When are the Eagles going to give you that money? If the Eagles owed me money, I'd certainly be at Mr. Banner's door every day. I'd be standing outside that stadium saying, give me my money so I can pay this lady, whose mother is in an old-age home. Come on.
But when we look at the total amount of money that the subcontractors say is being owed, it is much greater than the contract amount that is due from the Eagles or due from us to TKM. We're trying to ascertain why that is.
You know in the basic contract how much Cruz and she is owed, 124 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 don't you, and what you owe him? Do you owe him or her money that wasn't from the basic contract?
That's really convenient, isn't it? Because you're the guy holding the money.
Please let us hear from Councilwoman Tasco and then Councilman Goode.
I lost my train of thought. I want to go back to the accounting process. Where are the record keepers? Who kept the records? Who's reviewing the contracts? Who's reviewing the change orders? Who is trying to balance this out? Is there someone trying to do that? Business people normally don't do business without signed contracts and documentation and accounting systems in place 125 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 to account for what you're asking for. Is that taking place?
Yes. As a matter of fact, there are many of these people involved in the process.
So if you asked Mr. Kuntz, a subcontractor based on his request to make a change, and you gave him a change order, there was a cost associated with that change order. The contractor did the work. You ought to have a clear record of how much each contractor did at the end of the day. I mean, you just don't run a project and don't monitor the cost. Back to the lawyer. If the Eagles owe you money, and it's the money that belongs to the contractors, why don't you just ask the Eagles to pay the subcontractors, then take that away from the money that they owe you? (Applause.)
Well, I can't fully speak for the Eagles. We have been focussing all of our efforts on a mechanism to get the people in this room paid the legitimate amounts that 126 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 they are found to be due.
At what point do you think that's going to take place?
I will tell you, as a mediator, one of the issues is to try to control people pointing fingers at each other. He's asked us to try to refrain from that. You have legitimate questions. There is no doubt about that. And we are trying to be very forthright. We've worked with Councilman Mariano to try to keep him abreast of our efforts. I sincerely hope that they will be very successful in the next couple of weeks. The mediator has a process to hopefully conclude by the end of March. I think he's a little bit optimistic.
We do not want you to point fingers. We're just trying to get a process that happened that we seem to think -- maybe government can be really disorganized, but we never expect private industry to be disorganized. You all count your dollars, every penny. You don't waste anything. It seems to 127 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 me that there ought to be some clear documentation on what happened. I think it's unfortunate that we're in this place. We did build two stadiums. We built the stadium, and we end up with the people we wanted it to help the most are the ones who are getting hurt. (Applause.)
Mr. Biggs, did you state in response to a question that you believe that all the contract balance is owed to subcontractors? I believe I heard you say something to that effect.
All the Eagles' contract balance is owed to the subcontractors?
Did you made that statement? If you made it, you made it. If you didn't, you didn't.
Let me start at a 128 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 different point. Do you believe that the contract balance held by the Eagles is sufficient to satisfy all the claims by the subcontractors?
Do you believe that all of the contract balance held by the Eagles should go to the subcontractors?
Let me ask the question again to make sure that you actually said yes. Do you believe that all of the contract balance held by the Eagles should actually go to the subcontractors? I'm talking about the amount of money held by the Eagles as a contract balance, which is not sufficient to meet all of their claims. But even it being not sufficient, do you believe that the total contract balance that exists now should go to the subcontractors?
Of course you can. You have an opinion. I didn't ask you whether it will go there, I didn't ask you how the dispute will end up. I asked for your opinion. Do you believe that all the contract balance should go to the subcontractors, knowing that the contract balance is not sufficient to meet all their claims? Do you believe that amount that does exist as a contract balance should in fact -- the 100 percent of that total -- go to the subcontractors to meet their claims?
Yes. I believe that the contract balance that is currently owed by the Eagles will eventually go to all those contractors.
I said, do you believe that all of it should go, not whether it will go. Do you believe all of it should go? I know your lawyer doesn't want you to answer the question.
The value that's in the 130 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 balance will end up being paid to those subcontractors.
