Rupp Funding Not Looking Good

[Bakert]

According to this article, posted around 11:05 pm, an agreement would have needed to have been agreed on by 10:30 to have time to pass both chambers.

Note the Louisville Convention Center got $56 million for renovations.

http://www.kentucky.com/2014/04/15/3197124/kentucky-senate-considers-revamped.html?sp=/99/322/&ihp=1

[CitizenBBN]

I gave up much hope of anything going into this budget, which is absolutely very bad news for the project timing. it's also bogus that Louisville continues to get funding with some big questions around their projects as well, esp. with Yum sinking into a pile of red.

But this wasn't well maneuvered by the city or UK IMO. It's an uphill battle in many ways, ALL the other schools line up against UK in Frankfort and Lexington doesn't have the same sway as Louisville either, but we really needed to go in with a tight deal and it wasn't all that tight yet. Still not sure it would have done any good but we have less margin for error than Louisville.

In the bigger picture it's absurd Louisville got anything for convention and entertainment given how they botched the Yum deal so badly, but that's politics for you.

This project's best hope for government funding is that the GOP wins the Senate and McConnell wins. Kentucky would be the beneficiary of a lot of federal funding and Rupp could easily get in there on that gravy train. An early promising Presidential candidate Senator and Senate Majority leader would really open the purse strings for us.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I gave up much hope of anything going into this budget, which is absolutely very bad news for the project timing. it's also bogus that Louisville continues to get funding with some big questions around their projects as well, esp. with Yum sinking into a pile of red.

But this wasn't well maneuvered by the city or UK IMO. It's an uphill battle in many ways, ALL the other schools line up against UK in Frankfort and Lexington doesn't have the same sway as Louisville either, but we really needed to go in with a tight deal and it wasn't all that tight yet. Still not sure it would have done any good but we have less margin for error than Louisville.

In the bigger picture it's absurd Louisville got anything for convention and entertainment given how they botched the Yum deal so badly, but that's politics for you.

This project's best hope for government funding is that the GOP wins the Senate and McConnell wins. Kentucky would be the beneficiary of a lot of federal funding and Rupp could easily get in there on that gravy train. An early promising Presidential candidate Senator and Senate Majority leader would really open the purse strings for us.

For a state that is predominantly conservative, especially outside the Louisville area, the fact that Kentucky takes way more federal dollars than it pays in taxes and the fact that conservatives love to preach fiscal responsibility, I'd really suggest to look elsewhere besides federal funding for the Rupp renovation and practice what you preach.

Besides, I wouldn't count on Mitch. He can't tell the difference between UK and Duke anyway.

[CitizenBBN]

For a state that is predominantly conservative, especially outside the Louisville area, the fact that Kentucky takes way more federal dollars than it pays in taxes and the fact that conservatives love to preach fiscal responsibility, I'd really suggest to look elsewhere besides federal funding for the Rupp renovation and practice what you preach.

Besides, I wouldn't count on Mitch. He can't tell the difference between UK and Duke anyway.

Don't confuse objective facts with hypocrisy. I'd rather do away with all of it but I'm not naive enough to think it won't happen bc i don't like it or naive enough to not take the pork when the only alternative is that it go to someone else and not that it be returned to the taxpayers.

I have questions about doing the renovation at all and have said here it needs to make economic sense for the city and right now I don't know if it does but this isn't fantasyland and it's irresponsible for Lexington to get pious about the federal pork train and let it all go to Louisville et al.

If it were up to me we'd pass a constitutional amendment that require not just a balanced budget but turned back the clock and said any federal spending must affect all the states our at least multiples of them and thus eliminate all federal funding of any project that is completely internal to a state. But that won't happen before this rupp thing is done.

Also don't think I like Mitch. I don't like 99 % of the establishment politicians, but I do know my US history and how this has worked since almost before there were political parties in this country. Senior congressmen have been delivering the pork since the age of Jackson. Senator Reid's railroad to nowhere becomes senator McConnell s rupp renovation. Welcome to how it's done whether I like it or not.

I'll vote for him though bc I know who is running against him way better than I care to and I know what having the Senate majority leader from your state means to the state. Not just pork money either but policy that reflects the desires of our electorate.

