Question

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.

This is a commonly debated issue in the media, so whether you are a sports fan/music lover/theater buff/monster truck-motocross muddy fan, it’s your turn to weigh in! Use this discussion board as a 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? Please be respectful with your comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinions!

Your initial posting should be 250-500 words

Answer 1

I would like to suggest that at to keep the project on budget because the project would last only 15-20 years. The period is the main concern for the low cost budget project. The authority needs to maintain standard costs by providing standard quality features by minimising avoidable costs and increasing optimum utilization of resources. For example avoidable costs include labour costs i.e. by avoiding recruitment of unskilled labour. The authority should be careful in maintaining the project as per budget because half the cost is put by the public itself. The world class status would not be required for the short term of 15-20 years.