I understand exactly what you're saying, and you understand exactly that you're not being responsive to my question. My question is not whether all the money will go there, but whether all the should go there. And now your lawyer can answer for you about whether your position is when a contract balance can't meet all the claims of the subcontractors, whether all of it should be dedicated to those claims?
I'm asking your opinion and I'm asking the position of your company.
I will tell you that there are subcontractors that are owed money. There's no question about that. Turner had a contract with them. Turner could pay them. They say that we owe them something. KUD says the Eagles owe us something. That is being sorted out. 131 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912
So you know what the next question is. After we figure out not just how much money there is, which we may know in terms of contract balance, whether we go above that contract balance, whether we go below that contract balance, the issue is also not how much, but who gets paid?
My question is, are you trying to take part of that contract balance or are you dedicating it to the claims of the subcontractors? That's a question that you can answer if you just choose to be honest.
The contract balance that exists is designated for all those subcontractors. All that money is going to go to those subcontractors. We know that there will be additive change orders, either funded by the Eagles or funded by KUD or funded by TKM that will be required to make up the balance, should it not be there for all those subcontractors. That's what we're going through right now with the mediator. 132 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912
I'll ask one more question in that context then. So in addition, as I said before, to answer the question how much that goes above the contract balance or not, the mediator will decide who gets paid?
The reason mediation is used so much in construction, particularly on large, complex projects, it is enormously complicated. Mediation is much quicker than arbitration, which if there is no voluntary agreement between the parties, will last years. And it's not a fun process. It's not recommended by anybody. Precisely for that reason, the mediator has been focussing on a mechanism to focus on subcontractors who have balances owed and provide a mechanism for money to flow to them. That process is not complete. With all due respect to the Council, 133 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 some of the questions I know should be asked, and they are very legitimate questions, but it will force the participants, the witnesses, at least at this level to start fighting among themselves.
The mediation will fail and then you're looking at two or three more processes. We do not want that. I don't think the Eagles want it. Nobody wants that. We want a quick process to get the subs paid amounts that they are legitimately owed. We'll sort out the rest after the fact.
Maybe you can answer the question that I asked Mr. Biggs before. What role is PAID playing in this process and what role is PAID playing in the mediation?
I do not know. I don't think Mr. Biggs knows. That's probably a question for the Eagles. 134 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912
I asked another question with reference to the contract balance. What percentage of that money do you consider to be taxpayer money?
We're not aware of how the funding mechanism occurs. I'm not aware of how the funding mechanism occurs between the different entities.
So you don't know? You have no conception whatsoever what percentage of that should or is considered to be taxpayer money?
Well, other than the public information about the amount that the City and the state participated in the overall project.
I understand that. Your lawyer has said that the mediation process is an extremely complicated process, and I'm assuming he was not just talking about how you come to a resolution, but also the process that was followed throughout the project. I'm asking whether 135 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 you took into consideration at all throughout that process what public benefit was supposed to come out of this project? In other words, you didn't decide to use the subcontractors out of the kindness of your heart.
We put it in the deal and that's why we put our money in the deal. At what point did you take it out? Or is our money still in there? Or is there still a public benefit that is due? In other words, should we be suing to be part of the mediation?
Thank you. Do any of you happen to know when the contracts were developed and the agreements or when the City agreed to do the financial structure for the stadiums? Maybe 136 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 this is a question for someone from the Law Department or maybe it's a question for the City representative. Following up on Councilman Goode's line of questioning, was there any waiver that you would know of that would prohibit us from filing any sort of a lien, mechanics lien or something to that effect?
I didn't know if you would be. I just wanted to raise that question. Maybe we need to ask the Law Department about that.
Are you referring to the City filing a lien, Councilman DiCicco?
We'll discuss that with the City's Law Department. Thank you.
You're welcome. Any other questions from Members of the Committee? 137 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 (No response.)
We want to ask you gentlemen to please stay close. We want to invite up Mr. Joe Banner, Philadelphia Eagles, please, to the witness stand.
