Broward school board votes to terminate Handy lease after executive-summary errors and oversight concerns

The Broward County School Board on Oct. 8 voted to terminate a commercial lease the district had signed with a private landlord identified in the record as Handy, after trustees and staff raised concerns about the contract's terms and how the lease was presented to the board.

Board members said the executive summary provided with the June 17 lease approval incorrectly described an apparent termination-for-convenience option. Legal counsel told the board the actual agreement does not include a termination-for-convenience clause; instead it contains an annual-appropriations provision (Article 21.12) under which the district's obligations are contingent on the board allocating funds in its annual budget.

The dispute drew public comment and sustained board scrutiny. "This was fraud, waste, mismanagement textbook," said Dr. Natalie Lynch Walsh during the public-comment period. Board members repeatedly said the lease was inappropriate given current enrollment declines, budget shortfalls and recent state changes that expand Schools of Hope co-location options for charter operators.

Board members and staff recited a chronology: the board approved the commercial lease on June 17; state and local enrollment projections deteriorated over the summer; the district received letters from at least one charter operator identifying underutilized schools for co-location; and the district's facilities and real-estate teams had pursued other space-planning options. Several trustees said the district should prioritize using existing school buildings rather than new commercial leases.

Legal counsel explained how the district could extricate itself under the lease. "Article 21.12 clearly states that performance and obligations of the tenant shall be contingent upon an annual budgetary appropriation," Mr. Cooney told the board, describing that clause as the district's primary legal avenue to terminate the agreement absent a convenience termination clause.

Board members pressed operations and legal staff about why the district accepted a landlord-drafted commercial lease that multiple board members described as one-sided and why the executive summary to the board packet misstated termination rights. Several trustees described an unacceptable lapse in internal review and interdepartmental communication; the superintendent and operations staff committed to an after-action review to identify procedural and accountability gaps.

District finance staff provided a summary of payments made to date. Omar Shim, director of capital budget, told the board the district had paid an $85,000 deposit, approximately $19,833 for June pro rata rent, and four monthly payments of about $42,500 for July through October, producing a total paid-to-date figure the director estimated at roughly $270,505. The board chair also placed on record that additional wiring expenses of about $10,000 had been incurred.

Trustees debated risks from potential landlord litigation and whether to complete the current fiscal year in the Handy space versus terminating now. Legal counsel said litigation risk could not be ruled out and that the likely exposure would depend on how the district and the landlord negotiate an exit, but counsel did not provide a definitive cost estimate.

After floor debate and a roll-call process the chair announced the motion passed (seven votes in favor; two members not counted on the roll call). The board directed the superintendent and relevant staff to take steps to terminate the contract, minimize district liability, and produce an after-action report with recommendations for process changes.

The board also requested staff review remaining lease agreements with the same landlord and said those agreements should be elevated for closer legal and operational review before coming back to the board.

The vote concluded the special meeting, which the chair adjourned after noting the wiring and other costs now on the record.