Would you be able to provide to the Committee information relative to this?
I think to get a hundred percent accurate, what we would need to embark on is a systematic walk-out of our 88 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 entire franchise going door to door and note those homes that are no longer there or that are vacant. So to say that we're able to get an accurate number in a short period of time, I would not say that.
What do you believe your penetration rate to be? You have a requirement, I believe, under the franchise agreement to make reports and that issue; is that correct?
That is correct. We do currently report based on the 161,000 number that you reported there.
Well, Ms. Martin, then I would only suggest to you that on the one hand you're suggesting that the 161 number may be incorrect because of population loss or demolition of homes or whatever the case may be, but you're using that as the base. We've already established that the 89 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 subscribership is at the $50,000 level. So the number at the moment is the accurate number because you have no other measurement by which to report.
That is correct. But I, again, for the record wanted to state that there have been changes that have happened within our franchise over the past several years, as you noted, demolitions or vacancy that has not been updated, but that is the number that we're going by right now. That is the most current information that we have.
Well, I would suggest to you that representing a fair amount of the franchise area, there probably has not been that significant a change in the franchise area. Of course, there have been a few here and there, but there also have been new homes built in a variety of areas in the same franchise area. Did you have other items that you wanted to put on the record in terms of statements that have been made earlier with regard to qualifications. 90 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071
I do not have a copy of the report that was presented earlier. As Mr. Fogarty stated, we gave our testimony prior, and so there's nothing additional that I needed to add. However, if there are any questions that you may have, I'll be happen to entertain those.
All right. I'll come back to you on that. Mr. Fogarty, do you recall at the last hearing I had asked for either of yourself or Mr. Holder and analysis of the transaction. I've asked about the total sales price and the break-out. This is believe when -- was that Mr. Shirley?
Mr. Shirley was at the table who I see has figured out that maybe he didn't want to be with us today. I can't imagine why. He had a pretty good experience last time with us. I do not recall receiving a document laying out the information that I had 91 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 requested.
Actually, Councilman, on February 4th I sent you a letter that broke out the financial information. It's dated February 4. I think we faxed it to you as well as well as sent it. It's a threeletter.
Do you want to go into the record and tell us exactly what it says? Maybe that's in Tab 8.
So we have in '99 the Area II franchise was purchased by Urban Cable Works for $160 million?
And why don't you work with me here? For the current transaction, the sales price is what? I'm not seeing another figure. 92 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071
Councilman, I'm not even sure at this point. Could you restate the question to make sure I'm giving you the correct answer?
What I'd like to better understand is the financial nature of the transaction. What I'd asked back at the last hearing was the purchase price or the sale price of the franchise to Time Warner as well as a break-out of who's getting what, because you have multiple investors and parties. So how are those funds being distributed? That's what I asked at the last hearing.
Councilman, what I'd ask is to allow Mr. Murad Kalam who is a lawyer with my firm, Covington and Burling who also represents Inner City to respond to that question. 93 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071
I knew he was going to end up at the table at some point.
My name is Murad Kalam and I represent Inner City. To answer the question, the $53 million was the purchase price for the Area II franchise to Time Warner.
Excuse me. That Time Warner is paying Urban Cable Works for the Area II franchise.
Okay, just hold that thought. Time Warner is paying $53 million to Urban Cable Works for its 60 percent share.
Now, back on June 3, 1999, Urban Cable Works paid $160 million for this franchise, correct?
Well, what happened between June 3, 1999, and it appears that this transaction at least started on June 94 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 30 -- at least executed a purchase agreement on June 30, 2004? Was that like an agreement of sale?
So how is it that the franchise has, in essence, lost $107 million in value?
Councilman, in terms of what happened in the most recent transaction, the $53 million figure only represents a part of the total interaction between the parties. I guess we were trying to respond to the specific question you had. There are other components to the deal.
Okay. I'm really asking the broader question, so if there are other components, I'd like to better 95 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 -- I'm just trying to understand the transaction now. You gave me a chart. Murad was kind enough at the last hearing to put together a multi-colored chart. It shows all the parties, all the players. And now I'm trying to follow the money. You paid $160 million for something five years ago, five and a half years ago as the group. It cannot have a value five years later of $53 million. You wouldn't buy something under that circumstance. So there must be other dollars going other places that is going to add up to some amount that has to be greater than $160 million. So where is the rest of the money?
