When Gov. Josh Green announced in May that the state would seek a modified public-private partnership to build a new Aloha Stadium — dumping the Ige administration’s go-it-alone plan — state officials close to the project celebrated.

“Today we got a lot lifted off of our shoulders,” Chris Kinimaka from the Department of Accounting and General Services, said at the time. “We’ve got an administration that is 100% behind us. We’ve got a team going forward.”

Well, that was the easy part. The real challenge lies ahead: finding a private partner.

Given the size and complexity of the project — a new stadium and some kind of real estate development for the New Aloha Stadium Entertainment District (NASED) — the state will need to provide a detailed financial analysis and plan if it wants to attract serious bidders using its P3 model.

That was one of the sensible conclusions reached in a new “market sounding” report produced by NASED officials last month. The report cited “significant concerns regarding the Project’s financial feasibility” by potential P3 partners.

Those concerns need to be addressed, because the NASED development holds such great potential and value. The state-owned 98-acre parcel is centrally located, with a Skyline rail station to bring in the crowds. Visions for development have included a smaller but state-of-the-art multipurpose stadium of 25,000 to 35,000 seats, adjacent to a thriving mix of residential, hotels, office, retail, commercial and entertainment options.

So finding a willing partner is crucial. At the same time, the state can’t give away the store. A new, high-quality stadium with more than bare-bones functionality must be the first priority. The real estate portion should include some nonluxury, transit-oriented- development housing, which the state woefully lacks. Green has said he wants some 4,000 mostly affordable housing units, a goal worth pursuing.

Making all this work will be tricky. NASED’s report revealed some understandable skittishness among potential developers, who expressed wariness during a webinar in June.

“The proposed Project is a relatively novel and untested procurement and delivery model,” the report said. “It asks the private sector to form a multi-disciplinary consortium, to assume risks the State is not willing to accept … and to apportion the risk to and within the private consortium.”

The basic plan calls for a developer to design, build, operate and maintain the new stadium, with the state putting up about $400 million in initial construction funds — but no more. The developer would have a 99-year (maximum) ground lease and the right to develop the adjacent real estate, “in line with the State’s vision,” using some of its earnings to keep the stadium operating over the next 20 to 30 years. It’s hoped that the developer also would invest in upgrading the stadium to improve its marketability.

So yes, more clarity will be needed. For instance, what happens if the developer or consortium can’t maintain the stadium? Could it lose its real estate interest by default? These are among the complicating factors that could make it difficult to raise investment capital.

And there are other concerns. There are only “a limited number of service providers” capable of managing a stadium; a lack of competition could affect what kind of stadium is built.

The goal is to complete a shiny new stadium in time for the 2028 University of Hawaii football season. That will require a determined and coordinated effort, not just by administration officials but with the Legislature on board as well. It was the lack of such unity that caused the current Aloha Stadium to abruptly shut down after years of deferred maintenance, leaving UH and others to scramble for alternatives. We cannot afford to repeat those mistakes.