The House of Blue

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!!!

I don't know bro, I just heard that AD, MKG, and Jones are all gone from freaking Bleacher Report (who, got it from Matt Jones, who got it from Chad Ford hahahaha!!!).

Its actually very easy for that kind of info to go unnoticed, even by those that have a vested interest in knowing of its existence. Beshear hasn't signed it yet and your also talking about politicians and the legislative process. I'd venture that 99.8% of the citizens of this state don't know what's in this budget, including most of the legislators. Most legislators are usually only more than familiar with items that are associated with bills they propose or are covered in the committees they serve on. Given that, it's not the least bit surprising that this has been not been reported. And that's not to mean that this info specifically was intended to remain under wraps. I'm sure there is plenty in the budget that all legislators would like to keep under wraps til it's signed. Heck, some of it even after its signed. Just as a point of reference, I have no idea myself of anything in this budget; but as a political junkie and former federal employee I am more familiar than most with this part of the legislative process. As far as the house taking it out; it was probably taken out in committee by someone(s) that didn't want it passed, but knew if it reached the full floor, it would pass. So it was killed in committee. When the Senate sent it through and the conference committee included it in the final bill, the full house was then able to vote on it. So if in fact the bonding is in the budget, this is probably the best explanation of how it could get through and no one (except JDLaw :) ) noticed. Good eye JD.

Great news.

^ Rbs, how do you interpret what you are reading there? When I read it earlier, I read it the same way JDHLaw did - that is, those expenditures and/or bond issues are authorized for year two. However, in looking at the other items on the list and considering recent public dialogue on the budget and how tight it is, I cannot imagine the legislature authorizing all of these items on that for UK. I did not add it up, but it clearly adds up to over a billion dollars.

There's over $100 million for athletics projects (including the football items quoted above, the Rupp planning and design, improvements to the baseball stadium, and others). Then there are hundreds of millions for most of the ridiculous infrastructure needs UK has right now: $175 million for new dorms (which are likely being privatized any way); $55 million for the Business School; $50 million for the Law School Facilities; $90 million for a new building for the sciences, numerous major UK Health Care facility projects, major overhauls of numerous other campus buildings in dire need of attention, etc.

Again, I just can't imagine the legislature authorizing all of that spending at once. Many of those projects have been on UK's wish list for years without any action from the legislature. This list alone underscores just what kind of a situation UK is in from a facilities standpoint. It's B-A-D, folks. So many MAJOR needs, and so few dollars. The legislature's job is not an easy one in balancing so many competing interests. But if action is not taken very soon, the Commonwealth's flagship institution will be in such a decay that it cannot attract students and faculty and otherwise meet the mandates set by the legislature.

I am waiting til someone starts tooting their own horn. It is hard for me to believe that someone who was involved with getting Commonwealth retrofitted would hide and not take credit especially the representatives and senators who voted for it. Remember it is politics first in Kentucky. Also remember being able to issue bonds has been the big bug a boo with UK football or that is what we have been told.

Where is this story in the media? They have people hired to dig at the budgets so in this case, let them do their job.

The projects are given appropriation to expend funds beginning fiscal year 2013 which begins July 1, 2012. That does not mean that all of the funds must be spent in FY2013 (July 1, 2012 thru June 30, 2013). Rather, the projects can commence starting sometime after July 1, 2012.

As to the dollar amount that is appropriated to be spent, it isn't unusual at all to see the large dollar amounts specified for UK. UK is well able to pay off the bonds that would be used to fund these projects.

What should be done, and it has passed the House a few times, is to allow UK to self-bond so that the debt that UK incurs does not count toward the total indebtedness for the Commonwealth as a whole ... but this is a whole other debate.

As to the issue at hand here ... UK does have authority in the budget to expend the dollars specified above for the projects specified above beginning sometime after July 1, 2012.

If only we could get that lucky..

The funds aren't there people. The legislature cut them out very early in the process.

Ok I know one thing is certain......I'm confused.

Good point. With line item veto, anything is subject to be taken out before he signs it, that's if he signs it at all.

Yes, that's exactly what that statute means.

According to the document on LRC's website, yes, approval for bonding in the amount of $75 million has been approved by the Legislature and is awaiting Beshear's signature.