Good afternoon. If you all would please state your name for the record and your affiliation, please.
Thank you very much. I have to admit I came down here not really looking forward to this. It may shock you to hear me say this, I'm actually glad we're having these hearings, because the truth is, there's much that I'm learning that I didn't know before today. I had some prepared remarks. Frankly, most of them are irrelevant. I'm 138 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 going to read two sections because I think now they are relevant to what I've heard today. You have my word. I will sit here as long as you want me to and give you a direct straight answer, whether you like it or not. You may not like all of them. So ask me anything you'd like to ask me for as long as you'd like to ask me. Here are the two sections I do think are relevant, having listened to this, that I'd still like to read you from my prepared marks. We recognize that there wouldn't be a Lincoln Financial Field and there wouldn't be an NFC championship Philadelphia Eagles team without the support of City Council, the City of Philadelphia, Mayor Street and the State Legislature. So we're greatly appreciative of that. We accepted some responsibilities and made some commitments in return for that, and we want to tell you that we feel like we've kept those commitments and just give you a little detail on that and then I'll answer 139 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 all your questions. As part of our commitment to the City for the development and the construction of Lincoln Financial Field, the Eagles adopted ambitious goals for participation for MBE, WBE and DBE, generated and supported by City Council and something we were anxious and happy to cooperate with. I am pleased to report to you that more than 50 percent of the contracts awarded on this project were given to qualified firms, and approximately 30 percent of the workers were minorities and women. We were also successful in achieving minority hiring goals for the operations of our stadium, which continue to this day. We believe our percentages in fact exceed those achieved by the City in its own contracting directly for its own projects. We're very proud of this. To have this project portrayed, including these unfortunate disputes, as a project that has been anything other than successful in terms of minority and female 140 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 workers would not be fair to the project or the Members of City Council and the State Legislature who supported this project, and part of the reason was for those reasons. We have been successful there. We do need to close this project out and resolve these disputes, and be able to say that without any qualification that this has overwhelmingly been a successful project in these areas. As I am sure you all know, the Philadelphia Eagles are not in the business of building football stadiums. For this reason, five years ago the Eagles hired KUD International, a company that was experienced in building sports facilities to carry out the design and construction of Lincoln Financial Field. One of the reasons we hired Kajima was because they built the San Francisco 49er baseball park and they produced the highest minority participation in construction projects for anything that had been built in the United States at that time. We also put together the 141 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 Turner/Keating partnership and were greatly influenced, especially by the Keating part of that partnership, having at that point an outstanding record of minority participation in projects throughout the City. So the original team that we put together was put together very conscious of this being an important agenda to the people who were supporting our project and the commitments that we made that we felt obligated to keep. Pursuant to an agreement that has been furnished to City Council with KUD, the Eagles would hire KUD, who would then hire the architect to design the stadium, and KUD would hire the general contractor to construct the stadium.
That agreement called for the stadium to be fully completed by a certain date, and to pay all stadium construction costs for a guaranteed maximum price. In fact, our stadium lease with the City, which you all approved, obligated us to build the stadium with a guaranteed maximum price. Pursuant to its agreement with the Eagles, KUD hired an architect for the 142 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 stadium, and KUD contracted a partnership, as you've heard, of Turner/Keating/McKissack to be the general contractor to build the stadium. As you know, that's a joint venture of Turner Construction, Keating Building Corporation and the McKissack Group. Pursuant to this contractual arrangement, it was TKM that hired and contracted the subcontractors to engage and do the work at Lincoln Financial Field. As of today there is substantial work that remains to be completed at the stadium or that needs to be corrected because it was not constructed correctly. It is our belief that TKM should pay the subcontractors that you heard testify today, as well as others that are owed money. They should also immediately remedy the incomplete and defective work at our stadium. We agree with the testimony of the subcontractors that you heard earlier today. Our contracts with KUD and TKM provide them legal recourse in arbitration and mediation to recover the money, if it turns out that it isn't owed. But if the money is owed, there's 143 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 no reason in our opinion that money shouldn't be paid. If Turner thinks they didn't owe the money, their contracts provide ample opportunity for them to recover that money. It was stated earlier, this is a global multi-billion company that has contracts with these people. We believe they should be getting paid. As of today the amount of money that the Eagles hold as retainage is considerably less than the estimated cost of completing what we consider to be unfinished work and conducting the defective work that was done in the stadium. Any further payments by the Eagles at this time would be in excess of this guaranteed maximum price. Accordingly, the Eagles' position is that we do not owe any money at this time. I'm sure you'll ask me some specific questions on this when I'm done, and I'm going to be happy to give you all the details about Luis Cruz and any other people you'd like to ask about. Like you, the Eagles are concerned that these subcontractors with legitimate 144 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 claims may not be getting paid in full. However, the Eagles must retain the money they have in order to correct the defects that still exist in the stadium, unless Turner is going to come in and correct those defects on their own, at which point in time we would be more than happy to release the retainage that we currently hold. Once again, let me just state for the record that the Eagles contracted with KUD, and that the retainage held is significantly less than the cost to complete the current outstanding issues. The Eagles do not owe additional money to this project at this time. I thank you for the opportunity to present this opening statement. I welcome whatever questions you'd like to ask me.
