Time Line

Draft time line for WIP Tax.

1/25/08 Judgment After Trial

Page 1 line 24:
This matter came on for trial in five separate phases. Following the third phase of trial, a large number of parties entered into a written stipulation dated June 30, 2005 to resolve their differences and requested that the court approve the settlement and make its terms binding on them as a part of any final judgment entered in this case. Subsequent to the execution of the stipulation by the original settling parties, a number of additional parties have agreed to be I bound by the stipulation - their signatures are included in the attachments to this judgment.

The June 30, 2005 Stipulation is attached as Exhibit "1;" and all exhibits to the stipulation are separately attached as Exhibits "1A" through "1H". The Stipulating Parties are identified on Exhibit "IA." The court approves the Stipulation, orders the Stipulating Parties only to comply with each and every term thereof, and incorporates the same herein as though set forth in full.

11/15/2006 Bryan P. Troxler, signs settlement for Woodlands Mutual Water Company of San Luis Obispo

http://www.sccomplex.org/docfiles/D52CE6D0A553.pdf

11/15/2006 Stewart J. Myers, signs settlement for Woodlands Ventures, LLC

http://www.sccomplex.org/docfiles/D52CE6D0A553.pdf

9/1/2005 Denise Kruger, Sr. Vice President of Operations, signs settlement for Southern California Water Company

http://www.sccomplex.org/docfiles/S6B2AE8EB3A6.pdf

Order Approving Settlement Stipulation

“After consideration of the arguments for and against approval of the Stipulation, the Court exercised its inherent authority to approve the Settlement Stipulation (see Neary v. Regents of the University of California (1992) 3 Cal4th 273, 276-80; CCP s128,187) and the court here by orders that it is valid and enforceable among all stipulating parties.”

7/27/2005 NCSD Director Ed Eby Comments on Settlement:

"I take exception to something that was said today about the, stipulation requires the purveyors to bring in supplemental water, The stipulation does not require us to do anything. The stipulation says we, the NCSD contemplates bring in water and therefore the purveyors will buy that water from NCSD. There is nothing in the stipulation or any court order that says we are required to buy supplemental water we are contemplating it, we are doing that on our own volition, we are not doing that on court order. There is no court order or decision that says we have to get supplemental water. We are contemplating it because it is in the best interest of our customers"
Audio of comment only

Whole Board Minutes and audio tape can not be found on NCSD website
http://www.NipomoWater.com/NCSD_Minutes/05_0727_NCSD_Minutes.pdf
http://www.NipomoWater.com/NCSD_Audio/05_0727_0850_NCSD_audio.mp3

E-3) SUPPLEMENTAL WATER POLICY DISCUSSION
The Board discussed the objective of the Supplemental Water Program and formation
of policy governing the program.
The following members of the public spoke:
Steve Cool, developer of Tract 2513 and spokesman for Mr. Newdoll (Tract 2514) – stated that the fees for Tract 2513 and Tract 2514 were paid under protest because their project should have been considered under the old fee structure rather than the new one. The projects should have been grandfathered in because the greater part of the project plans were complete before Ordinance 2005-101 was approved.
Director Winn suggested that this issue be put on a future agenda.
Homer Fox, District resident – asked about the Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Santa Maria and how it may affect issues concerning the Woodlands. He also asked if NCSD ratepayers would have to pay the legal fees if someone sues the City of Santa Maria. The Board discussed the questions.
The Board discussed the information presented in the Board letter. There was no Board action.

7/13/2005 Nipomo Community Service District attorney signs settlement and files with court

http://www.sccomplex.org/docfiles/Z37131323322.pdf

6/30/2005 Settlement agreed to and posted includes becoming a court order and Judgment

http://www.sccomplex.org/cases/noticelink.jsp?FormCaseId=VAE2661C98F&FormDocId=G8CFC6FF9446

page 1 line 2: The Stipulating Parties hereby stipulate and agree to entry of judgment containing the terms and conditions of this Stipulation.

page 2 line 5: All Stipulating Parties agree to cooperate and coordinate their efforts in any trial or hearing necessary to obtain entry of a judgment containing the terms and conditions of this Stipulation.

Page 8 line 4: the Stipulating Parties agree that the Court has the authority to enter a judgment and physical solution containing the terms and conditions of this Stipulation.

Page 32 line 7: The Stipulating Parties agree not to oppose, or in any way encourage or assist any other party in opposing or challenging, any action, approval, or proceeding necessary to obtain approval of or make effective this Stipulation or the judgment to be entered on terms consistent with this Stipulation.

Page 34 line 19: It is anticipated that the Court will enter a single judgment governing the rights of all Parties in this matter. The Stipulating Parties enter into this Stipulation with the expectation that the Court will enter, as a part of the judgment, the terms and conditions of this Stipulation

6/29/2005 NCSD votes to approve settlement.

http://www.NipomoWater.com/NCSD_Minutes/05_0629_NCSD_Minutes.pdf
http://www.NipomoWater.com/NCSD_Audio/05_0629_0846_NCSD_audio.mp3

The Board came back into Open Session.
Jon Seitz, District Legal Counsel, announced that the Board made a 5-0 vote decision to accept the settlement proposal.

2/7/96 NCSD bases will-serves on "prescripted" groundwater

02/07/96 Letter to NCSD requesting status of overdraft

12/19/97 Letter to NCSD requesting status of overdraft and prescription

08/10/98 NCSD response to questions of overdraft (ocr)

8/02/1995 NCSD Attempts to create a "AB3030 Groundwater Management Authority" and fails

This attempt includes lies about having a MOU with SLO county to get control outside of NCSD's boundary's.

SLO county letter finds no Nipomo overdraft

12/20/91 SLO county letter

NCSD board decides to repeal first vote and have a second vote on State Water and the vote fails

12/4/91 NCSD attempts in "Board Administration 2" to repeal the Vote on State Water Project. General Manager Ryder Ray states "Manager Ray reiterated most of our water comes from outside the district. People who own the overlying land have the right to their water and could stop water being used by the District." NCSD minutes 12/4/91

Find other minutes for second voting attempt.

NCSD board decides to have a vote on State Water and the vote fails

3/6/91 NCSD approves in "Other 7" to have an election on the State Water Project NCSD minutes 3/6/91

11/13/91 NCSD reports in "Other 12" the first election fails by 23 Votes NCSD minutes 11/13/91

7/1/91 NCSD policy prohibiting annexations is allowed to expire due to lack of action.

5/10/89 NCSD board makes a extention of finding of shortage

5/10/89 NCSD continuing the policy prohibiting annexations to the district pending resolution of uncertainties related to future district water supplies, see Ordinance No. 89-56

6/10/87 NCSD board makes a finding of shortage

6/10/87 NCSD urgency ordinance of NCSD prohibiting annexations to the district pending resolution of uncertainties related to future district water supplies, see Ordinance No. 87-51

Nipomo Water

Documents and informatin realted to water in Nipomo.