abandonment outcome would be for Ojai residents it does

6 not account for another even more severe risk Under the Eminent Domain Law after the jury

7 renders its verdict and judgment is entered Casitas MWD has only 30 days to decide whether to

8 abandon the action Code Civ. Proc. 1268.510a - but even if it elects to abandon in a timely

9 manner Casitas MWD may not be allowed by the Court to abandon the eminent domain taking.

10 Specifically Code Civ. Proc. 1268.510b empowers the Court to set the abandonment aside

11 upon motion and requisite showing by the property owner. The question of whether the

12 abandonment will be set aside has nothing to do with the size of the verdict or whether the

13 condemning entity believes it can responsibly pay the award. Casitas MWD may therefore be

14 saddled with the obligation to pay a just compensation verdict of $100 million or more plus pay

15 Golden States attorneys fees and other litigation costs Code Civ. Proc. 1250.410 and then

16 take and operate Golden States Ojai water system regardless of whether Casitas MWD believes it

17 can responsibly pay the judgment.

18 35. Because the law does not grant Casitas MWD the absolute right to simply abandon

19 the condemnation if it does not like the outcome of the eminent domain valuation trial a

20 fundamental premise of its financing scheme is ill-conceived. The failsafe Casitas MWD has

21 tried to build into its financing scheme is illusory. This poses a risk to Ojai residents and to

22 Casitas MWDs customers outside Ojai that they will be subjected to decades of increased charges

23 from Casitas MWD to pay a verdict that substantially exceeds the rosy speculative statements

24 Casitas MWD has made publicly about the cost of acquiring Golden States property. More to the

25 point this obvious financial risk further illustrates why the Mello-Roos Act does not allow

.2 funding for eminent domain takings.

27

28

MANATT PHELPS 12

PHILLIPS LLPATTOIINEVS AT LAW VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT

LOS ANOEI.ES

1 FINANCING A TAKING OF INTANGIBLE PROPERTY VIOLATES THE MELLO-RODS ACT

236. The Mello-Roos Act allows only real or other tangible property with an

3estimated useful life offive years or longer to be financed through the CFD process. Govt. Code

453315.5 Casitas MWD had plainly violated that limitation as its List of Authorized Facilities

5

Exhibit 1 proposes to finance All costs incurred by the District to acquire the real personal

6and intangible property and property rights owned or held by the Golden State Water Company.

7

837. This reference to intangible property and property rights is not just a mistake in

9word choice by Casitas MWD. As noted in the List of Authorized Facilities Casitas MWD

10hopes to finance the payment of loss of business goodwill to Golden State as well as

11severance damages and all other awards made to Golden State in the future eminent domain

12action. In addition as noted Golden State has water rights it uses to serve the Cityof Ojai.

13Casitas MWD disputes that such water rights exist but has made it clear in its staff report

14prepared for the March 13 2013 hearing that it intends to take those rights if they do exist.

1538. Business goodwill is defined as property in California law Civil Code 654

16655 and water rights are also property under California law. State v. Superior Court of

17Riverside County 2000 78 Cal.App.4th 1019 1025. However both are intangible property.

18California law generally defines intangible property as property that is aright rather than a

19physical object. Preston v. State Bd.. o.fE4ualization 2001 25 Cal.4th 197 208. Thus neither

20the taking of business goodwill or water rights amount to taking of physical objects and they

21therefore cannot be financed by a CFD under the Mello-Roos Act.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MANATT PHELPS 13

PHILLIPS LLP


1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 For Issuance of Writ Of Mandate - Code of Civil Procedure 1085

3 Against Respondents Casitas Municipal Water District and

Casitas Municipal Water District No. 2013-1 Ojai4

539. Golden State incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as

6though set forth fully herein.

740. As set forth above on March 13 2013 Casitas MWD passed resolutions for the

8formation of a CFD which was created to sell up to Sixty Million dollars in bonds subject to

9voter approval to be paid by new property taxes levied upon all qualifying parcels of land within

10the CFD territory. The proceeds from the bonds were to be transferred to Casitas MWD to

11finance the costs of an eminent domain taking of Golden States property.

1241. The Resolutions implement a financing plan that is not authorized under the

13Mello-Roos Act. They seek to authorize the financing of Facilities that are not authorized to be

14financed under the Act.

1542. Specifically the Act permits a CommunityFacilities District to finance a

16purchase construction expansion improvement or rehabilitation ofproperty. It does not

17permit financing of a taking of property by eminent domain. Govt. Code 53313.5.

1843. The- Act permits the financing ofFacilities that constitute real or tangible

19property. It does not permit the financing of intangible property. Govt. Code 53313.5.

2044. The Act authorizes financing for planning and design work that is related to the

21 purchase. It does not permit the financing of the potential costs expenses awards and damages

22associated with eminent domain litigation. Govt. Code 53313.5.

2345. The CFD formed by Casitas MWD pursuant to Resolution No. 13-12 was

24established to finance Facilities that may not be financed under the Mello-Roos Act. As such

25the CFD formed pursuant to Resolution No. 13-12 is unauthorized and improper.

2646. The declaration ofnecessity to issue $60000000 in bonds to finance the costs of

27the Facilities as declared in Resolution No. 13-13 violates the Mello-Roos Act. The bond

28

MANATT PHELPS 14

PHILLIPS LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINTLUS ANGELES

1 proceeds are to be used to finance Facilities which may not be financed under the Mello-Roos

2 Act. Accordingly Resolution No. 13-13 is unauthorized and improper.

3 47. Resolution No. 13-14 calling a special election to authorize the $60 million

4 bonded indebtedness and special tax levy is also unauthorized and improper because it seeks to

5 authorize the use of bond proceeds in a manner that violates the Mello-Roos Act.

6 48. Accordingly Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14 violate the Mello-Roos

7 Act Government Code Section 53311 et. seq. and must be set aside by issuance of writ of

8 mandamus.

9 49. Golden State has no plain speedy and adequate remedy at law except for this

10 Petition. The Petition is timely.

11SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

12 To Determine Validity Of Casitas MWD Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14 and the

1.3Bonds Contracts and Obligations Approved Therein - Govt. Code 53510 et. seq. Code

Civ. Proc. 860 et. seq.

14Against All Defendants

15

50. Golden State incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 38 as16


18

51. On March 13 2012 Casitas MWD passed and adopted three resolutions designed

19to enable Casitas MWD to finance the taking of Golden States water system by eminent domain.

20Resolution No. 13-12 established a CFD and authorized a special tax to be levied against

21properties within the territory of the CFD to finance the taking of Golden States Ojai water

22system by eminent domain. Resolution No. 13-13 declared the necessity to issue $60 million in

23bonds subject to voter approval to finance all of the costs and expenses associated with taking

Golden States Ojai water system by eminent domain. Resolution No. 13-14 called for a special24

25election on the question of issuing $60 million in bonds and levying special taxes to pay the bond

debt.

26

52. The March 13 2013 Resolutions constitute the issuance of bonds warrants27

28contracts obligations or evidences of indebtedness by a local agency which are subject to

MANATT PHELPS 15PHILLIPS LLP


1 validation proceedings. Govt. Code 53511. The bonds warrants contracts obligations and

2 evidences of indebtedness were deemed to be in existence and authorized as of March 13 2013.

3 Code Civ. Proc. 864.

4 53. Golden State is an interested person owning real property within the territory of

5 Community Facilities District No 2013-1 Ojai and the owner of the real and personal property

6 sought to be taken by Casitas MWD. Golden State seeks a judicial determination as to the

7 validity of Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14 and the bonds warrants contracts

8 obligations and evidences of indebtedness approved therein. Specifically Golden State asserts

9 that Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14 are unauthorized violate the Mello-Roos Act and

10 should be declared invalid.

11THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

12Declaratory Relief

13 Against Defendants Casitas Municipal Water District

14

and Casitas Municipal Water District No. 2013-1 Ojai

1554. Golden State incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 38 as


1755. An actual and present controversy. exists between Golden State on the one hand

18and Defendants on the other hand. Golden State contends that Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13

19and 13-14 are unauthorized violate the Mello-Roos Act and should be declared invalid. A CFD

20and the Mello-Roos Act financing mechanism may not be used to finance the taking by eminent

21domain of an operating public utility. The Facilities to be financed by the CFD and the $60

22million in bonds to be sold by the CFD pursuant to Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14

23are unauthorized under the Act. Golden State is informed and believes and based thereon alleges

24that Defendants deny such contentions and contend otherwise.