Thank you for your testimony. Did you have testimony, sir?
Very well. 145 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 Could you please tell us what the retainage amount is?
We believe the retainage is a little over $5 million. Turner and Keating and the Kajima Group think that it's closer to $6. We agree it's in that range.
Excuse me. Can I just paint the complete picture? The whole contract was for $368 million. We have paid $363 million to the parties that you heard here earlier who are not in a position theoretically to pay these subs the money that they seem to agree is owed.
You did say that the Eagles agree with the testimony of the subcontractors?
We don't know exactly 146 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 if the amounts they're quoting are the right amounts. We agree with the position that they should determine with Turner whether it's $500, $700 or $100. They should rectify those numbers. Turner should pay those amounts. If Turner believes they have a claim against either KUD or the Eagles, as has been stated, there's already a process that has begun. I heard the question asked. The Eagles are not even a part of that process. It's between those two parties. We've been allowed to sit in and observe, but that is a dispute between those two parties. So we've been allowed to sit in and give information we've periodically been asked to provide or questions so that the arbitrator is getting the full picture. But as you heard them agree, this is a dispute between the two of them. The part that we agree with is that Turner should sit down with these subcontractors, come to a legitimate understanding as to what they're owed and they should pay them. If they didn't owe them the 147 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 money, they have recourse with either KUD or KUD and the Eagles to prove that they didn't owe that money, and then they'll get reimbursed. But we don't see any reason that those people shouldn't be getting paid by them at this time. (Applause.)
Where is the money that Mr. Banner says you guys have?
We do not have the remainder of our contract retainage money. I cannot pay the subcontractors.
What are we talking about, the retainage money that Mr. Banner just said was $5 million? 148 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912
The total that we think, the base contract money and retainage all owed is $7.7 million. We have not been paid that.
Do you have any money that the Eagles gave you that you owe Paula, Luis or anyone else that you could pay them?
Out of $363 million that the company has been paid, which Mr. Banner alluded to, is the cost of the stadium.
No. It's been paid out to the subcontractors. We have $400,000 left out of $363 million.
Then where does all this other money come from for Paula and Luis and all those people? 149 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 He made it pretty clear. He's sitting right there two people away from you and the judge. What's the story?
I have not been paid all the contractor retainage money from KUD.
Can I just add something that's relevant? We also entered into -- as KUD can acknowledge and I think the people from Turner -- because we were in this exact same position in June. Our position at that time also was that we were retaining less money than we needed to fix the stadium. We were approached in the interest of trying to resolve these subcontractor issues and get some of the things fixed at the stadium, to enter into an interim agreement in which we released $6.6 million with the understanding that that would be used to resolve these subcontractor 150 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 disputes.
Now I'm confused. Everything we do, Mr. Banner, is from you to KUD to Turner, and maybe to Paula and Luis, but they don't get there stuff. Now all of a sudden you give money -- you forget KUD and you give it right to him?
