The Aloha Stadium Authority presents a persuasive argument for starting fresh rather than going the repair route.

Its proposed scaled-down replacement for the rusting and underused stadium would cost an estimated $324.5 million in current dollars. By comparison, basic costs needed to keep the 42-year-old facility in working order for another 25 years are now tallied at $423 million. (The stadium has accumulated that much in deferred maintenance, including $120 million in improvements needed to comply with the American with Disabilities Act.)

Last week, the nine-member, governor-appointed panel underscored a sense of urgency with the release of conceptual redevelopment report findings that assert the 50,000-seat venue is a “potential danger to public health and safety and a financial burden for maintenance and operations.”

But can a state struggling to cover costs tied to other much-needed upgrades — ranging from cooling classrooms for schoolchildren to reducing unacceptable levels of overcrowding in correctional facilities — afford to take on a big-ticket makeover at the Halawa site?

The stadium authority’s answer: Forge a public-private partnership to help underwrite costs. Such a strategy holds great potential as the city plans to build its midpoint rail station one-quarter mile from the stadium — and the ongoing transit-oriented development effort encourages an array of ancillary commercial and residential construction.

Before any public-private deal proceeds, however, deed restrictions put in place five decades ago must be lifted.

Much of the 100-acre site is limited to recreational use due to an agreement with the U.S. Interior Department that turned over 56 acres of land to the city to build the stadium. The provision has blocked mixed-use development near the stadium, which occupies 11.5 acres, and a vast parking area, thereby contributing to the site’s overall deterioration.

In recent testimony at the Capitol in support of Senate Bill  Opens in a new tab1200 Opens in a new tab, which seeks state funding for planning, design, construction and equipment for a new sports and entertainment facility, the stadium authority said it is in the final stages of removing restrictions and clearing the way to move forward with a master plan.

The expected plan, as envisioned in artist renderings, could feature a U-shaped 30,000- to 35,000-seat facility, opening at the north end to a picnic-ready sloping grass berm and surrounded by plaza restaurants and shops as well as housing and easy access to the city’s rail line. It’s easy to cheer for such a vision, but it won’t be fully realized without careful planning and persistent scrutiny tied to spending of taxpayer dollars.

Another advancing bill, also backed by the stadium authority, requests funds to establish a “state public-private partnership coordinator” position and office within the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) to manage so-called “PPP or P3” opportunities. House Bill 627 Opens in a new tab would also initiate Aloha Stadium redevelopment.

Elsewhere, local and state governments are using P3s to allow for private investment in various public infrastructure projects. Typically, investors recoup investment from revenue streams created by fees or tax revenue. The stadium authority is already offering up ideas for streams. In addition to ticket surcharges and stadium user fees targeting concession sales and parking, other possibilities include tapping the tourist-focused transient accommodations tax (TAT) as well as taxes on car rentals, tobacco and alcoholic beverages.

State lawmakers should move the vision for Aloha Stadium’s future forward with approval of SB 1200. But for the sake of public accountability, legislators must take a careful look at HB 627 to ensure that it does not set the stage for an unintended carte blanche authority over its own objectives and goals. Without sufficient oversight and transparency, the “public” component in the proposed partnership could get shortchanged.