We're dealing with only a 60 percent figure when it comes to the most recent transaction. As I said --
So that explains at least in part. And then I guess we have to look at the total value of the exchange or the total value of the deal between the parties --
But hold on for 96 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 a second. When you say that on June 3, 1999, the Area II franchise was purchased by Urban Cable Works, now, Urban Cable Works is 60 percent owner of the overall franchise; is that correct? Was $160 million for the 60 percent? Was the $160 million for the hundred percent?
Mr. Nutter, as I understand it, this has a point of confusion. There is also an Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia, L.P., and as I understand, although I'd like to reserve the right to go back and check all of this information, what Ed Shirley testified to on January 26t was that Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia, L.P., which is 40 percent owned by Time Warner and 60 percent owed by Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, and Urban Cable Works General, LLC, paid a purchase price of $160 million. Therefor, it's not a difference of --
Right. So when we say 97 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 Urban Cable Works there, as I understand Ed Shirley's testimony, when Ed Shirley said that Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia, L.P., paid 160 million, he was talking about both Time Warner and Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, and Urban Cable Works General, LLC. That's as I understand it.
Is that how you understand it or is that what factually happened?
That's my understanding of what happen. I would only ask that we would have the right to go back and check any numbers, but that was my understanding.
Well, who's the party who paid the $160 million? They would probably know.
Who paid the 98 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 $160 million?
It would have been Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania LP -- excuse me. Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia, LP, which is the operating company jointly owned by Time Warner Cable, 40 percent, and Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, 57 percent, and technically Urban Cable Works General, 3 percent.
So within that 160, Time Warner's already has its 40 percent. So are you saying that the 160 gets split between these two entities with a 40/60 split?
So when you now say that Time Warner is paying $53 million, 99 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 who are they paying it to?
The $53 million is paid to Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, and Urban Cable Works General, LLC, the 60 percent owners of Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia, L.P.
They're paying $53 million for the 60 percent that they own?
We don't know the value of the franchise at present. We don't have that information with us.
I think for purposes of this transaction, you would have to look at what the consideration was paid for the 60 percent. That's how, I guess, it was valued by the buyer and the seller. There's really no other way to determine what the value is.
Mr. Fogarty, you can't act like you're an uninterested party; 100 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 you're the buyer.
And we agreed to pay that price for 60 percent, and you just do the math.
Well, I'm working on that, but what's the value of the franchise?
Before I gave a figure, I would have to talk to our accounting people. I don't want to give a number because I'm not expert in any way of evaluating franchises. We're talking about the particulars of this transaction here. This purchase price was agreed upon several months ago. I doubt there's been any significant change in the value of the franchise.
No, I'm asking about the overall value of the franchise.
By that you mean, I assume, the value of the cable system and franchise. I just want to be clear about that. We're not talking about assigning a value to the franchise, we're talking about the entire cable system and its assets and 101 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 everything that goes along with it. Here, we're talking about consent to the transfer of the franchise, but the purchase price is paid not -- for the franchise is an asset of the partnership, but the partnership has a lot of other assets, too. It has its ongoing business, it has its equipment, its trucks, all these things are part of the value of the cable system, and that's what the price is paid for.
Mr. Fogarty, you could very well understand that any one of us would have difficulty understanding, for the moment, how Urban Cable Works could pay $160 million for a franchise five years ago and subsequently the same franchise or 60 percent of it is being sold for $53 million. The math -- this is not adding up in a way that I can understand. Now, if there are other pieces and components, if we're now going to get into hide the ball, then we're just going to have a different kind of conversation.
I'm sorry, into what? 102 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 I didn't hear you.
Hid the ball. If we're not going to put information on the record, if we're going to have, "Well that's over there and the other one is over there, we can't find it," I'm not going to go chasing around after it. But do not insult this Council or this record by trying to convince some of us that something that was valued at $160 million five years ago is now being given consideration for 53 five years later. There's other money somewhere going other places that is not on this table and is not a part of this discussion. And you know I asked about this at the last hearing, and I was told that I would have a chart that laid out the financial transaction. Now, it's starting to get a little late in the day. And you know that I asked for this information, correct? You know I asked for this information at the last hearing.