That money was paid, as we understood it, to finish some work at the stadium and to resolve at least some of these problems with the subcontractors. I suspect if you bring the subcontractors back up and ask them if they've been paid any money in June or July -- and I'd be happy to provide the proof that we paid the $6.6 million -- you're not going to get any yeses to that question.
Again, Mr. Banner, so that I'm following this, $6.6 151 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 million you paid directly to Turner?
Yes. And that was unusual, because of the nature and the purpose of that money, like I said, was to finish some items in the stadium and to resolve some of these subcontractor disputes in that one instance.
And that was at the end in order to get going in August of 03, correct?
No. This was in June of '04. This has been going on for a year and these guys aren't getting paid and we're not getting our stadium fixed.
We paid that money directly to Turner. We paid to it Turner, who was supposed to fix items in the stadium and pay the subcontractors.
Short of having walnut shells, these are shells. This is Eagles, KUD, TKM. I'm going to put a quarter under there and I'm going to take that and 152 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 move it around. It's called a shell game. Every con artist on the avenue knows that game. I knew it when I was six years old. This is a shell game. Where is their money? She needs the money. He needs the money. Do you have his money?
Mr. Banner is correct. The Eagles paid us $6.6 million under the interim agreement. We distributed that to the subcontractors, except for $400,000 of the $6.6 million.
You came here and you don't have the list and he's testifying for something that he did? He seems like a very nice guy, but somebody is 153 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 BSing somebody here.
Would you? Like, in ten minutes? Can we get it before anybody leaves and goes home? Now, before Mr. Banner told us about the money that he gave directly to Turner, Keating and McKissack -- usually they go through you guys. KUD, are you holding any money.
I know the Eagles are. I got you with the retainage. KUD, are you holding any money that you've got to give to them to give to Paula and to Luis?
I think what you heard was that the Eagles paid the money to TKM. You're elevating the form over the substance. 154 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 It really went through the KUD contract, but this was paid directly to TKM. It was supposed to be paid so that work would be completed, and I think Mr. Banner should really advise you what happened.
I don't think Banner is lying. I don't think he's lying. I think there's some confusion here, but I know Paula don't have the money and Luis doesn't have his money.
To try to simplify, start with the subs. Starting with the subs, there are some disputes between the subs, I assume, and Turner.
Is that true, Turner? Are there disputes? Are there disputes with Paula over her work? Is there a dispute with Luis Cruz?
Councilman, there's approximately 60 subs on the project. I don't 155 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 have the detail off the top of my head.
You're not prepared to answer any questions that I ask you.
Councilman, I want the judge to provide this overview for us, and then further questioning by you, Councilman Goode and Councilman Frank DiCicco.
I just wanted to try to explain. We've identified there's disputes between some of the subs and Turner. The Eagles don't really know exactly what those are. That wasn't their job to work with the subs. I suspect that there are some disputes between Turner and KUD. And we will see whether there's any disputes in the future between KUD and the Eagles. But all of those levels of dispute have to be resolved, and there are thousands and thousands of pages of documents and work orders and records, and that's -- you asked for a simplified description. 156 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 I don't think it's a shell game, Mr. Councilman. I think what you're hearing people testify to is disputes at various levels.
Okay. It's not a shell game. Turner could not tell me if we owed Paula for something she may or may not have done. But I think he told us that Luis Cruz doesn't owe you any work, correct, Turner? Does Luis Cruz owe you any work?
No. Well, there's a couple outstanding punch list items, but they're minor in nature.
Couldn't you have paid him $200,000 so he can feed his family?
That wasn't the final settlement. I offered to do that while we went through the dispute.
Was that for him to not come to this hearing, to not do anything? What about the guys that have been with him all along that are sitting back there? Are you going to offer them something?
Point of order, Madam Chair. I'm just trying to get back on track with the statement Mr. Kuntz had made relative to the statements that Mr. Banner made, that the $6-and-a-half million was turned over to Turner, either through KUD or directly. That to me, if I do my math right, makes the project of $368 million somewhat whole in terms of dollars and cents.