2556. A declaratory judgment is appropriate and necessary at this time to resolve the

26parties disparate contentions and to avoid further controversies.

27

28

IMMANATT PHELPS 16


LOS ANGELES

I REQUEST FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE Golden State respectfully requests relief as follows

3 57. That this Court issue a peremptory writ of mandate commanding Casitas

4 Municipal Water District to vacate and set aside its Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14

5 passed on March 13 2013

6 58. That this Court issue such order or peremptory writ of mandate as necessary to

7 dissolve Respondent Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities District No. 2013-1

8 OJAI

9 59. That Casitas Municipal Water Districts Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14

10 be declared invalid

11 60. For a preliminary and then permanent prohibitory injunction enjoining and

12 prohibiting the conduct of an election for Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI on the

13 propositions of levying a special tax on the property within the CFD and establishing an

14 appropriations limit for the CFD as provided in Casitas Municipal Water Districts Resolution

15 No. 13-14

16 61. For a preliminary and then permanent prohibitory injunction against Casitas

17 Municipal Water District and Casitas Municipal Water District CommunityFacilities District No.

18 2013-1 OJAI enjoining and prohibiting them from incurring a bonded indebtedness to finance

19 the CFD as provided in Casitas Municipal Water District Resolution No. 13-13

20 62. For recovery of attorneys fees costs of this proceeding and for such other relief

21 as the Court deems just and proper.

22 Dated March 26 2013 MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP

23

24 By

25 George M. Soneff

Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiff

26 GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY

27

28

MANATT PHELPS 17


LOS ANLEUS

I VERIFICATION

2I Denise L. Kruger am Senior Vice President Regulated Utilities of Golden State Water

3Company and am authorized to make this verification on its behalf. I have read the foregoing

4Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint to Determine Validity and Declaratory

5Relief and know its contents. The facts stated therein are true and are within my personal

6knowledge except as to these matters which are stated upon my information and belief. As to

7those matters I believe them to be true.

81 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

9foregoing is true and correct.

10

11 Executed this day of March 2013.

12

13e výI ý. L Ilýu.c guc

14 Denise L. Kruger

15

307 1 985 69.1

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MANATT. PHELPS do18

PHILLIPS LI.P

A1T Ne. Ar LA. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

L.. AN kr.

EXHIBIT 1

CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 13-12

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFTHE CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTAUTHORIZING FORMATION OF CASITAS MUNICIPALWATER DISTRICT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTNO. 2013-1 OJAI AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF ASPECIAL TAX THEREIN PRELIMINARILYESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMITTHEREFOR AND SUBMITTING LEVY OF THE SPECIALTAX AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THEAPPROPRIATIONS LIMIT TO THE QUALIFIEDELECTORS THEREOF

WHEREAS on January 29 2013 this Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 13-08

entitled Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water District California

Declaring Its Intention to Establish Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI to

Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein the Resolution of Intention stating its

intention to form Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities District No. 2013-1

OJAI the CFD pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 as amended

Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code the Act and

WHEREAS the Resolution of Intention incorporating a map of the proposed

boundaries of the CFD stating the Facilities to be provided and the rate and method of

apportionment of the special tax to be levied within each improvement area of the CFD to pay

the costs of providing such Facilities and/or the principal and interest on bonds proposed to be

issued with respect to the CFD is on file with the Clerk of this Board of Directors the Clerkand the provisions thereof are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein

and

WHEREAS on this date this Board of Directors held a noticed public hearing as

required by the Act and the Resolution of Intention with respect to the proposed formation of the

CFD the imposition of the Special Tax the adoption of an appropriation limit and the

authorization to incur bonded indebtedness and

WHEREAS at said hearing all interested persons desiring to be heard on all matters

pertaining to the formation of the CFD the creation of the improvement areas therein the

Facilities to be provided therein and the levy of said special tax were heard and a full and fair

hearing was held and

WHEREAS at said hearing evidence was presented to this Board of Directors on said

matters before it including a report caused to be prepared pursuant to the Resolution of Intention

the Report as to the Facilities to be provided through the CFD and the costs thereof a copy

of which is on file with the Clerk and this Board of Directors at the conclusion of said hearing is

fully advised in the premises and

WHEREAS written protests with respect to the formation of the CFD the furnishing of

specified types of Facilities and the rate and method of apportionment of the special taxes have

not been filed with the Secretary by fifty percent 50% or more of the registered voters residing

within the territory of the CFD or property owners of one-half 1/2 or more of the area of land

within the CFD or any improvement area and not exempt from the special tax and

WHEREAS the special tax proposed to be levied in the CFD to pay for the proposed

Facilities to be provided therein as set forth in Exhibit A hereto has not been eliminated by

protest by fifty percent 50% or more of the registered voters residing within the territory of the

CFD or the owners of one-half 1/2 or more of the area of land within the CFD and not exemptfrom the special tax.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Casitas

Municipal Water District as follows

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

Section 2. The proposed special tax to be levied within the CFD has not been

precluded by majority protest pursuant to Section 53324 of the Act.

Section 3. All prior proceedings taken by this Board of Directors in connection with

the establishment of the CFD and the levy of the special tax have been duly considered and are

hereby found and determined to be valid and in conformity with the Act.

Section 4. This Board of Directors has approved local goals and policies for

community facilities districts of the District Goals and Policies and this Board of Directors

hereby finds and determines that the CFD is in conformity with said Goals and Policies.

Section 5. The CFD is designated Casitas Municipal Water District CommunityFacilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI and is hereby established pursuant to the Act.

Section 6. The boundaries of the CFD as set forth in the map of the CFD heretofore

recorded on February 8 2013 in the Ventura County Recorders Office as Document No.

20130208-00024211-0 at Book 19 Page 87-92 of Maps of Assessment and CommunityFacilities Districts are hereby approved are incorporated herein by reference and shall be the

boundaries of the CFD.

Section 7. The types of public facilities proposed to be financed by the CFD pursuant

to the Act shall be the items listed on Exhibit A herein the Facilities. The Report is hereby

accepted by the District and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 8. Except to the extent that funds are otherwise available to the CFD to pay

for the Facilities and/or the principal and interest as it becomes due on bonds of the CFD issued

to finance the Facilities a special tax sufficient to pay the costs thereof secured by a continuing

lien against all non-exempt real property in the CFD will be levied annually within each

Improvement Area of the CFD and collected in the same manner and upon the same roll as

ordinary ad valorem real property taxes or in such other manner as this Board of Directors shall

determine including direct billing of the affected property owners. The proposed rate and

2

method of apportionment of special tax among the parcels of real property within the CFD in

sufficient detail to allow each landowner within the proposed CFD to estimate the probablemaximum amount such owner will have to pay are described in Exhibit B attached hereto and

by this reference incorporated herein. In no circumstances shall the special tax levied against

any parcel used for private residential purposes as defined in the Act if any be increased as a

consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other parcel or parcels within the

CFD by more than 10 percent.

Section 9. The General Manager of the District telephone number 805 649-2251 is

the officer of the District who will be responsible for preparing annually a current roll of special

tax levy obligations by assessors parcel number and will be responsible for estimating and

levying future special tax levies pursuant to the Act.

Section 10. Upon recordation of a notice of special tax lien pursuant to Section 3114.5

of the Streets and Highways Code of California a continuing lien to secure the levy of the

special tax pursuant to the applicable rate and method of apportionment shall attach to all

nonexempt real property in the CFD and this lien shall continue in force and effect until the

special tax obligation is prepaid and permanently satisfied and the lien canceled in accordance

with law or until collection of the tax by the CFD ceases.

Section 11. In accordance with Section 53325.7 of the Act the annual appropriations

limit as defined by subdivision h of Section 8 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution

of the CFD is hereby preliminarily established at a sum equal to the greater of one hundred

percent 100% of the amount of all proceeds of the special tax collected annually or one

hundred percent 100% of the authorized bonded indebtedness and as defined by said Article

XIIIB as adjusted for changes in the cost of living and changes in population and said

appropriations limit shall be submitted to the voters as hereafter provided. The proposition

establishing said annual appropriations limit shall become effective if approved by the qualified

electors voting thereon and shall be adjusted in accordance with the applicable provisions of

Section 53325.7 of the Act.