But I didn't mean to make this political. I was just pointing out the most likely way this gets done without waiting at least two more years for Frankfort to kick in. It has nothing to do with my wishes but it is the best chance this project has if the ky Senate won't support it. Otherwise it'll be done in chunks and in not even sure that will make it doable given that uk is deep in the med center and Lexington doesn't have that kind of tax base

Sent using Forum Runner

[StuBleedsBlue2]

It's hard to not make something political when you start to suggest federal funding for what should be a state issue. The state of Kentucky gets plenty of federal dollars relative to what they contribute, but somehow a majority wants to preach fiscal responsibility.

The idea of of expanding the deficit between revenues and handouts to pay for this, or using federal funds in lieu of other vital areas that actually needs those dollars is the complete opposite of fiscal responsibility.

I'd love to see the Rupp renovation happen as much as anybody, but you all are going to have to figure this one out yourselves. If the state government can't get it done, well you'll have to find new coffers. Given that the state of Kentucky ranks in the top third of states in wealth inequality, I think there are some good sources to start the search.

[ajp40505]

The fight to defeat the Rupp funding was lead by Robert Stivers, a senator from Clay County. I hope the good people of Clay County have a full understanding of what their senator did when he comes up for reelection. That makes a whole lot more sense to me than anything the US Senate Minority Leader, and a full blown UofL supporter, might do if and when the Republicans regain control of the US Senate.

[bigsky]

Would it be easier, or have been easier, without the city, to have impressed upon the representatives of the state that a basketball facility is needed?

Although I didn't see the imagination from the architects, private sector, city or campus on this project.

And the Yuck Bucket was a travesty of a business plan from the beginning, a lie in numbers.

[UKHistory]

Part of the issue, in my view, is that the city wants to renovate more than Rupp. Perhaps a Rupp only plan would have passed. But to pour more money into Louisville and YUM is not a good thing either--unless without the money UofL get the arena lickity split.

[dtalbersjr]

The article in the Herald Leader said that according to documents they had obtained, UK had tentatively agreed to a 30 year lease at $10.7 million per year, with the chance to earn up to $2.7 million per year back.

I want the new arena badly, but if that's true, the legislature may have done us a huge favor. Unless we're getting 95% or more of all suite revenue and premium seating revenue, that seems like an outrageously high figure. I skimmed UofL's lease with the Yum Center, and their rent is on a per event basis. They basically pay 10% of the gross ticket revenue per game for men's basketball and 5% of the gross ticket revenue for women's games. Using rough numbers, that came out to about $1.6 million for the 2012-13 season if I did my math correctly. Which is admittedly a big if.

Can't imagine why we'd be paying $8-10 million a year in rent ... unless we get almost every penny in new revenue.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: I've looked a little more at the Yum Center lease. UofL keeps ALL of the suite and premium seating revenue, but pays an additional rent of "12% of the Net Private Suite Revenue." Don't have a way to do the math on that, but with 71 suites, that's obviously a significant number. The new Rupp is gonna have less than 30 suites, so it's going to be hard to do an apples to apples comparison.

[KSRBEvans]

Would it be easier, or have been easier, without the city, to have impressed upon the representatives of the state that a basketball facility is needed?

Although I didn't see the imagination from the architects, private sector, city or campus on this project.

And the Yuck Bucket was a travesty of a business plan from the beginning, a lie in numbers.

IMHO the legislature now realizes they gave up the farm with the horrible Yum deal. Now they're super wary about any other similar deals, and UK suffers for it.

I also think the city and the university could've done a lot more to be ready for this well ahead of time and have it ready to go well before the legislative session. They must bear a share of blame in all this.

[UKHistory]

I can see that thinking and folks should know that the YUM is a bad deal. However, that doesn't explain why the legislature is pouring more money into that project.



IMHO the legislature now realizes they gave up the farm with the horrible Yum deal. Now they're super wary about any other similar deals, and UK suffers for it.

I also think the city and the university could've done a lot more to be ready for this well ahead of time and have it ready to go well before the legislative session. They must bear a share of blame in all this.

[KSRBEvans]

^Couldn't agree more. I think they now look at it as "too big to fail." Never should've got to this point.

[CitizenBBN]

The article in the Herald Leader said that according to documents they had obtained, UK had tentatively agreed to a 30 year lease at $10.7 million per year, with the chance to earn up to $2.7 million per year back.