There's still the $5 to 158 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 $6 million out there in addition to that.
Mr. Kuntz, if I heard you correctly, you said that you believe after the $6-and-a-half million had been spent, there's a balance of $400,000. What does that represent? Because that's when the debate began and I kind of lost you.
Mr. Banner is correct. It was an interim payment in an effort to get money to the subcontractors. We distributed those funds. Of the $6.6 million that we were given, we currently still have $400,000 of that that was not distributed. There is still an outstanding balance of $7.7 million in contract and retainage that we do not have from KUD.
Now I understand. The numbers weren't adding up. If you got $6-and-a-half million and the subs were paid and you only have $400,000 left, based on today's testimony, we are going to be way short. Is it safe to say that the majority of that disputed amount, whether it's the $5 159 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 million or the $7-and-a-half million that is due the subs, is it primarily for change orders and others, or is it change orders and work that has, in the opinion of TKM and others, has not yet been completed to the contractual agreements?
Councilman, as we sit here today, we think that there's $15.5 million, rough numbers, owed to the subcontractors.
Based on our accounting, yes. TKM is owed another -- we feel -- $3.3 on top of that. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the subcontractors. Of that $15.5 million, there are $7.5 million -- once again, round numbers, but pretty close -- in change orders that we are in the dispute resolution process with KUD. That leaves a balance of roughly $7-and-a-half million of base contract work and retainage -- work is complete -- that is not in dispute that we have not been paid. 160 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Banner, thank you for your testimony. I think you cleared up a lot. I don't believe that the other gentlemen at the table are going to dispute a lot of what you said. But just to review some of what you just said, you have paid out maybe 99 percent of the maximum contract amount?
And you're not going to go above your maximum contract amount, and you're not obligated to go above the maximum contract amount?
If there were Eagle approved change orders we would be obligated to pay them.
Eagle approved change 161 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 orders above and beyond that somebody could demonstrate originated by us, change of scope, change of work, we would be obligated to pay those. Some of those have happened and we paid them. Our own position is we paid in full on that basis.
The assumption is if you've paid out almost all the monies you're obligated to pay under the contract amount, that the public money is spent?
I meant to say this because it's come up obviously a couple of times. The nature of the structure of the Phillies deal and the Eagles deal were quite different. The Eagles received $85 million from the state towards the construction of the stadium. From the City we received the land and the money to clean up the land, which is obviously the very first money spent, and that was audited extensively by PAID. We were required to have people on site, produce extensive paperwork, bills, et cetera. There was no more City money in the construction of our stadium. 162 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 There's some future operating money that would have been spent at the Vet that's getting transferred over as part of our contribution. So the City part of the contribution was spent on the clearing of the site, and at that point was fully spent. And it was monitored very closely and extensively.
And you believe that you fulfilled all the public benefit criteria that was attached to that public investment?
I do in the broader sense. But I'm certainly not sitting here, even though I believe that this responsibility at this point is ours, thinking that we can wash our hands of this and say we've done everything until this is resolved. But yes, I do. I believe that we, from the attractions and the events and the quality of our team and our building, to the minority hiring that we committed to, I believe we kept the commitments that we made.
Out of $363 million you paid out, do you know how much of 163 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 that KUD has paid out?
I do not. I have no 4 reason to think it isn't all of it, but I don't know that.
Can KUD respond to that question? Of the $363 million that the Eagles gave you, how much have you paid out?
There are not tens of millions of dollars that have not been paid out?
We paid out all of the 164 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912 amounts to TKM, which went to the subcontractors, except for what was included in our contract that had to be paid to architects, to other design professionals, consultants involved with the project.
Okay. TKM, of the money that the Eagles gave to KUD, and KUD gave to TKM, have you paid out all the money?
Okay. I think in the end the record may not reflect that all the money is not in fact spent.
I'm sorry. Except for the $400,000 I alluded to earlier under the interim agreement.
Is all of it obligated or is all of it paid out? 165 01/27/05 - PARKS - RES. 040912