Oklahoma County Excise Board approves estimates of needs for school districts, strikes several items after review

Eleanor Thompson, presiding member of the Oklahoma County Excise Board, called a special meeting Thursday and led the board through approval of estimates of needs and financial statements for numerous school districts and charter schools for fiscal year 2025–26.

The board approved scores of resolutions certifying appropriations and levies for districts and charters across Oklahoma County, including Deer Creek, Western Heights, Rose State College Technical Area Education District 52, and multiple charter schools. Most items were approved on a voice vote after staff summarized the amounts and levies.

The approvals matter because the excise board certifies the “estimate of needs,” a required step before county officials can set mill levies and proceed with budgeting and tax collection for the coming fiscal year. Several districts showed notable year‑over‑year changes: Deer Creek’s general fund increased by about $15 million compared with last year, and several charter schools and college technical funds showed multi‑million‑dollar increases. The board approved each item as presented except where members voted to strike or send items back for staff review.

Board action followed a patterned process: staff (county finance/office of the county clerk) read each resolution number and the dollar amounts and levies; a board member moved approval and another seconded; the board then voted by voice. For example, the board approved Western Heights’ general fund budget of $17,835,389.43 with a levy of 35.27 mills and the district’s building fund of $2,548,635.17 with a 5.04‑mill levy.

Most items were brief and noncontroversial. The board approved budget estimates and levies for charters including Oklahoma Virtual Charter Academy ($29,958,238.46 general fund), Oklahoma Connection Academy ($14,381,977.43), and several smaller charters and new schools. Rose State Technical Area Education District’s general fund and levies were approved after staff noted increases; the board moved to approve the resolution as read.

The board struck (removed from the agenda or deferred) several items that required clarification or corrected documentation. Items stricken or deferred included agenda items the board identified as duplicates or incomplete submissions (for example, duplicate Gateway Charter submissions and an item with missing signatures). The board explicitly struck item 27 — the submission for Pudent City Public School District — after staff and members identified major discrepancies between the current filing and figures approved earlier in the year. Board members directed staff to review the district’s paperwork and return with corrected documentation.

The board also noted administrative corrections on a small number of items: corrected sinking fund reporting, missing child nutrition submissions for one dependent district, and the need to strike or amend items that were previously tabled rather than amended. When the board found an item had been tabled the prior week but needed a specific amendment, members instructed staff on correct procedural handling — that a motion to strike (remove) is preferable to tabling when changes are required.

Votes at a glance (selected items): Deer Creek School District (resolution 2025-3774): general fund $77,973,347.73; levy 36.89 mills — approved. Rose State College Technical Area Education District 52 (resolution 2025-3835): general fund increase approved. Western Heights (resolution 2025-3672/related item 3 after amendment): general fund $17,835,389.43; levy 35.27 mills — approved. Pudent City Public School District (resolution 2025-3847 / item 27): significant discrepancies noted; item struck for staff review. Multiple charter schools and smaller districts were approved as presented; in several of those cases the budget had increased from the prior year by amounts noted in the staff summary.

Board members present for votes were Eleanor Thompson (presiding member), Brett Townes (member) and Teresa Sellers (member). Staff from the county finance office and the county clerk answered procedural and numeric questions during the approvals. The board flagged items that lacked required signatures or supporting exhibits for later correction.

The meeting followed standard excise board procedures: staff presented each estimate of needs and the corresponding resolution number; a board member moved to approve or to strike; another member seconded; and the board voted on the motion. Where figures or attachments did not match earlier filings, the board either struck the item or asked staff to return with corrected paperwork.

The board adjourned after approving the remaining items and a final transfer request (addressed in a separate item).