City Councilman David Cohen will ask the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court today to throw out an appeal by the Eagles and Phillies contesting a lower court decision the teams say will destroy the new stadium projects.
The appeal concerns an Aug. 10 Commonwealth Court ruling that says the teams must proceed by rules regarding projects entirely funded by public money. The ruling would require the teams to use complicated bidding procedures and automatically take the lowest bidder.
Prior to the Commonwealth Court ruling, the teams had been proceeding under the Redevelopment Capital Assistance Program, which applies to projects that -- like the new stadiums -- use a significant amount of private money, but not all. These rules would require the teams to seek at least three bidders, after which they can negotiate with any of the three.
According to Cohen -- a long- time opponent of the new stadiums -- the teams had been using the more expensive method.
"We know when you use sole-source contracts, you create situations that are far more costly," Cohen said.
However, the teams argue that forcing them to go through the bidding process again will add so much time and cost to the projects that they will not be able to be complete them.
"If the Eagles are required to rebid any of the contracts let to date, or to rebid any future contracts other than as contemplated, our costs will severely escalate," Eagles President Joe Banner said in an affidavit last month.
And Phillies President David Montgomery said in another affidavit that "the availability of private financing for the ballpark project is premised on our ability to open the baseball ballpark for the start of the 2004 baseball season."
Cohen denied that projects are in jeopardy and claimed that the teams had used these threats as scare tactics throughout their negotiations with the city.
"They used [the same threats] constantly at every stage of the process through the city council," Cohen said. "They're yelling fire. There is no fire."
But many on City Council do not favor Cohen's attempt to end the appeal or his opposition to the projects in general. Councilman Frank Rizzo said that he is primarily interested in keeping the projects moving forward.
"We've involved ourselves, at least I have, to the point where I would like to see the facilities move forward," Rizzo said.
And according to John Hawkins, legislative aid for Councilman James Kenney, Kenney has no problem with the deal the teams struck.
"Councilman Kenney thinks the deal that was made between the city and the teams was a good one," Hawkins said.
And Rizzo said that the Eagles and the Phillies actually did seek three bidders.
"There's really no indication that the deal was a sole-source deal," Rizzo said.
Phillies attorney David L. Cohen did not expect Councilman Cohen to be successful in his attempt to get the supreme court to throw out the case. Furthermore, Cohen questioned why Councilman Cohen wanted the appeal thrown out, as the amount the city will spend has been "capped ever since City Council passed the ordinances."
Joe McLaughlin, a lobbyist for the Eagles, disputed Councilman Cohen's assertion that the teams had followed a more costly bidding system.
"It is generally believed in the construction industry that the traditional bidding system adds 15 to 20 percent to the cost of the deal," McLaughlin said.
McLaughlin went on to say that major construction projects which involve private money, like the Eagles' and Phillies' stadiums, generally conduct bidding the way the two Philadelphia teams have.
"All the construction projects that I have worked on in a city of this scale in the last 15 years where private developers were at risk have asked for this kind of provision," McLaughlin said.
