The window in which the Kingfisher Public Schools district can lessen the tax burden after a recent settlement has become increasingly smaller.

That’s after county officials recently uncovered a state attorney general’s opinion from 2000 that stated schools can’t use local or state funds to pay into a sinking fund.

Heath Dobrovolny, chairman of the Kingfisher Board of County Commissioners, provided the Times & Free Press with an opinion filed by Drew Edmondson, the Oklahoma attorney general in 2000.

The request for the opinion had been filed by Rick Littlefield, then a state senator for District 1.

The question was: “If a public school district has funds available from sources other than taxes levied for sinking fund purposes, such as federal money, may the district place that money in the sinking fund to reduce or eliminate the need to levy against the taxable property in the district to satisfy a judgment pursuant to 62 O.S. Supp. 2000, §365.5?”

The statute referenced states a district’s sinking fund will be used to satisfy a judgment if the funds aren’t otherwise available.

That became pertinent in Kingfisher when the school district settled a federal civil lawsuit with Mason Mecklenburg.

Among the provisions of the settlement was a payment of $5 million.

The settlement stated the district would pay $1.25 million by early February 2024 from its general fund.

The remainder of the settlement, including interest, was set to be paid from the sinking fund over three years, meaning it would affect the ad valorem taxes of those in the district.

An estimate provided to the Times & Free Press stated district taxpayers could see a 12 percent hike in ad valorem taxes over those three years.

That caused some public outcry and nearly 200 people attended the most recent meeting of the Kingfisher Board of Education when members voted 4-1 to approve the settlement agreement terms.

Board member Brad Wittrock voted against the motion.

He also took the time to speak to the audience about a number of issues surrounding the civil case, including options the board and Superintendent David Glover had researched in lessening the tax burden.

In speaking with legal counsel from the Oklahoma State School Board Association, Wittrock and Glover were under the initial impression the district could use its funds to pay into the sinking fund each year prior to taxes being mailed out.

Wittrock stated that was the board’s goal.

“I’m not making a promise,” he said at the meeting. “I’m just telling you that is the goal of what we’re trying to do.”

Edmondson’s words from 2000 state differently.

In his opinion, Edmondson said the law specifically states districts cannot use general fund monies from state and local sources to pay a judgment.

Only federal funds, which are typically specifically earmarked for a purpose when distributed “may be placed in the sinking fund and used…if such an expenditure is not prohibited by the federal law under which money was provided.”

The finding disappointed Wittrock.

“We’d had the discussions with counsel and we had done our homework before we said anything to the public,” Wittrock said. “We didn’t want to mislead them in any way.”

Both Wittrock and Glover said their initial belief was buoyed by other districts possibly going the avenue in which they had discussed.

“But the way our judgment is laid out, it prevents us from doing it,” Wittrock said.

The judgment won’t begin to go on the tax rolls until the next fiscal year, which begins July 1, 2024.

That leaves the district some time to try to lessen the burden on its own.

“What we can do for the rest of this fiscal year, which ends June 30, is continue to pay down the debt as funds are available,” Glover said.

“That will be our plan moving forward. It is our hope to be able to help in some way.”