Section 12. Pursuant to the provisions of the Act the proposition of the levy of the

special tax and the proposition of the establishment of the appropriations limit specified above

shall be submitted to the qualified electors at an election the time place and conditions of which

election shall be as specified by a separate resolution of this Board of Directors. The proposed

voting procedure shall be by mail or hand-delivered/polling place ballot among the registered

voters in the CFD.

Section 13. The Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that the public

interest will not be served by allowing the property owners in the CFD to enter into a contract in

accordance with Section 53329.5a of the Act.

Section 14. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

3

PASSED and ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water

District at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of March 2013.

JAMES W. WORD PRESIDENT OF THECASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

ATTEST

MARY BERGEN SECRETARY OF THECASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

STATE OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF VENTURA SS


I Rebekah Vieira Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water

District hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a reular meeting of

the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water District held at the 13 day of March2013 by the following vote

AYES DIRECTORS

NOES DIRECTORS

ABSENT DIRECTORS

REBEKAH VIEIRA CLERK OF THEBOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CASITASMUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

4

EXHIBIT ALIST OF AUTHORIZED FACILITIES

The Authorized Facilities to be financed by Casitas Municipal Water District Community

Facilities District No. 2013-1 Ojai include both of the following

1. All costs incurred by the District to acquire the real personal and intangible

property and property rights owned or held by the Golden State Water Company any of its

affiliates and any third parties or entities collectively Golden State Water in to and with

respect to the water utility owned and operated by Golden State in Golden State Water Ojai

Service Area whether or not said property is physically located within the Golden State Water

Ojai Service Area. Said costs shall include without limitation and to the maximum extent

permitted by applicable law including the Act the following costs whether such costs are

incurred prior or subsequent to the adoption of this Resolution of Intention 1 the Districts

costs incurred with respect to analyzing the feasibility of the Golden State Water acquisition the

formation of the CFD the issuance and sale of CFD bonds and the proceedings to be initiated by

the District for acquisition of the real personal and intangible property of Golden State Water in

and with respect to the Golden State Water Ojai Service Area and 2 the Districts consultant

costs CFD election-related costs legal costs appraisal and expert witness fees litigation

expenses incurred with respect to any eminent domain action or related proceedings that mayhereafter be initiated by the District for such acquisition the amount ofjust compensation paid to

Golden State Water including without limitation the fair market value for the property taken

severance damages if any costs for loss of business goodwill if any relocation expenses if any

pre-condemnation damages interest property taxes and litigation expenses payable to Golden

State Water and any other payments of any type or nature whether paid pursuant to negotiated

agreement settlement judgment or other court order and if for whatever reason any eminent

domain action initiated by the District is dismissed or abandoned including without limitation

due to a judicial determination that the District does not have the legal right to take the Golden

State Water property or due to the District Boards determination that the amount of just

compensation awarded to Golden State Water exceeds the amount the District can responsibly

pay for Golden State Waters property the damages payable to Golden State Water pursuant to

California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1268. 510 and 1268.610 et seq.

2. Assuming the District does in fact acquire the property described in Paragraph 1the Districts costs incurred to plan design engineer finance supervise construct and install

inspect and obtain necessary permits for the purchase construction improvement or

rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property or facilities with an estimated useful life of

five years or longer which property or facilities the District determines are necessary or

appropriate to provide water utility services in the Golden State Water Ojai Service Area and

which property or facilities the District determines either i are of primary benefit to the

property owners residents businesses and other persons and entities within the Golden State

Water Ojai Service Area or ii if the Districts Board determines that said property or facilities

benefit the property owners residents businesses and other persons and entities within the

Golden State Water Ojai Service Area but are not of primary benefit to such persons or entities

the portion of the Districts costs for said property and facilities that the Districts Board

reasonably determines does not exceed such persons or entities fair share contribution therefor.

EXHIBIT BPROPOSED RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT

see following pages

RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FORCASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2013-1 OJAI

A Special Tax shall be levied on all Assessors Parcels of Taxable Property in Casitas MunicipalWater District CMWD Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 Ojai CFD No. 2013-1and collected each Fiscal Year commencing in Fiscal Year 2013-14 in an amount determined

through the application of this Rate and Method of Apportionment as described below. All of

the real property in CFD No. 2013-1 unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof shall

be taxed for the purposes to the extent and in the manner herein provided.

A. DEFINITIONS

The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings

Acreage means the land area of an Assessors Parcel as shown on an Assessors Parcel Mapor if the land area is not shown on an Assessors Parcel Map the land area shown on the

applicable final map parcel map condominium plan or other map or plan recorded with the

County or the land area calculated to the reasonable satisfaction of the CFD Administrator usingthe boundaries set forth on such map or plan. The parcel square footage of an Assessors Parcel

is equal to the Acreage of such parcel multiplied by 43560 the Parcel Square Footage.

Act means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 being Chapter 2.5 Part 1Division 2 of Title 5 of the California Government Code.

Administrative Expenses means the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to

the administration of CFD No. 2013-1 including but not limited to the costs of computing the

Special Taxes and preparing the annual Special Tax collection schedules whether by CMWD or

designee thereof or both the costs of collecting the Special Taxes whether by CMWD or

otherwise the costs of remitting the Special Taxes to the Trustee the costs of the Trustee

including its legal counsel in the discharge of the duties required of it under the Indenture the

costs to CMWD CFD No. 2013-1 or any designee thereof of complying with arbitrage rebate

requirements the costs to CMWD CFD No. 2013-1 or any designee thereof of complying with

disclosure requirements of CMWD CFD No. 2013-1 or obligated persons associated with

applicable federal and state securities laws and the Act the costs associated with preparing

Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Special

Taxes the costs of CMWD CFD No. 2013-1 or any designee thereof related to an appeal of the

Special Tax the costs associated with the release of funds from an escrow account and

CMWDs annual administration fees and third party expenses. Administrative Expenses shall

also include amounts estimated by CMWD or advanced by CMWD or CFD No. 2013-1 for anyother administrative purposes of CFD No. 2013-1 including attorneys fees and other costs

related to commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure of delinquent Special Taxes.

Assessors Parcel means a lot or parcel to which an Assessors parcel number is assigned as

determined from an Assessor Parcel Map or the applicable assessment roll.

Casitas Municipal Water District January 29 2013

Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 Ojai Page 1

Assessors Parcel Map means an official map of the County Assessor designating parcels byAssessors Parcel number.

Authorized Facilities means those facilities eligible to be funded by CFD No. 2013-1 as set

forth in the Resolution of Intention to establish CFD No. 2013-1 as adopted by CMWD.

Bond Issue means one series of CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds.

Certificate of Occupancy means a certificate issued by the City or the County that authorizes

the actual occupancy of Developed Property by a residents or a businesses.

CFD Administrator means the Person designated by CFD No. 2013-1 to administer the

Special Tax according to this RMA.

CFD No. 2013-1 means CMWD Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 Ojai.

CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds means any bonds or other debt as defined in Section 53317d of the

Act whether in one or more series issued or incurred by CMWD for CFD No. 2013-1.

City means the City of Ojai.

Commercial Property means all Assessors Parcels of Non-Residential Property excluding

Industrial Property. -

Condominium Unit means 1 a residential condominium as described in Civil Code Section

1351f and 2 any residential dwelling that is not a Single Family Detached Unit or a dwelling

unit located on Multifamily Attached Property as determined by the CFD Administrator.

County means the County of Ventura.

Developed Property means for each Fiscal Year all Taxable Property for which a building

permit was issued on or before May 1 of the Fiscal Year preceding the Fiscal Year for which the

Special Taxes are being levied.

Fiscal Year means the period starting July I and ending on the following June 30.

Indenture means the indenture fiscal agent agreement resolution or other instrument

pursuant to which CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds are issued as modified amended and/or

supplemented from time to time and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same.

Industrial Property means all Assessors Parcels of Developed Property for which a building

permits was issued for construction of a non-residential structures which is primarily used

for manufacturing procession fabricating assembly refining repairing packaging or

treatment of goods material or produce research and development and/or warehousing and

wholesale distribution of goods material or produce.



Land Use Class means any of the classes listed in Table 1 below.

Maximum Special Tax means the maximum Special Tax determined in accordance with

Section C below that can be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessors Parcel of Taxable

Property.