And I understood that that was provided to you in Mr. Holder's 103 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 letter.
I've got this letter. It tells me the start of the discussion. It gives me know end. There is no other number in this document. The 53 million is not even in the document, so there is no answer in this letter.
Councilman, we tried to share the information that we could, again, following the directions of our client with regard to the questions I understood the way you asked. Now, maybe I didn't understand what you asked for. I thought we were responsive in the letter that we sent to you on February the 4th. I had not heard back form you that it was not. And that's why I assumed what I sent was, in fact, a response to the question that you posed to us at the earlier hearing.
Mr. Holder, I asked Mr. Shirley. He started to answer. He started talking about -- I have my notes here -- $87 million for 60 percent interest. Then he started talking about a net return of 104 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 million, 63 million net to the investors, on and on. I asked for a chart or some analysis that shows the complete transaction financially of all the various parties and where the money is going. Now, that is what I asked for.
With all due respect, 9 Councilman, I thought that what I sent you, as 10 I said, on February the 4th was exactly what 11 you had asked. 12
Then, Mr. 13 Holder, I'm only left to ask you the question. 14 Tell me what the purchase price is. Show me 15 where the financial transaction is in this 16 letter. There are no other numbers in this 17 letter. You've $160 million in purchase 18 price, you go through what PhilaComm invested, 19 where that came from, we go through all of 20 that drama, who has what interest, on and on 21 and on. And there's no other mention of the 22 financial transaction. This letter is in no 23 way responsive to that question. It shares a 24 lot of information and communicates other pieces of data that is important as the 105 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 lawyers want to send letters all around to everybody. It has nothing to do with the question I asked. This letter is about a whole other purpose that has virtually nothing to do with my question. And I took it as such. This is a lawyer's letter for lawyers for future consideration. It has nothing to do with the question I asked.
Councilman, with all due respect, we've a number of communications after February the 4th in a number of contexts. And at no point did you indicate that the letter that we sent on February the 4th was not responsive. This is the first time I'm hearing this.
Mr. Holder, I have no reason to believe that this letter by itself is responsive to what I asked Mr. Shirley. It does not say that. It does not say, "This letter is a letter that lays out the financial transaction and which parties are getting what as a result of anything else." You had to search at the table for the $53 million. That's not in this letter. That 106 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 would be some indication that there was some effort at answering that question. This letter is about who invested what, who paid what, who didn't do what, who did what with whom. It has nothing to do with the question I asked Mr. Shirley, and he's not here anyway.
The first sentence of the letter says, "You requested additional financial information about the sale of the Area II franchise which I present below."
Right. And now I'm going to ask you, other than the $160 million purchase price from five years ago, tell me in this letter where I would find $53 million being paid by Time Warner for the current franchise.
We tried to work in in crafting this letter with the information that we shared with you, which I indicated --
Mr. Holder, is there any other number in this letter that indicates one dime going to any other party related to a purchase price? Yes or no?
The letter speaks for 107 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 itself, Councilman. I'm not going say --
The letter may speak for itself; it just doesn't answer my question.
It answered the question that you put to us, I thought. And if I was wrong, I did not get an indication from you --
The question was, tell me the sales price and all the mechanics of the financial transaction. That was the question. Mr. Shirley struggled with that question at the table. He then, as always, reserved the right to come back. Mr. Waldron, I believe, came back to the table and said, "We'd like to have an opportunity to go over this and we'll get back to you with the details." This letter is not responsive to that question. But if you know the answers to the question, because we can just -- we don't know each other that well. Let me assure you, we can sit here all night long which will not make my colleagues very happy. Councilman Clarke knows that well. Councilman Rizzo 108 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 knows that well. We'd be talking about this 2 o'clock tomorrow morning. That's fine with me. Probably not too productive. But since you obviously have the information and we now know it's not responsive in this letter, show me on the a piece a paper, this wonderful chart that I have here, put on this document how much money the entities are getting, what the price is, and tell me what the total is. It cannot be that some amount of money is being paid for this franchise which is less than what was paid five years ago. Not possible.
