Senate committee advances stadium bill after hearing concerns about consultant costs and oversight

Senators advanced HB 1494 HD3, a bill relating to sports facilities tied to the Aloha Halawa stadium procurement, after committee testimony highlighted concerns about consultant fees, internal controls and the schedule for delivering a new stadium.

The committee vote adopted a recommendation to replace provisions in HB 1494 with language contained in Senate Bill 1589 SD3 and to continue oversight of the stadium contract process. The committee report will explicitly direct attention to the contract with Crawford Architects and the subcontractor WT Partnership.

Why it matters: Witnesses warned senators the project carries schedule and cost risks that affect when the University of Hawaii football program might move from its temporary Ching Field facility and how public dollars are allocated. Committee members pressed state officials about consultant expenses, procurement oversight and the limits of the state's $350 million general-obligation bond commitment.

Testimony and key details: Interim stadium manager Chris Salayasu and a representative for the Stadium Authority (testimony name: Bridal Morialk) spoke for or on behalf of the authority and provided project context. University of Hawaii representatives, including Michael Shibata (director for strategic development partnerships) and Jan Gouvea (vice president for administration, on Zoom), said the university supports the NASID/NACED development concept as the preferred long-term solution for a permanent stadium and reiterated a wish to see the project delivered successfully.

State Department witnesses raised objections or concerns. Keith Regan, comptroller for the Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS), and James Tokio for the Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism testified in opposition to aspects of the bill as written and urged the committee to incorporate language from the senate version (SB 1589 SD3) if the bill moves forward.

Audit and contractor costs: Gordon Wood, public works administrator, told senators the Crawford Architects contract currently stands at about $28,000,000; an overall forecast for the Crawford contract was put at roughly $35–36 million. DAGS said the Crawford contract includes WT Partnership as a subcontractor. The committee highlighted an internal audit that identified approximately $441,000 in reimbursements that should not have been paid; officials said revised public-works procedures and expense-reimbursement rules were implemented after the audit.

Funding and scope: Committee members were told the state is committing $350 million in general-obligation bonds for the stadium but that initial cost estimates in the procurement suggested a larger total project cost (witnesses cited earlier estimates of $400–$450 million). The procurement has included a development district so the private developer can finance some of the delta through district revenues, tax increment financing (TIF) or community facilities district (CFD) approaches. Officials said the state intends to award a developer agreement in the summer and targeted an opening as early as fall 2028 if milestones are met.

Ching Field and timing: University and stadium authority witnesses described Ching Field as a constrained, temporary facility; the temporary Ching Field was described during questioning as having a roughly 10-year lifespan and being about halfway through that schedule. Witnesses agreed significant entitlements, environmental reviews, and community engagement would be required for any Manoa site option, and those steps would add years to a construction timeline.

Committee action and oversight requests: The committee voted to move HB 1494 out with amended language (incorporating the senate's SB 1589 SD3 language) and asked the committee report to direct continued oversight of the Crawford/WT contracts and procurement process. The recommendation passed in committee.

What remains unresolved: Senators pressed officials for more transparency on historical contract approvals, the audit timeline and whether the contractor award and developer financing ultimately will cover the full stadium scope. Officials repeatedly said additional financial analyses and contract negotiations remain ongoing.

Ending note: After the vote the committee adopted the recommendation and asked that contracting and financial oversight be kept under review as negotiations proceed and additional documents become available.