Multifamily Attached Property means an Assessors Parcel on which is located a structure or

structures with multiple residential dwelling units all of which are offered for rent and are not

available for sale to individual owners.

Non-Residential Floor Area means the total building square footage of the non-residential

buildings located on an Assessors Parcel measured from outside wall to outside wall not

including space devoted to stairwells basement storage required corridors public restrooms

elevator shafts light courts vehicle parking and areas incident thereto mechanical equipment

incidental to the operation of such building and covered public pedestrian circulation areas

including atriums lobbies plazas patios decks arcades and similar areas except such public

circulation areas or portions thereof that are used solely for commercial purposes. The

determination of Non-Residential Floor Area shall be made by reference to the building

permits issued for such Assessors Parcel and/or to the appropriate records kept by the Citys

Building Division or the Countys Building and Safety Division as reasonably determined by the

CFD Administrator.

Non-Residential Property means all Assessors Parcels of Developed Property for which a

building permit permitting the construction thereon of one or more non-residential facilities has

been issued by the City or the County.

Outstanding Bonds means all CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds which are outstanding under an

Indenture.

Property Owner Association Property means for each Fiscal Year i any property within

the boundaries of CFD No. 2013-1 that was owned by a property owner association including

any master or sub-association as of January 1 of the prior Fiscal Year ii any property located

in a Final Subdivision that was recorded as of the May I preceding the Fiscal Year in which the

Special Tax is being levied and which as determined from such Final Subdivision is or will be

open space a common area recreation facility or a private street or iii any property which as

of the May 1 preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special Tax is being levied has been

conveyed irrevocably dedicated or irrevocably offered to a property owners association

including any master or sub-association provided such conveyance dedication or offer is

submitted to the CFD Administrator by May 1 preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special

Tax is being levied.

Proportionately means for Developed Property that the ratio of the actual Special Tax levy

to the Maximum Special Tax is equal for all Assessors Parcels of Developed Property.

Public Property means property within the boundaries of CFD No. 2013-1 that is i owned

by or irrevocably offered or dedicated to the federal government the State the County the



City CMWD or any local government or other public agency provided that any property leased

by a public agency to a private entity and subject to taxation under Section 53340.1 of the Act

shall not be considered Public Property and shall be taxed and classified according to its actual

use or ii encumbered by a public utility easement making impractical its use for any purposeother than that set forth in the easement.

Rate and Method of Apportionment or RMA means this Rate and Method of

Apportionment of Special Tax.

Residential Property means all Assessors Parcels of Developed Property for which a

building permit permitting the construction thereon of one or more residential dwelling units has

been issued by the City or the County. Residential Property includes Single Family Detached

Units Condominium Units and units located on Multi-Family Attached Property.

Single Family Detached Unit means an individual residential dwelling unit that does not

share a common wall with another residential dwelling unit.

Special Tax means the special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessors Parcel

of Taxable Property within CFD No. 2013-1 to fund the Special Tax Requirement.

Special Tax Requirement means that amount required in any Fiscal Year commencing in

Fiscal Year 2013-2014 for CFD No. 2013-1 to i pay debt service on all Outstanding Bonds

due in the calendar year commencing in such Fiscal Year ii pay periodic costs with respect to

the CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds including but not limited. to costs of credit enhancement and federal

arbitrage rebate payments due in the calendar year commencing in such Fiscal Year iii payAdministrative Expenses payable or expected to be payable in the calendar year commencing in

such Fiscal Year iv pay any amounts required to establish or replenish any reserve funds for all

Outstanding Bonds v replace revenue that CFD No. 2013-1 reasonably expects not to receive

due to anticipated Special Tax delinquencies if and to the extent deemed necessary and

supported by a written explanation and calculation vi pay any litigation expenses and costs

CMWD is required to pay to Golden State Water Company pursuant to California Code of Civil

Procedure Section 1268.610 et seq. if CMWD files eminent domain to acquire Golden States

Ojai water utility and the eminent domain proceeding is abandoned or dismissed for any reason

vii pay directly for the acquisition or construction of Authorized Facilities less viii a credit

for funds available to reduce the annual Special Tax levy.

State means the State of California.

Taxable Property means all of the Assessors Parcels of Developed Property within the

boundaries of CFD No. 2013-1 which are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to

applicable law or Section E below.

Trustee means the trustee or fiscal agent under the Indenture.

Undeveloped Property means property that is not Developed Property Property Owner

Association Property or Public Property.



B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES

Each Fiscal Year all Taxable Property within CFD No. 2013-1 shall be classified as Developed

Property Undeveloped Property Property Owner Association Property or Public Property and

shall be subject to Special Taxes in accordance with this Rate and Method of Apportionment

determined pursuant to Sections C and D below.

C. MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX RATE

Developed Property shall be assigned to Land Use Classes 1 through 8 as listed in Table I

below.

1. Maximum Special Tax

The Maximum Special Tax for each Assessors Parcel determined to be Developed

Property shall be based on the Land Use Class in Table 1 within which such Assessors

Parcel is classified. As indicated in the table the Maximum Special Tax may be

increased after the CFD sells an additional Bond Issue.

TABLE 1

Maximum Special Tax for Developed Property within

Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OjaiFiscal Year 2013-2014

IVIaximumS ecial Tax

Land Use. _ Parcel Square Prior o Alter r

Class Descri lion Foota a 2nd.B6nfl Issue. _2nd Bond Tssuet

Single Family 43560 Sq. Ft.

I Detached Unit or greater $345 per unit $2093 per unit

Single Family 22000 to less than

2 Detached Unit 43560 S q. Ft. $203 per unit $1235 per unit

Single Family 10000 to less than

3 Detached Unit 22000 S q. Ft. $122 per unit $741 per unit

Single Family Less than

4 Detached Unit 10000 Sq.

Ft. $79 per unit $480 per unit

Condominium

5 Unit NA $67 per unit $407 per unit

Multifamily

Attached

6 Property NA $57 per unit $349 per unit



MaximumSpecial Tax

Land Use Parcel Square Prior to After...

ti

.Clas - Descri tion Foota a 2t d ond.Fssue-

Y2.ndBondIssue

$0.050 per $0.303 per square

square foot of foot ofNon-CommercialNon-Residential Residential

7 Property NA Floor Area Floor Area

$0.026 per $0.159 per square

square foot of foot ofNon-IndustrialNon-Residential Residential

8 Property NA Floor Area Floor Area

2. Increase in the Maximum Special Tax

The Fiscal Year 2013-14 Maximum Special Tax identified in Table 1 above shall

increase annually commencing on July 1 2014 and on July 1 of each Fiscal Year

thereafter by an amount equal to two percent 2% of the amount in effect for the

previous Fiscal Year.

3. Multiple Land Use Classes

In some instances an Assessors Parcel of Developed Property may contain more than

one Land Use Class. The Maximum Special Tax levied on an Assessors Parcel in such

case shall be the sum of the Maximum Special Tax for all Land Use Classes located on

that Assessors Parcel. The CFD Administrators allocation to each type of property shall

be final in the absence of manifest error.

D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX

Commencing with Fiscal Year 2013-14 and for each following Fiscal Year the CFDAdministrator shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall provide for the levy the

Special Tax as follows

The Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessors Parcel of Developed

Property at up to 100% of the Maximum Special Tax in order to satisfy the Special Tax

Requirement.

Notwithstanding the above under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied in any Fiscal

Year against any Assessors Parcel of Residential Property for which a Certificate of Occupancy

has been issued be increased by more than ten percent above the amount that would have been

levied in that Fiscal Year as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owners of any

other Assessors Parcels within CFD No. 2013-1.

Casltas Municipal Water District January 29 2013


E. EXEMPTIONS

No Special Tax shall be levied on Public Property and/or Property Owner Association Property

in CFD No. 2013-1. However should an Assessors Parcel no longer be classified as Public

Property or Property Owner Association Property it shall become subject to the Special Tax.

F. MANNER OF COLLECTION

The Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad

valorem property taxes provided however that CMWD may directly bill the Special Taxand/or may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meetits financial obligations and may covenant to foreclose and may actually foreclose on delinquent

Assessors Parcels.

G. APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on his/her

Assessors Parcel is in error may submit a written appeal to the CFD Administrator provided

that the appellant is current in his/her payment of Special Taxes. During the pendency of an

appeal all Special Taxes previously levied must be paid on or before the payment date

established when the levy was made. The CFD Administrator shall review the appeal and if the

CFD Administrator concurs the amount of the Special Tax levied shall be appropriately

modified through an adjustment to the Special Tax levy in the following Fiscal Year. No refunds

shall be given in the current Fiscal Year.

The CFD Administrator may interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment for purposes of

clarifying any ambiguity and/or making determinations relative to the annual administration of

the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals. Any decision of the CFD Administrator

shall be final and binding as to all persons.

H. PREPAYMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX

The following additional definitions apply to this Section H

CFD Public Facilities Costs means either $42250000 in 2013 dollars which shall increase

by the Construction Inflation Index on July 1 2014 and on each July 1 thereafter or such lower

number as i shall be determined by the CFD Administrator as sufficient to provide funding for

all of the Authorized Facilities or ii shall be determined by CMWD concurrently with a

covenant that it will not issue any more CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds except refunding bonds to be

supported by the Special Tax levy under this Rate and Method of Apportionment as described in

Section D herein.

Construction Inflation Index means the annual percentage change in the Engineering NewsRecord Building Cost Index for the City of Los Angeles measured as of the month of December

in the calendar year which ends in the previous Fiscal Year. In the event this index ceases to be

published the Construction Inflation Index shall be another index as determined by the CFD



Administrator that is reasonably comparable to the Engineering News Record Building Cost

Index for the City of Los Angeles.

Future Facilities Costs means the CFD Public Facilities Costs minus i costs of Authorized

Facilities previously paid from the Improvement Fund ii moneys currently on deposit in the

Improvement Fund available to pay costs of Authorized Facilities iii moneys currently on

deposit in an escrow fund that are expected to be available to finance- the cost of Authorized

Facilities and iv the amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the

reinvestment of these funds.

Improvement Fund means a fund or account specifically identified in the Indenture to hold

funds which are currently available for expenditure to acquire or construct Authorized Facilities.

Previously Issued Bonds means for any Fiscal Year all Outstanding Bonds that are still

outstanding under the Indenture after the principal payment date following the current Fiscal

Year.

1. Prepayment in Full

The obligation of the Assessors Parcel to pay the Special Tax may be fully prepaid and

permanently satisfied as described herein provided that a prepayment may be made only for

Assessors Parcels of Developed Property or an Assessors Parcel of Undeveloped Property for

which a building permit has been issued and only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with

respect to such Assessors Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessors Parcel

intending to prepay the Special Tax obligation shall provide the CFD Administrator with written

notice of intent to prepay. Within 30 days of receipt of such written notice the CFDAdministrator shall notify such owner of the prepayment amount for such Assessors Parcel.

The CFD Administrator may charge such owner a reasonable fee for providing this service. If

there are Outstanding Bonds prepayment must be made not less than 30 days prior to the next

occurring date that notice of redemption of CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds from the proceeds of such

prepayment may be given by the Trustee pursuant to the Indenture.

The Special Tax Prepayment Amount defined below shall be calculated as summarized below

capitalized terms as defined below

Bond Redemption Amount

plus Redemption Premium

plus Future Facilities Amount

plus Defeasance Amount

plus Prepayment Fees and Expenses

less Reserve Fund Credit

less Capitalized Interest Credit

Total equals Special Tax Prepayment Amount

As of the proposed date of prepayment the Special Tax Prepayment Amount shall be calculated

as follows



1. Confirm that no Special Tax delinquencies apply to such Assessors Parcel.

2. For Assessors Parcels of Developed Property compute the Maximum Special Tax. For

Assessors Parcels of Undeveloped Property for which a building permit has been issued

compute the Maximum Special Tax for that Assessors Parcel as though it were already

designated as Developed Property based upon the building permit which has already

been issued for such Assessors Parcel.

3. Divide the Maximum Special Tax computed pursuant to paragraph 2 by the total

estimated Maximum Special Tax levy for the entire CFD No. 2013-1 based on the

Developed Property Special Tax which could be levied in- the current Fiscal Year on all

Developed Property CFD No. 2013-1 excluding any Assessors Parcels which have been

prepaid.

4. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the Previously Issued Bonds

to compute the amount of Previously Issued Bonds to be retired and prepaid the BondRedemption Amount.

5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount computed pursuant to paragraph 4 by the

applicable redemption premium e.g. the redemption price-100% if any on the

Previously Issued Bonds to be redeemed the Redemption Premium.

6. Compute the current Future Facilities Costs.

7. Multiply the quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the amount determined

pursuant to paragraph 6 to compute the amount of Future Facilities Costs to be prepaid

the Future Facilities Amount.

8. Compute the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the

bond principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year until the earliest

redemption date for the Previously Issued Bonds. Notwithstanding the above if the

Previously Issued Bonds may be redeemed in the current Fiscal Year but after the date of

prepayment the amount needed to pay the interest under this step shall equal zero.

9. Determine the Special Tax levied on the Assessors Parcel in the current Fiscal Yearwhich has not yet been paid.

10. Compute the minimum amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from

the reinvestment of the Special Tax Prepayment Amount less the Future Facilities

Amount and the Prepayment Fees and Expenses defined below from the date of

prepayment until the redemption date for the Previously Issued Bonds to be redeemed

with the prepayment.

11. Add the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 9 and subtract the amount

computed pursuant to paragraph 10 the Defeasance Amount.



12. The prepayment fees and expenses of CFD No. 2013-1 are as calculated by the CFDAdministrator and include the costs of computation of the prepayment the costs to invest

the prepayment proceeds the costs of redeeming CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds and the costs

of recording any notices to evidence the prepayment and the redemption the

Prepayment Fees and Expenses.

13. The reserve fund credit the Reserve Fund Credit shall equal the lesser of a the

expected reduction in the reserve requirement as defined in the Indenture if anyassociated with the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the prepaymentor b the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement as defined in the

Indenture in effect after the redemption of Previously Issued Bonds as a result of the

prepayment from the balance in the reserve fund on the prepayment date but in no event

shall such amount be less than zero. No Reserve Fund Credit shall be granted if the

amount then on deposit in the reserve fund for the Previously Issued Bonds is below the

reserve requirement as defined in the Indenture.

14. If any capitalized interest for the Previously Issued Bonds is projected to remain

unexpended as of the date immediately following the principal payment following the

current Fiscal Year a capitalized interest credit shall be calculated by multiplying the

quotient computed pursuant to paragraph 3 by the expected balance in the capitalized

interest fund or account on such date the Capitalized Interest Credit.

15. The Special Tax prepayment is equal to the sum of the amounts computed pursuant to

paragraphs 4 5 7 11 and 12 less the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 13 and

14 the Special Tax Prepayment Amount.

From the Special Tax Prepayment Amount the amounts computed pursuant to paragraphs 4 511 13 and 14 shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture and

be used to retire CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds or make debt service payments. The amount computed

pursuant to paragraph 7 shall be deposited into the Improvement Fund. The amount computed

pursuant to paragraph 12 shall be retained by CMWD.

Upon confirmation of the payment of the current Fiscal Years Special Tax levy as determined

under paragraph 9 above the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Years

Special Tax levy for such Assessors Parcel from the County tax rolls. With respect to any

Assessors Parcel that is prepaid the CFD Administrator shall cause a suitable notice to be

recorded in compliance with the Act to indicate the prepayment of the Special Tax and the

release of the Special Tax lien on such Assessors Parcel and the obligation of such Assessors

Parcel to pay the Special Tax shall cease.

Notwithstanding the foregoing no Special Tax prepayment shall be allowed unless at the time

of such proposed prepayment the amount of Maximum Special Tax that may be levied onTaxable Property within CFD No. 2013-1 after excluding the property exempted under Section

E herein after the proposed prepayment is at least equal to the sum of i the Administrative

Expenses as defined in Section A above and ii 1.10 times the debt service necessary to

support the remaining Outstanding Bonds in each corresponding Fiscal Year.