Councilman, if I can five minutes. We're dealing with a settlement agreement. This gets into the settlement agreement. That's at least part of the problem. It gets into the settlement agreement between --
I don't want to be in the settlement agreement. I want to be in the where-is-the-money-going discussion.
But part of the purchase price is contained in that settlement 109 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 agreement. And also with regard --
I understand. I've not asked for the settlement agreement. If it's in the settlement agreement, then you're going to say an X amount of dollars in a settlement agreement to whomever. I'm not asking for that, the whomever. I didn't ask to see the document. I asked to see where the money is going and who it's going to.
All right. If you give me five minutes, what I will try to do is craft an answer to that question without getting into the terms of the settlement agreement beyond that which I think is necessary to answer the question. But again, just for the record, what I thought had happened was that Mr. Shirley had supplied the information that you wanted in large part, but there were additional questions --
Mr. Shirley gave me nothing but numbers. Mr. Shirley gave me on my little yellow pad here, sales price $87 million for 60 percent interest. I took down, net return of $24 million. Then he 110 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 added in the 63 net to the investors. That's what I goat from Mr. Shirley. No names, no 4 boxes, no nothing.
If you give me just a couple minutes, I'll try to reconstruct or construct something that would be responsive to the question now put to us. And with regard to what was asked whether we were responsive, I think you have your position, I certainly have ours. And if give me a couple minutes, I will put together something.
You know, I'm sitting here very patiently and I listened very carefully, and you just said something that kind of tickled me. You're going to construct the question you were just asked. It was very clear to me as a member of this Committee that Councilman Nutter asked for exactly what he asked for today, so I don't know how there was any miscommunication. 111 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071
If you need to construct something, it's because it wasn't constructed in that letter.
And I will admit that that might be the case. I will also indicate that what I thought in the letter was responsive. I was wrong, I will admit that.
I just want to let you know, I'm a member of the Committee. I heard the Councilman ask the question. I understood. And if I were to respond, I would have responded differently because that's not what the Councilman asked you to do.
I just want you to understand we're up here listening as carefully as you are, and I understood what he asked, and I just wanted to make sure you understood that we understood what he asked.
Believe me, I understood. I hear. I understand English, I understand that. But I hope you understand my 112 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 position as well.
I'm not trying to hide the ball, as was indicated. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. It was a genuine attempt on our part to answer the question.
Mr. Chairman, I gentleman has asked for some time to reconstruct the transaction based on the question that was asked at the last hearing a number of weeks ago. That would certainly be fine with me. I know we have Mr. James here. Maybe we can get is information while the folks are in the back reconstructing.
Mr. James. Gentlemen, would you prefer to do it at the table or you want to go in the hallway?
I think I'd like to 113 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 step outside.
That's fine. Mr. James, if you can come back and clarify some of your earlier statements. I'm sorry, gentlemen and lady. I'm sorry.
Thank you, Councilman. I believe some of the questions that Councilman Nutter had asked me earlier, I was not able to give him the specifics. I would like the opportunity to clarify what my answers are and try to provide him the details that I now have available.
The question came about the history of the franchise and the level participation, the ownership level. Mr. Fogarty from Time Warner was accurate that my earlier comments were based on my memory and I might not have it accurate. But what I would like to put on the record is what's in the franchise agreement which recites some of the transactions that occurred over the franchise from March 29th, 1984 when the franchise was 114 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 awarded to Wade Communications, a Limited Partnership in Pennsylvania. That in Bill No. 4 1002, approved July 9, 1986, the City approved a transfer of the franchise at that time from the franchisee, which would have been Wade Communications, Limited Partnership, to James N. Wade and Wade Communications, Inc., as general partners of the franchise. And in Bill No. 950516, approved December 7, 1995, the City approved the transfer of the franchise from Wade Communications partnership to a newly constituted and restructured Wade Communication partnership wholly controlled by Time Warner, Inc. That agreement, I believe, still retained to some degree Mr. Wade an his involvement in the franchise even though, according to Mr. Fogarty's testimony, he was very specific in the term it was now a wholly controlled Time Warner franchise.
