I would agree that input and cooperation from UK officials with regard to the off-campus student housing and related issues is necessary for sustainable and agreeable solutions to be developed.
I would add, however, that recent development trends at UK reflect the difficulty the university is experiencing in making many much needed improvements. This difficulty, in part, appears rooted in state bonding authority issues. Look into the renovation of the Reynolds building. Also look at the closing of low occupancy, un-air-conditioned dorms and the related denial of bonding permission to renovate said dorms.
Under the current system, capital improvements for which the university is deemed credit-worthy such as residence halls and fraternity parks, even if they require no public funds, will remain heavily restricted to improve statewide, non-university project bond ratings.
I understand that the state has an interest in making sure the university does not over leverage itself and enter into tenuous, private bonding arrangements. However, it could prove beneficial to revisit the current regulations. I suspect that the University will not have the authority to make any major residential improvements until after the hospital is finished unless they lease the facilities to a private developer.
I would agree that input and cooperation from UK officials with regard to the off-campus student housing and related issues is necessary for sustainable and agreeable solutions to be developed.
I would add, however, that recent development trends at UK reflect the difficulty the university is experiencing in making many much needed improvements. This difficulty, in part, appears rooted in state bonding authority issues. Look into the renovation of the Reynolds building. Also look at the closing of low occupancy, un-air-conditioned dorms and the related denial of bonding permission to renovate said dorms.
Under the current system, capital improvements for which the university is deemed credit-worthy such as residence halls and fraternity parks, even if they require no public funds, will remain heavily restricted to improve statewide, non-university project bond ratings.
I understand that the state has an interest in making sure the university does not over leverage itself and enter into tenuous, private bonding arrangements. However, it could prove beneficial to revisit the current regulations. I suspect that the University will not have the authority to make any major residential improvements until after the hospital is finished unless they lease the facilities to a private developer.
-An interested UK student…