This is a complicated question that has a complicated answer. I still believe they might as well proceed with the new school and close another building or two and transfer students around. It's going to be a big mess that was completely avoidable with some foresight.
RE: backing out - the answer I've come to is "maybe probably not" - I th…
This is a complicated question that has a complicated answer. I still believe they might as well proceed with the new school and close another building or two and transfer students around. It's going to be a big mess that was completely avoidable with some foresight.
RE: backing out - the answer I've come to is "maybe probably not" - I think it would be hard and probably unlikely they could get out of the lease certificate. BUT .. my rough understanding is that there may be secondary market options, but I am not sure on that. They better hurry up on breaking ground because there are tax implications on the certificate at some point - school districts are not allowed to act as a hedge fund, arbitraging low interest rates like they are with this pile of money.
This is a complicated question that has a complicated answer. I still believe they might as well proceed with the new school and close another building or two and transfer students around. It's going to be a big mess that was completely avoidable with some foresight.
RE: backing out - the answer I've come to is "maybe probably not" - I think it would be hard and probably unlikely they could get out of the lease certificate. BUT .. my rough understanding is that there may be secondary market options, but I am not sure on that. They better hurry up on breaking ground because there are tax implications on the certificate at some point - school districts are not allowed to act as a hedge fund, arbitraging low interest rates like they are with this pile of money.