2. Prepayment in Part

The obligation of the Assessors Parcel to pay the Special Tax may be partially prepaid as

described herein provided that a partial prepayment may be made only for Assessors Parcels of

Developed Property or an Assessors Parcel of Undeveloped Property for which a building

permit has been issued and only if there are no delinquent Special Taxes with respect to such

Assessors Parcel at the time of partial prepayment. The amount of the prepayment shall be

calculated as in Section H.1 except that a partial prepayment shall be calculated according to the

following formula

PP PE - PFE x D PFE

These terms have the following meaning

PP the partial prepayment.

PE the Special Tax Prepayment Amount calculated according to Section H. 1.

D the percentage expressed as a decimal by which the owner of the Assessors Parcel is

partially prepaying the Special Tax.

PFE the Prepayment Fees and Expenses calculated according to Section H. 1.

The owner of any Assessors Parcel who desires such prepayment shall notify the CFDAdministrator of such owners intent to partially prepay the Special Tax and the percentage bywhich the Special Tax shall be prepaid. The CFD Administrator shall provide the owner with a

statement of the amount required for the partial prepayment of the Special Tax for his/her

Assessors Parcel within 30 days of the request and may charge a reasonable fee for providing

this service. With respect to any Assessors Parcel that is partially prepaid the CFDAdministrator shall i distribute or cause to be distributed the funds remitted to it according to

Section H.1 and ii indicate in the records of CFD No. 2013-1 that there has been a partial

prepayment of the Special Tax and that a portion of the Special Tax with respect to such

Assessors Parcel equal to the outstanding percentage 1.00 - D of the remaining Maximum

Special Tax shall continue to be levied on such Assessors Parcel pursuant to Section D herein.

1. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX

The Special Tax shall be levied for a period not to exceed forty years commencing with Fiscal

Year 2013-14 provided however that the Special Tax will cease to be levied in an earlier Fiscal

Year if the CFD Administrator has determined that all required interest and principal payments

on the CFD No. 2013-1 Bonds have been paid.



EXHIBIT 2



A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFTHE CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTCALIFORNIA THE DISTRICT DETERMINING THENECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS

WITHIN THE CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2013-1 OJAIAND SUBMITTING A PROPOSITION TO THE

QUALIFIED ELECTORS THEREOF

WHEREAS on January 29 2013 this Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 13-08

entitled Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water District California

Declaring Its Intention to Establish Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI to

Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein the Resolution of Intention stating its

intention to form Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities District No. 2013-1

OJAI the CFD pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 as amended

Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code the Act and

WHEREAS on January 29 2013 in the Resolution of Intention this Board of Directors

also stated its intention to incur bonded indebtedness within the boundaries of the CFD for the

purposes of financing the costs of certain facilities specified in the Resolution of Intention

Facilities and

WHEREAS on this date this Board of Directors held a noticed public hearing as

required by the Act relative to the determination to proceed with the formation of the CFD the

provision of the Facilities and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be

levied the CFD to pay the principal and interest on the proposed indebtedness Facilities and the

administrative costs of the District relative to the CFD and

WHEREAS at said hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to

the formation of the CFD the provision of the Facilities and the levy of the special tax on

property within the CFD were heard and a full and fair hearing was held and

WHEREAS subsequent to said hearing this Board of Directors adopted Resolution No.

13-12 entitled A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water District

Authorizing Formation of Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities District No.

2013-1 OJAI Authorizing The Levy of a Special Tax Therein Preliminarily Establishing an

Appropriations Limit Therefor and Submitting Levy of the Special Tax and the Establishment of

the Appropriations Limit to the Qualified Electors Thereof the Resolution of Formation

and



1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. It is necessary to incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum aggregate principal

amount of up to Sixty Million Dollars $60000000 within the boundaries of the CFD.

3. The bonded indebtedness is incurred for the purpose of financing the costs of the

Facilities as provided in the Resolution of Intention and the Resolution of Formation including

but not limited to the costs of issuing and selling bonds to finance the Facilities and the costs of

the District in establishing and administering the CFD.

4. The whole of the CFD shall pay the bonded indebtedness through the special tax

levy to be apportioned in accordance with the Rate and Method of Apportionment shown in the

Resolution of Intention and Resolution of Formation.

5. The bonds may be issued in one or more series over time. The maximum

aggregate amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred is Sixty Million Dollars $60000000and the maximum term of any series of bonds to be issued shall in no event exceed thirty-five

35 years.

6. The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed the maximum interest

rate permitted by applicable law at the time of sale of the bonds payable semi-annually or in

such other manner as this Board of Directors shall determine the actual rate or rates and times of

payment of such interest to be determined by this Board of Directors at the time or times of sale

of said bonds.

7. The proposition of incurring the bonded indebtedness herein authorized shall be

submitted to the qualified electors of the CFD and shall be consolidated with elections on the

proposition of levying special taxes within the CFD and the establishment of an appropriations

limit for the CFD pursuant to Section 53353.5 of the Act. The time place and conditions of said

election shall be as specified by separate resolution of this Board of Directors.

8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

2


District at a regular meeting held on the 13 day of March 2013.


ATTEST




I Rebekah Vieira Clerk of the Board of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal

Water District California hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a

regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water District held on the

13th day of March 2013 by the following vote

AYES DIRECTORS

NOES DIRECTORS

ABSENT DIRECTORS

REBEKAH VIEIRA CLERK OF THEBOARD OF THE CASITAS MUNICIPALWATER DISTRICT

3

EXHIBIT 3



A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFTHE CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTCALIFORNIA THE DISTRICT CALLING A SPECIALELECTION BY WAY OF POLLING PLACE BALLOT FORTHE PURPOSE OF APPROVING A SPECIAL TAX IN THECASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT COMMUNITYFACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2013-1 OJAI THEISSUANCE OF BONDS BY SAID DISTRICT ANDESTABLISHMENT OF AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT

FORM A

WHEREAS on this date this Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 13-12 entitled

A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water District Authorizing

Formation of Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities District No. 2013-1

OJAI Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Therein Preliminarily Establishing an

Appropriations Limit Therefor and Submitting Levy of the Special Tax and the Establishment of

the Appropriations Limit to the Qualified Electors Thereof the Resolution of Formationordering the formation of Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities District No.

2013-1 OJAI the CFD authorizing the levy of a special tax on property within the CFDand preliminarily establishing an appropriations limit for the CFD

WHEREAS on this date this Board of Directors also adopted Resolution No. 13-13

entitled A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water District

California Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness Within Casitas Municipal

Water District Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI and Submitting a Proposition to

the Qualified Electors Thereof the Resolution of Necessity determining the necessity to

incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum aggregate principal amount of up to Sixty Million

Dollars $60000000 upon the security of said special tax to be levied within the CFD and

WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of said resolutions the propositions of the levy

of said special tax the establishment of the appropriations limit and the authorization of the

bonded indebtedness must be submitted to the qualified electors of Community Facilities District

No. 2013-1 OJAI as required by the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 as

amended Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code the Act.



1. Pursuant to Sections 53326 53351 and 53325.7 of the Act the issues of the levy

of said special tax the incurring of bonded indebtedness and the establishment of said

appropriations limit for Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI shall be submitted to

the qualified electors of the CFD at an election called therefor as provided below.

2. This Board of Directors hereby finds that more than 12 persons have been

registered to vote within the territory of Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI for

each of the ninety 90 days preceding the close of the public hearing heretofore conducted and

concluded by this Board of Directors for the purposes of these proceedings. Accordingly

pursuant to the Act this Board of Directors finds that for purposes of these proceedings the

qualified electors are the registered voters within the Community Facilities District No. 2013-1

OJAI and that the vote shall be by said registered voters. Each registered voter in CommunityFacilities District No.. 2013-1 OJAI shall possess one 1 vote.

3. An election is hereby called for Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAIon the propositions of levying the special tax on the property within Community Facilities

District No. 2013-1 OJAI and establishing an appropriations limit for the District pursuant to

Section 53325.7 of the Act and shall be consolidated with the election on the proposition of

authorization of bonded indebtedness pursuant to Section 53351 of the Act. The language of the

proposition to be placed on the ballot is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

4. The date of the election for Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI on

the proposition of authorizing the bonded indebtedness authorizing the levy of the special tax

and establishing an appropriations limit for the District shall be August 27 2013 or such later

date as is consented to by the Registrar of Voters of the County of Ventura the Registrar.The polls shall be open for said election between the hours of 700 a.m. and 800 p.m. The

election shall be conducted by the Registrar. Except as otherwise provided by the Act the

election shall be conducted at polling places and in accordance with the provisions of law

regulating elections of the District insofar as such provisions are determined by the Registrar to

be applicable. The Registrar is authorized to conduct the election following the adoption of this

resolution. All ballots shall be received by and the Registrar shall close the election by 800

p.m. on the election day. Pursuant to Section 53326 of the Act the ballots for the special

election shall be distributed in person or by mailed absentee ballot to the registered voters

within Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI.

