The article under required readings entitled “Progress, Pain for  Vikings Stadium in 2015” describes the construction progress of the U.S.  Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, Minnesota as of a point in time. One of  the items highlighted in the article is the cost—there were some  staggering numbers cited by the author in terms of cost overruns! For  example, the author states in one year, the project costs had increased  by $65 million for a total cost increase from $1.026 billion to $1.091  billion. Since there are public monies being utilized for approximately  half of the cost of the facility, there is an entity overseeing the  construction on behalf of the public.
The board of this entity approved budget increases at 10 out of 12  meetings in a 12-month span of time. The remaining cost is being funded  by the NFL franchise, the Minnesota Vikings. Even though the Minnesota  Vikings have absorbed a large amount of the cost overruns, it is likely  possible that state and city taxpayers are concerned that such a large  project with a relatively short construction window (31 months) given  its size could have been under-budgeted to this degree.
Debate for  one side or the other…
Does the Minnesota Sports Facility Authority (and  any other jurisdiction’s construction oversight organization) have an  ethical obligation to the taxpayers to keep the project on budget even  if it means that the brand new publicly funded entertainment facility  that would last 15-20 years have to go without or have lesser quality  features, or should they strive for world class status with the  anticipation of those features attracting larger and better future  events to stimulate the local economy regardless of the current costs?
not specified