Counterpoint: Stadium project has integrity

As stadium bill authors and previous mayor of Minneapolis, respectively, we were surprised to read criticisms by former Gov. Arne Carlson and former Minneapolis City Council President Paul Ostrow of the Minnesota Multi-Purpose Stadium legislation ("Stadium funding in need of review," Sept. 7), given the extensive hearings and public engagement that occurred for two years before the bill passed.

We were disappointed not because the article debated points about a major public investment but because there were significant inaccuracies and omissions.

As the owner and operator of the new stadium, the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority (MSFA) is committed to project transparency and accountability to all stakeholders and the public. Very specific and careful steps have been taken to ensure this.

It needs to be made clear that the state's independent and nonpartisan legislative auditor conducts an annual audit of MSFA financial reports. The auditor had two people onsite for about three months reviewing the MSFA's financials, procedures and policies to determine if the authority was complying with the law as intended by the Legislature. On Aug. 5, legislative auditor James Nobles issued a "clean" audit — no issues, no concerns.

The article's attempt to undermine confidence in the organization created to oversee the development was puzzling. The MSFA fully abides by the open-meeting law. Board meetings are held monthly and usually are well-attended by the public. The members of the board and the executive director all bring relevant experience in governance, construction, budget oversight and, importantly, public/private collaboration. Most important, the MSFA has contracted with the best in the design and construction business. Partners include Minnesota-based Mortenson Construction, HKS Architects and Hammes Co., among others. These individuals and companies understand their obligation to ensure that we have a world-class facility to host a wide range of events and programming — a facility not feasible without the arrangement to partner with an NFL franchise. The legislative process created the "deal" that MSFA was charged to execute, and the authority is ensuring that the project stays on budget and on schedule.

Despite the suggestion of lack of clarity or precision, the financing approach can be summarized quite easily:

• The state will contribute $348 million.

• The Minnesota Vikings will contribute $526 million for construction, and will pay rent and capital investment of $10 million per year, inflating by 3 percent per year. This is the largest rent payment in the NFL; it will fund more than half of the stadium's annual operating budget and subsidize all the community events.

Finally, we would summarize yet again the key rationales for the project:

• The stadium is about much more than Vikings games. It will be host to high school and collegiate sporting events, concerts and large civic gatherings. The Metrodome was home to thousands of such events over its lifetime, and we should expect the new stadium to be just as much a part of Minnesotans' memories.

• It will help attract large-scale sporting and entertainment events that will have tremendous economic impact for the region, such as the Super Bowl in 2018 and, potentially, a Final Four and a Major League Soccer team.

• Construction currently puts more than 550 people to work each day. At completion, more than 7,500 people will have worked on the stadium. More than 36 percent of the workers employed in the effort have been minorities or women, making it one of the most inclusive worksites in Minnesota's history. Over the first eight months, more than 200 Minnesota businesses have worked on the project.

• One of the Metrodome's disappointments was its inability to spur new economic activity around it. This new stadium has already spun off more than $700 million in additional private-sector investment — more than double the amount of the state's investment — in Minneapolis' Downtown East.

Projects that require significant public investment do, and should, attract significant scrutiny and debate. The good news is that the stadium project was extensively scrutinized and debated. Further good news is that decisions were made that set in place a strong system for public accountability. We look forward to the day when the new stadium is celebrated as the positive public investment we know it to be.