The Board of Directors hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of Ventura County to

direct the Registrar to do all things necessary and proper for the conduct of the election

including but not limited to establishing precinct boundaries and polling places selecting and

employing election officials publication of notices preparation and distribution of sample

ballots distribution of printed arguments for and against the measure the conduct of the

election the counting of ballots and the canvassing and certification of the election results. The

Board of Directors agrees to enter into a service contract with the County for these services and

to pay the Countys reasonable costs as specified therein in rendering these services. The

General Manager is hereby authorized to execute the service contract on behalf of the District.

5. In accordance with Article 4 Chapter 3 Division 9 of the Elections Code of the

State of California. The Board of Directors requests the Registrar to receive arguments for or

against the ballot propositions and establish a deadline as the date after which no arguments for

or against the ballot propositions may be submitted to the Registrar of Voters. The Board of

Directors hereby directs the Secretary to transmit a copy of the foregoing measure to the

Districts attorney and directs the Districts attorney to prepare and submit to the Registrar of

Voters an impartial analysis of the foregoing measure all pursuant to California Elections Code

Section 9280. The Board of Directors adopts Subdivision a of Section 9285 of the California

Elections Code and hereby authorizes those persons filing the direct argument in favor of the

foregoing ballot proposition to if deemed advisable in their sole discretion prepare and submit a

rebuttal argument not exceeding 250 words and to file such rebuttal argument with the Registrar

of Voters not more than 10 days after the final date for filing direct arguments in accordance

with Article 4 Chapter 3 Division 9 of the Elections Code of the State of California.

6. The Clerk is hereby directed to cause to have published in a newspaper of general

circulation circulating within Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 OJAI copies of this

Resolution the Resolution of Formation and the Resolution Determining Necessity.

7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.


District at a regular meeting held on the 13h day of March 2013.


ATTEST




I Rebekah Vieira Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water

District California hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted at a regular

meeting of the Board of Directors of the Casitas Municipal Water District held at the 13h day of

March 2013 by the following vote

AYES DIRECTORS

NOES DIRECTORS

ABSENT DIRECTORS

REBEKAH VIEIRA CLERK OF THEBOARD OF THE CASITAS MUNICIPALWATER DISTRICT

Attachment Exhibit A

CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTCOMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2013-1 OJAI

OFFICIAL BALLOTSPECIAL TAX INDEBTEDNESS AND APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT ELECTION

BALLOT MEASURE Shall the Casitis Municipal Water District Community Facilities

District No. 2013-1 OJAI the CFD incur an indebtedness and issue bonds in one or

more series in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $60000000 with interest at a

rate or rates not to exceed the maximum interest rate permitted by law at the time of sale of

such bonds the proceeds of which bonds will beused. tofinance.the.acquisition f. the

propertyand property sights owned and held byGoldenState Water t- ompany. oraffiliates in

and with respect to its Ojai service area and/or construction of certain improvements YESdescribed in the proceedings to form the CFD herein Facilities shall a special tax

payable solely from property within the CFD be levied annually upon property within the NOCFD to pay for the principal and interest upon such bonds to fund Facilities and to pay for

the costs of the District in administering the CFD and shall the annual appropriations limit of

the CFD be established in an amount equal to one hundred percent 100% of the total of all

proceeds of the special tax collected annually and as defined by Article XIIIB of the

California Constitution as adjusted for changes in the cost of living and changes in

population

ýs acýoýýPoý 333

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

VEK URASUPERIOR COURT

FILED

2IAA Z 3 2014

C

jjd31AR 1 201ýr n v icer

Dut yB4

5


7 COUNTY OF VENTURA

8

9

10GOLDEN STATE WATER COMPANY Case No. 56-2013-00433986-CU-WM-VTA

11Petitioner

RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE

12 vs.

13 CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

14CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICTCOMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO

1s 2013.1 OJAI ALL PERSONS INTERESTEDIN THE VALIDITY OF CASITAS

16 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

17RESOLUTIONS NOS 13.12 13.13 AND13.14 et al.

18

Respondents.

19

20The Court having previously taken the Petition for Writ of Mandate on February 24

21

2014 under submission now rules as follows

22

Procedural Background23

Petitioner Golden State Water Company Golden State commenced this action in

24

March 2013 against Casitas Municipal Water District Water District and Casitas Municipal2s

26Water Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 CFD. Golden State is a private water

27 company operating in and providing water to the City of Ojai. The Water District is a municipal

28 water district. The Water District has proposed acquiring Golden States assets by eminent

56-2013-00433986-CU-WM-VTA RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

I domain. Golden State opposes the Water Districts plan.

2 The principal issue raised by Golden States petition is the validity of resolutions of the

3 Water District establishing the CFD as a community facilities district under the Mello-Roos

4Community Facilities Act of 1982 Mello-Roos Act or Act for the purpose of financing the

5acquisition costs through the issuance of bonds to be repaid by a special tax. Golden State asks

6for a judicial declaration that the-implementing resolutions are invalid and for injunctions

7

preventing the Water District and CFD from issuing the related bonds.

8

This court initially determined that the issues raised by Golden States petition could not

9

be resolved until the special election had taken place and the measure authorizing the issuance of

10

the bonds and the levy of the special tax was approved by the voters. The court stayed this action

11

so that the election could go forward.

12

In August 2013 the voters of Ojai approved the measure by well over the two-thirds

13

majorityrequired by the Act. After public notice of the action was published additional parties14

joined the litigation as defendants. These new parties include six individual defendants Hajas15

16Hanson McPherson Daddi Torres and Greene and a registered political committee Ojai

17

Friends of Locally Owned Water OJAI FLOW. Each of the individual defendants is a resident

18of Ojai and a present customer of Golden State. The interests of these newly added defendants

19align with those of the Water District in opposing Golden States petition.

20In addition these new defendants seek a determination that Code of Civil Procedure

21 526b applies to this Action .. or an award of all costs damages and necessary expenses

22 resulting to Defendants individually and on behalf of the residents of the Community Facilities

23 District by reason of Golden States filing of this suit pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

24 526b. Bracketed language in original. Specifically the defendants if successful in opposing

25 Golden State in this action hope to rely on Section 526b as a way of obtaining reimbursement

26 from Golden State of 1 the difference between what each pays Golden State for water after the

27 commencement of this action and what each would have theoretically paid to the Water District

28for the same services had the Water Districts take-over of Golden States assets not been delayed

-2-56-2013-00433986-CU-WM-VTARULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

.

/

1 by this suit and 2 the legal fees and expenses incurred in opposing Golden State in this action.

2 Section 526b damages however may only be claimed by the defendants if they prevail in this

3 action i.e. Golden States challenge to the resolutions is defeated.

4BriefStatement ofSalient Facts

5In early 2011 some residents of Ojai expressed the view that Golden States rates were

6too high. In response to these concerns the Water District developed a plan to acquire the assets

7of Golden State by eminent domain and to fund the acquisition costs through the issuance of

g

bonds. This plan contemplated the creation of a community facilities district to issue the bonds

9in an amount not to exceed $60 million pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act. Gov. Code 53311 e

10

seq. To repay these obligations the community facilities district would levy a special tax to be

11

secured by a lien against all non-exempt property within its territory. See Gov. Code 53320.12

The board of the Water District adopted a resolution No. 13-08 on January 29 2013 stating an13

intention to form CFD as a community facilities district.

14

15

On March 13 2013 the board of the Water District after conducting a public hearing

adopted the three resolutions at issue here. Resolution No. 13-12 generally authorized the16

17establishment of CFD as a community facilities district. See Gov. Code 3325.1. Resolution

18No. 13-13 authorized CFD to issue bonds and levy a special tax subject to voter approval. The

19final resolution No. 13-14 called for a special election. See Gov. Code 53326. Resolution

20No. 13-14 was subsequently amended by Resolution No. 13-16.

