Why is it suddenly important to clean up language from an article passed in 2014?

Right now, I am just supposing, but there could be a few reasons for this.

1.    Simple house keeping to get all paper work to agree.

2.     The district is "transferring" the building to the Town of Templeton, because the Town has                    always owned the building, it has been under control of the district per the regional school                  district agreement. 

3.       Perhaps Phillipston finally questioned the legality of the district being the one doing the                       borrowing and therefore, the district would be considered responsible for the loan and 

          since Phillipston is the second school of the district, they want to stay clear of this issue.

4.       Might be the waters have to be clear so short term borrowing can take place for demolition

          work and since the district is scheduled to transfer the building officially back to the Town,

          Kind of hard to explain why or how the district is on the hook for a loan for a building

          they now have nothing to do with. 

Probably would have been better, both in the past and moving forward, if the selectmen had taken the point on this from the beginning, as soon as Phillipston opted to not take part in the finances, so there would be one central place for taxpayers to look to in trying to follow this project. This is all just my opinion and this project will just keep rolling along, as a new school building to replace three aged buildings makes sense business wise and financially. 

Jeff Bennett