Mr. James from the documents that you have in this 1995 transaction, are you able to determine what Mr. Wade's interest was in this quote/unquote, 115 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 wholly owned subsidiary? Did he have any ownership or did he have any equity or did he have any investment in that entity?
We are researching and getting a copy of the actual bill to determine what the structure was. My memory, there was some involvement. I can't speak to the specific degree.
Your other question had to deal with limited liabilities and their other amounts other than $250. There are a number of other amounts that are located in Section 4 of the franchise agreement, and the amounts that are of the higher value speak to a $2,000 per day limited liability that had to deal with the upgrade and construction of the construction. So delays in the upgrade would have resulted in the $2,000 per day limited liability. There is also a thousand dollar per day limited liability which speaks to the franchisee disclosing subscriber information. There is also a thousand dollar per 116 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 day that relates the selling and providing of otherwise making available to anyone information about subscribers. Then there are tow other thousand dollar limited liabilities for failure to comply with the provisions under Appendix E which has to deal with the provisions providing the peg obligations. And there is a thousand dollar per day which deals with Article 4, Section 10 of the franchise which, again, deals with breaches of the franchise obligation. Finally, the last bit of information --
Well, before you leave that, is there any reason why we should keep this 250 per day level with regard to not filing reports, or should that amount be increased to 500 or a thousand or something like that?
Other than what we had negotiated with the franchisee that's applying at this point in time, I don't believe there is any. We intended to do it to be fair and 117 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 consistent in our approach, and that's why we reach the $250 amount.
Well, I don't know what your experience has been, but at least based on today, I'm not feeling that there's been a tremendous amount of consistency or support or even accommodation. I mean, I'd be very concerned about the 250 level. And is the fine for non-compliance in this area in the same section as where the other 250 is? Or are they about different reports or are they about the same reports?
No. The fines that are in the report deal with kind of ad hoc or reports that we would ask for. It's made to be consistent with the limited liability section, but it's not the same.
The last part of the information you asked about the level minority participation as a franchise agreement specifies under Appendix I and has to deal with a couple of areas. Under the area of 118 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 contracting, there are specific goals. There is a 37.5 percent goal for capital expenditures excluding capital expenditures by the franchise for equipment purchased directly from the manufacturers procured through the local businesses.
Excluding equipment that's purchased directly from manufacturers.
I do not have the performance here. And I will provide you a copy of the appendix that recites this information and we will provide a report to the Chair and to yourself on our determination of their performance in these categories.
What about employment? 119 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071
Well, in the same contract, and they also have a 38.5 percent for capital expenditures through local minority-owned businesses. There's a separation there. There's percent goal for 7 capital expenditures for female-owned 8 businesses. There's 32.5 dollar value of 9 non-intrinsic goods from local businesses, a 10 30 percent goal for local minority business, and a 10 percent goal for women.
Well, what I would ask you to do, Mr. James, if you could forward to the Chair -- if you would take all of those criteria and provide us with a chart that lays out what the actual performance figures are in accordance with those criteria over the last five years, from '99 to 2004, it would be helpful.
Just to answer your employment question, there are two goals in there. Thirty percent of all job hours of all 120 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 classifications shall go to minority employees and percent of all jobs of all 4 classifications shall go to women. So there 5 are goals in there, and we do get reports. 6
We are 12 reconvening the Public Property Committee 13 hearing. 14
Again, this is Eric 16 Holder representing Inner City. 17 With regard to the numbers that you 18 sought earlier, Councilman, we have some 19 figures. I would only say that these are 20 gross numbers in the sense that we're speaking in millions. There may be 66.3 or something like that.
First, as a baseline, 121 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 the purchase price of $160 million would be -- we have to factor in that 60 percent of that would be Inner City share so we're starting at a starting figure of $96 million from the original purchase. There was a $53 million cash payment that would go to Inner City --
Hold on for a second, Mr. Holder. Why don't we try to do it this way. Do you have the chart from before?
So when you make mention of the $160 million, what I'd like you to do is take the 160 million and utilize the chart and spread the 160 across the entities involved.
