In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 641
Online now 209 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
HB265, the most recent budget passed by both the Senate and House and delivered to Gov. Bashear for his signature includes several line items for Kentucky Football. Below is a list of what I found with a quick seach of the text of the bill:
$75MM to "renovate/expand" Commonwealth Stadium.
$3MM for "stadium suite additions."
$8.7MM to "renovate/expand the stadium multipurpose kitchen."
$2.5MM to "repair stadium structure."
I posted this in another thread, but thought something this big deserved its own thread. There may be more budgetary items that benefit football, either incidentally or directly, but this is what I found with a few minutes at work.
Hope that this starts to get some press somewhere.
Here's a link (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/12rs/HB265/CCR1.doc) to the Conference Committee Report (CCR) which was presented to both the House and Senate, adopted by both the House and Senate, passed 36-1 and 81-7, and sent to Gov. Beshear.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this huge new? Is this what we've been waiting for, or does the University now have to do something else to request it? In a related question, could President Capilouto choose not to exercise this and instead pursue the other infrastructure bonding that he wanted for other needs at the University? Is it an either/or situation? Sorry for all the questions, but thanks in advance for any answers.
This is huge! It needs to be reported widespread as well. Very fitting also that You pulled it out in an LOD thread, as it completely silenced them.
Very telling some people put put their effort into researching UL's small addition, while there was a "white whale" waiting to be found. I guess that's what you get when you put more of your effort into looking for the negative.
I wish I had some more answers on this, but I stumbled across it looking for something else and did a ctrl+f search for "stadium" in the word document.
As far as I can tell, this is the final report adopted by the Legislature in the budget session, and it includes what I listed in the original post. I posted several weeks ago that I saw that UK had requested $100 million in bonding for renovation/expansion, along with several other items to benefit the football program, but that those were rejected by the House. Apparently, the Senate restored what you see listed in the report and approved the budget.
For your question about Capilouto, I'm not an expert on it, but it would appear that the bonding (or other money) has been approved in those amounts, for those purposes. If your question is whether that bonding can be applied to other things, I wouldn't think it would be possible.
Do you see the "0" next to the bigger number on the left. The "0" means that the legislature "zeroed" this request. As I said. The money is NOT in the budget.
No, the zeroes to either side of the number represent bonding authority in 2011-2012 and 2013-2014, respectively.
I am looking at Section J. Postsecondary Education, (3) Operations and Maintenance Funding, 8. University of Kentucky.
The format is: Budget Units 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
So, for example, 2011-12 gets -0-, 2012-13 gets $75 million, and 2013-14 gets -0-.
If what you say were true, 99.9% of everything in the budget has been "zeroed."
Look, i wish you were right, I really do. But I'm 100% sure that the legislature decided to pull nearly all of the bonded projects from universities this year. http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2012/03/05/house-budget-nixes-increase-for-retirees-horse-park/#wgt=rss
Yes, that was from March 5, a report that the House removed bonding requests. If you continue to read that article, which I have read numerous times and posted here personally, you will see that the UK rep was hopeful that some of the bonding requested would be restored by the Senate.
The document I have linked you to was submitted, by the Conference Committee, (both House and Senate members) on March 30, adopted by both the House and Senate, and sent to Gov. Beshear for approval.
These two things are not contradictory. The early March report says that bonds were yanked, but could be restored, the late March report indicates that the bonding was, in fact, restored in the Senate.
This post was edited by JDHLaw11 2 years ago
Ok. I believe I now understand what you posted...
Beginning on page 1, line 6, after the enacting clause, by deleting all language in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
What i THINK they did was take the governor's budget and simply say, we're throwing it all out. There is likely another document on the lrc page that includes what the conference committee approved. This document is simply what the conference committee is throwing out.
When you say "deleting all language in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:" you are essentially saying "everything prior to this is deleted and, in place of that, the following (i.e., the document itself) will be inserted.
There is apparently an amendment, HB499, that deals with the city of Corbin's ability to collect some sort of tax, but the document I linked is the text of the 2 year budget that passed the legislature and is waiting to be signed by Gov. Beshear.
I will add the caveat that all I've based this on is the document I found on ky.lrc.gov and linked above. I can't verify the accuracy of the document, just the fact that it represents itself to be the Conference Committee Report as adopted by the House and Senate.
Simply not true. That is confirmed by the fact that the budget you linked includes a total of 2.5 million for the rupp redisign. Well, the budget that the conference committee approved cut that money in half.
Your budget also includes all of the dorm requests UK made. They were allowed to sell some of their dorms to a private developer but did not get the funds to build the new ones. This budget says that they did get the $.
For whatever reason, this is beshear's original budget.
This link: http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2012/03/30/senate-approves-two-year-19-billion-budget/ says that the approved budget includes a total of 2.5 million for the Rupp redesign.
The original request was for 3.5 million, with no contribution from the city of Lexington, the approved funding is 2.5 million with Lexington matching the 2.5 million.
Edit: After searching the document, it appears that the funding for the Rupp redesign is 1.25 million per fiscal year, with matching amounts from Lexington. That matches up with what you've said, Hop.
Will you guys start talking English for us common folk? Do we have the money or not?
Everything I can see says we have the ability to bond up to $75 million for Commonwealth improvements in FY 2012-13.
I wouldn't mind one of our journalist folks verifying the document from LRC with a phone call to someone, Peevy or Neely perhaps?
I mean, if the document is correct, this is huge news, pending the signature of Beshear.
If true, this would be the single biggest move forward for UK football in history. I've been back and forth whether to renew my season tickets. This would settle it.
If true this is great news for the fans, except for those who threw a tantrum and gave up their tickets. Maybe it will buy Coach a little more time to build the team and take it to a higher level. But if you think this will improve the team by itself, you are sadly mistaken.
I agree, improving Commonwealth isn't going to change any of our results from next season, or realistically, the season after. If this is true, and the bonds are utilized, it will demonstrate a commitment to football in the bluegrass. That will impact recruiting, fan support, and donor support. I think we can all agree that those three things, over time, will do nothing but help UK football improve.
JDH...I have to admit this post is one of the bright spots in an otherwise fairly mundane spring of football news.
I agree, and thanks for the info. With the SEC owning what is now college football, it's so important for us to at least try to keep our heads above water. If this actually happens and we see some on-field improvement this year, this would be a fantastic selling point for the program in general. It's still a slow process and I'm not entirely sold on this staff, but I'm at least willing to give these guys a shot as long as things start happening in the next couple of years.
I can't remember whom the legislator was who broke down the bonding process earlier in the year, but maybe things started moving after his interview.
IIRC, it was a BOT and not legislator who broke it down.
Thanks, I now remember. That interview brought things to light, at least for me.
Nothing personal OP, but I would expect news sources including the Cats Pause guys to know about this before you. Since this is the first I've heard, I'll asume Hoptown is correct until proven otherwise. I certainly hope I'm wrong, but how would this not be major local news the moment it was proposed/signed?
IF, and as we can see, and LAW has said it may not, but IF its true some people better get their forks ready, cause Mitch is gonna be servin' up crow left right and thru the middle!!!
It smells like microwaved homeless people in here.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports