The Political Subdivisions Committee voted to recommend a do-not-pass on Senate Bill 2,158, the bill that would allow a school district to transfer the Edmore school building and $500,000 in unobligated funds to the City of Edmore.

Committee members said the measure raises questions about precedent, the appropriate recipient of leftover school district funds and whether the local community has a sustainable plan to maintain the building. Representative Clameen moved the do-not-pass motion and Representative Fegley seconded; the motion carried on a roll call, 7 yeas, 2 nays, 4 absent, not voting.

The bill would have given a school board an option to turn over an unused school building and an associated cash balance to a municipal government. Representative Bosley said he had “kind of went back and forth on this bill” after hearing testimony and noted the district’s large geographic area and that some landowners live far from the school. Bosley said at least one option is for “any of the excess dollars that the district has [to] just go back to a distribution to all land owners within that district.”

Representative Haddleston said he saw the Edmore facility as an asset that could serve local activities and argued it would be “a real shame to let that go and potentially crumble into… bricks,” and he favored directing the money to the city for building maintenance. Representative Warrie echoed support for a city-directed maintenance use, citing testimony from a local farmer who felt he had been overcharged under the school district in past years.

Other members pushed back on the bill’s statewide wording. Representative Clameen and Representative Alinsky warned that the bill’s current text did not mention Edmore by name and would create a statutory option that applies statewide; Clameen said that could have unintended consequences in future dissolutions of other districts. Representative Killeen and others suggested a smaller dollar transfer or tying the transfer to a percentage of remaining funds rather than a fixed $500,000.

Representative Hosley asked whether ownership of the building had already been conveyed to the city; the committee record did not resolve that question during discussion. Several members also said testimony did not show a clear, long-term plan to sustain the facility if the transfer occurred.

With the committee recommendation recorded, Representative Fegley agreed to carry the bill. The committee clerk recorded the do-not-pass recommendation as the committee’s formal action.

The committee did not amend statutory language at the meeting. Members debated options for limiting transfers (a lower fixed amount or a share of unobligated funds) and emphasized the need to clarify ownership and long-term stewardship before creating a general statutory option.