I want the new arena badly, but if that's true, the legislature may have done us a huge favor. Unless we're getting 95% or more of all suite revenue and premium seating revenue, that seems like an outrageously high figure. I skimmed UofL's lease with the Yum Center, and their rent is on a per event basis. They basically pay 10% of the gross ticket revenue per game for men's basketball and 5% of the gross ticket revenue for women's games. Using rough numbers, that came out to about $1.6 million for the 2012-13 season if I did my math correctly. Which is admittedly a big if.

Can't imagine why we'd be paying $8-10 million a year in rent ... unless we get almost every penny in new revenue.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: I've looked a little more at the Yum Center lease. UofL keeps ALL of the suite and premium seating revenue, but pays an additional rent of "12% of the Net Private Suite Revenue." Don't have a way to do the math on that, but with 71 suites, that's obviously a significant number. The new Rupp is gonna have less than 30 suites, so it's going to be hard to do an apples to apples comparison.

UK would get the suite revenue, and that's not a high figure at all IMO. the whole reason Yum is going into receivership is b/c of the horrid deal they cut with UL. If you want all that money spent on an arena for which you are the primary tenant you have to pony up somewhere. UK pays more than $250K per game now, the new revenue would more than cover giving some of that back to help pay for the upgrade.

Why should the taxpayers spend $200 million (most of them in Fayette county) to upgrade the place and get no revenue stream for it? let UK go build on campus and bond $300-400 million and see how they do versus playing that amount in a lease. UK has no maintenance, upkeep, legal fees, employment, pensions, nothing but show up and play and go home. It's a very fair deal at that price.

Comes down to this: at that price the city/state/taxpayers will still be losing money on the deal, or at least having to pay it off over a LONG time, UK will see an increase in revenues immediately and be in the black every year. How bad a price can it be?

[CitizenBBN]

IMHO the legislature now realizes they gave up the farm with the horrible Yum deal. Now they're super wary about any other similar deals, and UK suffers for it.

I also think the city and the university could've done a lot more to be ready for this well ahead of time and have it ready to go well before the legislative session. They must bear a share of blame in all this.

Bingo. We're paying for Host/Jurich/UL/City of Louisville duping the state legislature big time with their budget of lies.

[CitizenBBN]

It's hard to not make something political when you start to suggest federal funding for what should be a state issue. The state of Kentucky gets plenty of federal dollars relative to what they contribute, but somehow a majority wants to preach fiscal responsibility.


Nonsense. It's easy to separate tactical financial pragmatism as a mayor or university from political ideology. the fact that you don't separate them doesn't mean I can't.

As for using funds from areas that need that money, again it doesn't work that way. That money isn't going to widows and orphans now (see Reid's bullet train to nowhere) and it won't go to them if Mitch is rocketed to the moon. It will get spent like most government money is spent, in a pathetic effort to stay in power by buying voters. Do I wish that weren't the case? Absolutely, I'd slash the federal budget so bad and give it all back to the taxpayers it would shock the world, but I know that won't happen, and as mayor of a city or a university you have to play on the field with the rules as given, and it's irresponsible to not do so.

Your argument makes little sense, that we don't want to divert federal money from "needed" projects (like any of 10 million useless ones I could list), but somehow state money is OK? If you are against funding it with federal money you need to be against it PERIOD unless it is self sustaining without any government funding, cherry picking which funding to divert is silly to me if you see the project as a diversion in the first place. It's a completely arbitrary, imaginary distinction you've drawn.

"You all are going to have to figure it out"? So what group are you in that isn't part of our group?

I'm not in charge of this thing, if I were you'd see a more contributing and organic design plan, I was just commenting on how the project can get done, nothing more. Lexington clearly doesn't have the juice in Frankfort to pull it off (no doubt Stivers wants those millions going to Clay County like any good politician trying to stay in power) but they may have it at another level depending on how the elections go. that's not politics, it's simple reality of how public funding is done.

[CitizenBBN]

Part of the issue, in my view, is that the city wants to renovate more than Rupp. Perhaps a Rupp only plan would have passed. But to pour more money into Louisville and YUM is not a good thing either--unless without the money UofL get the arena lickity split.

Just the opposite IMO. The only part of this plan that really makes any economic sense for the city is the convention space b/c it will expand dollars coming into the city.

The fundamental economic problem of this project is that right now 24,000 come to Lexington for 20 games a year, go to dinner, park, buy popcorn, pay UK for their seats and go home. After we spend $200 million on the building the same number of people will come the same number of times, pay the same for the same dinner and popcorn and parking. the ONLY increase in revenue this creates is the price UK can charge, and that's probably not nearly enough to cover the $200 million nor will UK bond it to get it done despite being the only major beneficiary of the arena itself.

the city may get some additional concerts but it's not likely. From what I understand we simply won't get a lot of big events here they will book in Louisville or Cincy and draw from here instead. We can get some smaller events and do have them but It's not clear a new Rupp will help draw more of them.

Financially the only part that pays back to the city, the people on the hook for the bonds, is the convention improvements. The problem there is we just spent a bunch of money on new facilities 12 or so years ago, now we're proposing to tear all that down and start again in another spot.

The truth is none of these deals make a ton of financial sense. If we had a 10K venue and were going up to 24K in attendance yeah it's a no brainer b/c of the increased people coming, but this won't really impact the game centric cash flows of the city at all. No more dining, drinking, hotel stays, nada.

[MickintheHam]

For a state that is predominantly conservative, especially outside the Louisville area, the fact that Kentucky takes way more federal dollars than it pays in taxes and the fact that conservatives love to preach fiscal responsibility, I'd really suggest to look elsewhere besides federal funding for the Rupp renovation and practice what you preach.

Besides, I wouldn't count on Mitch. He can't tell the difference between UK and Duke anyway.

Of course if the EPA would stay off of clean coal's back there would likely be a lesser need for Federal dollars to come into the Commonwealth. I see little inconsistency in people's fiscal views. We have a political forum at KSR. You might wish to make your observations over there and not on the premie board.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Nonsense. It's easy to separate tactical financial pragmatism as a mayor or university from political ideology. the fact that you don't separate them doesn't mean I can't.

As for using funds from areas that need that money, again it doesn't work that way. That money isn't going to widows and orphans now (see Reid's bullet train to nowhere) and it won't go to them if Mitch is rocketed to the moon. It will get spent like most government money is spent, in a pathetic effort to stay in power by buying voters. Do I wish that weren't the case? Absolutely, I'd slash the federal budget so bad and give it all back to the taxpayers it would shock the world, but I know that won't happen, and as mayor of a city or a university you have to play on the field with the rules as given, and it's irresponsible to not do so.

Your argument makes little sense, that we don't want to divert federal money from "needed" projects (like any of 10 million useless ones I could list), but somehow state money is OK? If you are against funding it with federal money you need to be against it PERIOD unless it is self sustaining without any government funding, cherry picking which funding to divert is silly to me if you see the project as a diversion in the first place. It's a completely arbitrary, imaginary distinction you've drawn.

"You all are going to have to figure it out"? So what group are you in that isn't part of our group?

I'm not in charge of this thing, if I were you'd see a more contributing and organic design plan, I was just commenting on how the project can get done, nothing more. Lexington clearly doesn't have the juice in Frankfort to pull it off (no doubt Stivers wants those millions going to Clay County like any good politician trying to stay in power) but they may have it at another level depending on how the elections go. that's not politics, it's simple reality of how public funding is done.

I'm sure that mr argument makes little sense to you because we are fundamentally on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

If you want to know my view on funding of sports related infrastructure, I'm pretty much against any government funding, including state governments, unless the people vote to pay a tax hike to fund it(say through munis), or the state or municipality has a surplus and is not a net "taker" from the federal government. If voters don't approve, then it must privately funded, IMO.

Unfortunately, I'm not part of the group that has to figure this out. I'm not a citizen of Kentucky. I don't attend games at Rupp. My only interest in seeing Rupp get renovated is to maintain a competitive advantage. However, with Cal at the helm, I think there are so many other things that are in place that makes us a premier program so a Rupp renovation doesn't really matter much to me.

So, like I said, the people of Lexington and Kentucky are going to need to figure this out and the solution should never be federal dollars.

[bigsky]

I think naming opportunities need to start the conversation. And let the private sector/developer do the math. Then bring public dollars last. Public bucks should always be last.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Of course if the EPA would stay off of clean coal's back there would likely be a lesser need for Federal dollars to come into the Commonwealth. I see little inconsistency in people's fiscal views. We have a political forum at KSR. You might wish to make your observations over there and not on the premie board.

No need to be elsewhere, we're talking about funding for Rupp Arena and the pros and cons of particular sources. If my observations should be elsewhere, then so should all others.