21 In August 2013 voters in Ojai approved Measure V which authorized and directed the

22 CFD to issue bonds of up to $60 million to finance the acquisition of Golden States assets and to

23 impose special taxes on properties to be serviced by those assets to retire the debt. The measure

24 passed with 87% of the ballots in favor.

25 Mello Roos Funding for Intangible Assets

26 Golden State argues that Mello-Roos defines facilities to be real or other tangible

27property with estimated useful life for five years or longer. Government Code 53313.5

28 Golden State asserts that Casitas seeks to finance all costs incurred by Casitas Water District to


I acquire the real personal and intangible property and property rights owned or held by

2 Golden State Water Company. Emphasis added. Golden State argues that neither the taking

3 of its water rights nor the taking of the companys business goodwill can be considered the

4taking ofphysical objects and therefore under Mello Roos neither can be financed by a

5Community Facilities District CFD.

6This court rejects Golden States analysis. In order to effectuate the purchase of public

works facilities Mello Roos must allow for the purchase of intangible property. To demonstrate

8

this point assume that Golden State has a contract with a third party for a future supply of water.

9That future water is an intangible asset in the sense that Golden State has a contractual right to

10

the water but not the actual water itself at this time. For Casitas Springs that third party

t1

contract could be an important feature to Golden States overall water system. Were Golden

12

State correct on their argument Casitas would have to fund the acquisition of the intangible

13

portions of Golden States water system through another source of funding. Such a result would14

be extraordinarily inefficient and without any real purpose. A public works like any business15

consists of both tangible and intangible assets.16

17

While Golden State is correct that the Legislatures focus in enacting Mello Roos was to

18authorize the purchase offacilities that had a useful life of 5 years or longer the Legislature

19had to assume that the physical facilities would include the purchase of the various intangible

20assets that are critical to the operation of the facility targeted for purchase.

21On the subject of purchase Golden State asserts that exercise of the power of eminent

22 domain is not a purchase. The Court rejects Golden States argument. Broadly speaking the

23 power of eminent domain comes in two phases. First is the condemnation or taking. Second is

24 the requirement that just compensation be provided to the party whose property is condemned.

25 While the court acknowledges that the eminent domain process does not involve a willing

26 seller the absence of willingness does not defeat the purchase. This Court concludes that the

27 payment of just compensation in exchange for the acquisition of property is a purchase.

28


I Mello Roos Funding ofLitigation Expenses

2 Golden State argues that Mello Roos funding cannot be used to cover the cost of

3litigation expenses because litigation expenses are intangible. However legal fees are allowed

4 under Mello Roos. The amount of the proposed bond indebtedness may include all costs and

5estimated costs incidental to or connected with the accomplishment of the purpose for which the

6proposed debt is to be incurred including .. legal fees. Emphasis added. Government Code

753313.5

8

Incidental costs for purposes of Mello Roos are defined in Government Code

9

53317e2 as The costs associated with the creation of the district issuance of bonds

10

determination of the amount of taxes collection oftaxes payment of taxes or costs otherwise

II

incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of the district. Government Code12

53317e2 clearly contemplates the costs of anticipated litigation associated with the

13

acquisition of property required for a CFD.14

The Legislature Has Not Specifically Declared That Mello Roos Cannot Be Used In a15

Eminent Domain Action16

17

There is no question that Mello-Roos does not include the term eminent domain. As a

18consequence the Government Code does not expressly authorize the Mello-Roos procedures to

19be used to fund eminent domain actions. The absence of a reference to eminent domain in the

20Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act cuts both ways. The corollary is also true. The

21Government Code does specifically preclude Casitas from using the Mello-Roos procedures.

22 What then is the appropriate response for the judiciary when the Legislature is silent on

23 the subject of Mello-Roos financing for eminent domain actions It is without dispute that

24 Casitas is authorized-by the Water Code to exercise the power of eminent domain. The public

25 has been fully informed ofthe financial risks associated with Casitas acquiring Golden State.

26 The voters have approved the Mello-Roos funding procedure by a margin of 87%. In the

27 absence of clear direction from the Legislature this Court concludes that the will of the

28electorate must control. The Court declines to use its authority to thwart the actions of the


1 Casitas Municipal Water District.

2 Accordingly this Court denies Golden States petition for a peremptory writ seeking to

3 1. Vacate Resolutions No. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14 passed on March 13 2013.

4 2. Dissolve Casitas Municipal Water District Community Facilities District No. 2013-1

5Ojai

63. Declare Casitas Municipal Water Districts Resolutions Nos. 13-12 13-13 and 13-14

7to be invalid.

8

4. Enjoin Casitas Municipal Water District and Casitas Municipal Water District

9

Community Facilities District No. 2013-1 Ojai from incurring a bonded indebtedness to

10

finance to CFD as provided in Casitas Municipal Water District Resolution 13-13 and 13-14.

11

The clerk is directed to give notice.

12

13 March 13 2014

KENT M.KELL14

Judge of the Supen Court

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


I PROOF OF SERVICE

2

C.C.P. 1010.6a et seq. and 1013 a et seq.

3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

4 ss.

COUNTY OF VENTURA5

Case Number 56-2013-00433986-CU-WM-VTA6 Matter of Golden State Water Company v. Casitas Municipal Water District et al.

7I am employed in the County of Ventura State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a

8party to the above-entitled action.. My business address is 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura CA 93009.

On the date set forth below I served the within

9RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

10

On the following named partyies

11

George Soneff/Edward G. Burg Jeffrey Oderman

12 11355 West Olympic Blvd. 61.1 Anton Blvd Suite 1400

Los Angeles California 90064-1614 Costa Mesa California 92626-1931

13

Joseph Jones/Allen Ball Ryan Blatz14

1001 Partridge Drive Suite 330 530 West Ojai Avenue Suite 207

15Ventura California 93003 Ojai California 93023

16Dennis LaRochelle

300 Esplanade Drive Suite 2100

17 Oxnard California 93036

18 BY PERSONAL SERVICE I caused a copy of said documents to be hand delivered to the

interested party at the address set forth above.

19

_x_ BY MAIL I caused such envelope to be deposited in the mail at Ventura California. I am20

readily familiar with the courts practice for collection and processing of mail. It is deposited with the

21U.S. Postal Service on the dated listed below.

22and BY FACSIMILE I caused said documents to be sent via facsimile to the interested party at the

facsimile number set forth above at from telephone number

23

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this document is executed

24 on March 13 2014 at Ventura California.

25 MICHAE D. PLANET Superior Court

Executive fficer and erk26

27

2s Byeilmi McIntyre Judicia ecretary

1 PROOF OF SERVICE

2 I Claudine M. Roberts declare as follows

3 I am employed in Los Angeles County Los Angeles California. I am over the age of

eighteen years and not a party to this action. My business address is MANATT PHELPS4 PHILLIPS LLP 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles California 90064-1614. On

July 5 2016 I served the within5

DECLARATION OF DAVID T. MORAN IN SUPPORT OF SPECIAL6 MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 425.167

on the interested parties in this action addressed as follows8

Jeffrey M. Oderman Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs CASITAS9

Douglas J. Dennington Esq. MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

10Rutan Tucker LLP and CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER611 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400 DISTRICT COMMUNITY

11 Costa Mesa CA 92626-1931 FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2013-1

Email [email protected] OJAI12 Email [email protected]

Tel. 714 641-510013 Fax 714 546-9035

14 BY OVERNIGHT MAIL By placing such documents in a sealed envelopex15

for collection and overnight mailing at Manatt Phelps Phillips LLP Los

Angeles California following ordinary business practice. I am readily familiar

16 with the practice at Manatt Phelps Phillips LLP for collection and processing

of overnight service mailing said practice being that in the ordinary course of17

business correspondence is deposited with the overnight messenger service

18FEDEX for delivery as addressed.

19I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

20foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 5 2016 at LosAngeles California.

21_..ý

22

23 CLAUDINE M. ROBERTS

24

25

26

27

28

MANATT PHELPS 317234197.1

PHILLIPS LLPATTORNEYS AT LAW PROOF OF SERVICE

LOS ANGELES

MANATT PHELPS PHILLIPS LLP GEORGE SONEFF BURG DAVIDojaiflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/FLOW-Declaration-of-Mora… · 1 DECLARATION OF DAVID T. MORAN 2 I DAVID T. MORAN declare

Documents