Okay. What I've done -- and I probably have to do a little more math here. The 160 would be for the purchase price that all the parties paid which would break down to the 60 percent interest which would be 96 million would be split between Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, which would be 57 percent and Urban --
Hold on. You've 122 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 got $160 million being split first in a 60/40.
64 would be Time Warner, their 40 percent. And the remaining 96 would be Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, and Urban Cable Works General, LLC. 57 percent is Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, and 3 percent is Urban Cable Works General, LLC. I've not done the math on that. I think my math comes out to Urban Cable Works General, LLC, which has a 3 percent interest would be 4.8 million.
It's really 3 percent of the 160, right, is what that comes down to?
4.8, so that leaves you 55.2? 123 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071
I'm sorry. I'm dealing with the 60 percent issue. Sorry. That's 91.2?
91.2, right. That would be Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC. Those are the numbers we start with. The deal that was struck between Inner City and Time Warner is as follows --
So hold on for one second. Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia, L.P., is the current owner of the franchise; is that correct?
Who paid $160 million in June of 1999 for the franchise?
The shares are distributed such that Time Warner Cable, Inc., is a 40 percent share, which at that point is valued at $64 million and a combination of Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, and Urban Cable Works General, LLC, which have the 124 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 other 60 percent share which is 96 million is subsequently split 57 percent, 3 percent, respectively which amount to $91.2 million for Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania and $4.8 million for Urban Cable Works General, LLC, right?
Now, with regard to the most recent sale, the deal between Time Warner and Inner City --
Well, let's go down to the next level. Then you have this entity called City Cable works, Inc., of which percent appears to be owned by Fairview and 18 Pacesetter and Mesbit. And then of Urban 19 Cable Works of Pennsylvania, LLC, which is 20 valued at $91.2 million, 20 percent of that is owned by PhilaComm Cable Group, LLC; is that right?
So that number would amount to -- that's 20 percent of the 57 125 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 percent or is -- 20 percent of the total of Urban Cable Works of Pennsylvania, right?
That 57 being represented by 91.2, correct? Would that be 18.24? The other 80 percent of which is owned by City Cable Works, Inc., which is going to be roughly 73 million?
At the moment I'm just kind of doing the math. percent 15 of 91.2 is 18.24. That leaves 73, which is 16 the 80 percent share of Urban Cable Works of 17 Pennsylvania, LLC, of which 20 percent is 18 owned by another group of investors. 19
Right. Well, they actually own, as I understand this, 20 percent of City Cable Works.
Exactly. I 126 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 understand that to be the same. So City Cable Works is actually an 80/20 split of its own, right?
Right, between Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia and the partners.
So that's pretty easy, that's 14.6. Okay, do you want to walk back through some of this stuff?
It was really kind of a rhetorical question. I wasn't really giving you a choice. We have $160 million for Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia, L.P., back on June of 1999.
That is split 60/40, 40 percent going to Time Warner Cable, Inc. That 40 percent share is worth $64 million. The 60 percent is worth $96 million. That is subsequently split between Urban Cable Works PA, LLC, and Urban 127 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 Cable Works General, LLC, in a 57/3 split which is valued at $91.2 million for Urban Cable Works PA, LLC, and $4.8 million for Urban Cable Works General, LLC. Urban Cable Works Pennsylvania, LLC, which has a value at that point of $91.2 million is subsequently split 20/80 between PhilaComm Cable Group and City Cable Works, Inc. The $91.2 million is split 18.24 to PhilaComm and roughly $73 million to City Cable Works. City Cable Works is split 80/20 between itself and a group of investors Fairview Capital, Pacesetter, Mesbit. 73 million is subsequently split 58.4 million to City Cable Works and 14.6 million to the 17 percent investors, Fairview and Pacesetter. 18 Are we in the same place? 19
And so then Urban Cable Works of Philadelphia, Inc., has a value of $58.4 million, and it would then appear that the Inner City Broadcasting Corporation would also have the same $58.4 128 02/17/05 - PUBLIC PROPERTY - BILL 041071 million value.
Councilman, I think the way this would go, Inner City Broadcasting actually has a hundred percent so -- you start to break off below that. If you start at the --