[jazyd]

You made it political and called citizen out. ,he has repeated several times why he would do it his way even though he has repeatedly said he personally is against doing this that way but unfortunately that is the way of DC. If that is how things are done why not get our fair share

QUOTE=StuBleedsBlue2;183164]No need to be elsewhere, we're talking about funding for Rupp Arena and the pros and cons of particular sources. If my observations should be elsewhere, then so should all others.[/QUOTE]

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You made it political and called citizen out. ,he has repeated several times why he would do it his way even though he has repeatedly said he personally is against doing this that way but unfortunately that is the way of DC. If that is how things are done why not get our fair share

QUOTE=StuBleedsBlue2;183164]No need to be elsewhere, we're talking about funding for Rupp Arena and the pros and cons of particular sources. If my observations should be elsewhere, then so should all others.[/QUOTE]

I did nothing like that. I didn't "call out" Citizen, I replied to him, respectfully. I merely pointed out some facts about the state of Kentucky is a net taker of federal funds, while it predominantly preaches fiscal responsibility. Not sure how facts becomes calling out somebody and becomes political than it already is.

The whole topic of the Rupp renovation is completely political, so by topic it's already is what you and others are accusing me of doing. It seems to me that people don't have a tolerance for opposing views and would rather that I not speak. Well, too bad.

[CitizenBBN]

I did nothing like that. I didn't "call out" Citizen, I replied to him, respectfully. I merely pointed out some facts about the state of Kentucky is a net taker of federal funds, while it predominantly preaches fiscal responsibility. Not sure how facts becomes calling out somebody and becomes political than it already is.

The whole topic of the Rupp renovation is completely political, so by topic it's already is what you and others are accusing me of doing. It seems to me that people don't have a tolerance for opposing views and would rather that I not speak. Well, too bad.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, you brought the political part in by not separating the funding process from moral/political choices about that process, deciding to criticize the use of federal funds for such projects generally and get into things like Kentucky's net federal spending, things that arent' at all related to funding sources for Rupp at the micro level. Federal funding is an option for Rupp, more of one depending on who is in power, and I made no moral conclusions about using it or not using it b/c that is what crosses the line between discussing project funding and politics.

It has nothing to do with opposing views, it has to do with the venue for those views. The Barber Shop will let you express those views till your heart's content, but not here. If you do I'll largely agree with you, I don't think funds should be spent on a lot of these (or any of these) projects either, federal or state. But my personal views aren't the same as what funding options the city has for getting this done.

Regardless, and in no way assessing blame to you or anyone else, this has run its course and now become about politics and board rules instead of the Rupp funding and renovation, and I'd appreciate if we'd all just let it go versus having to lock the thing or move it. Feel free to take up that part of the discussion on the barber shop, and next time this comes up I'll avoid mentioning where else UK/Lexington could look for funding for fear of it going this way again.

[CitizenBBN]

On second thought, I'll solve it, I'm just going to move it to the barber shop. Folks can then continue this discussion as desired, without imposing on the members (90% of them) who come here and want to avoid political discussion.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I did nothing like that. I didn't "call out" Citizen, I replied to him, respectfully. I merely pointed out some facts about the state of Kentucky is a net taker of federal funds, while it predominantly preaches fiscal responsibility. Not sure how facts becomes calling out somebody and becomes political than it already is.

The whole topic of the Rupp renovation is completely political, so by topic it's already is what you and others are accusing me of doing. It seems to me that people don't have a tolerance for opposing views and would rather that I not speak. Well, too bad.

you brought the political part in by not separating the funding process from moral/political choices about that process

[/QUOTE]

I didn't realize that an arbitrary definition of morality, meaning your definition of it vs mine(I don't think what I brought up was a moral issue at all), was the line for where a topic should be housed. I thought it should be more based upon the subject.

You did make the correct decision to move it outside of the premium sports forum, because about the only thing this has to do with sports is that the basketball team plays there. This is a Lexington issue, a Kentucky issue and a complete political issue and it wasn't me that made it one. All decisions are being made by politicians, but I'm making it political? Lol.

I did my time arguing(in a fun way) politics with you guys from way back in the day on the rivals board. I realized a long time ago that discussing politics through a message board is an awful forum. This will be my first and last post that is on this forum. I prefer to discuss UK basketball.