For the second straight year, Kingfisher Public Schools’ board of education has delayed approving an estimate of needs.

Though somewhat related, the reasons behind this year’s move differ from that of 2024.

The board made no action on the agenda item regarding the estimate of needs during Monday’s regular August meeting.

The lack of action was on Superintendent Andy Evans’ recommendation.

Evans said there was an issue in this year’s document regarding the payment for a civil suit settlement in the case brought against the district by Mason Mecklenburg.

“When the estimate of needs was being prepared, it appears that there was a discrepancy with the amount of principal retired by the first judgment payment,” Evans said. “The auditor is working through this and will be contacting the bank that purchased the judgment to make sure that his calculations and their calculations match.”

Evans said he expects the estimate of needs to be approved at the Sept. 11 meeting.

An estimate of needs is a list of anticipated revenues and expenditures for a school district that is prepared by a third party.

For Kingfisher, that third party is Britton, Kuykendall & Miller CPAs of Weatherford, which annually prepares the document that’s a part of the budget making process.

Once it’s approved by the KPS board, it will be sent to the Kingfisher County Excise Board for approval.

When the estimate of needs was initially brought to the Kingfisher Board of Education last year, it was tabled in order to garner an opinion from legal counsel on the district’s options to pay about $1.75 million in that settlement agreement.

The district settled with Mecklenburg in December 2023.

The agreement, in part, called on the district to pay him $5 million, which included a $1.25 million payment within 90 days of the settlement, which was in March 2024.

The remaining $3.75 million plus interest each year was to be paid over three years from the district’s sinking fund.

Last year was the first of those three installments.

The excise board held multiple meetings before ultimately amending the estimate of needs presented by the school district.

Instead of property owners in the district seeing an increase in their ad valorem taxes (which is how the sinking fund is funded), the burden fell solely to the school district.

That led to a reduction in force last December that saw the district lay off about 20 staff members.

(Editor’s note: For more on Monday’s meeting, see Sunday’s edition.)