THE SRV EXPOSITOR
"The past and the present are within my field of inquiry." — Sherlock Holmes,
in The Hound of the Baskervilles
SRVUSD FINANCES
SRVUSD is now planning a huge $750 Million Bond measure for the November 2026 election. Some of the problems with this measure are summarized in the picture below. The District plans to extract $60 Million per year in new project spending if the measure passes. We will be interested to hear details of that spending — the projects, the unit costs and labor costs built in to those projects.
The core of SRVUSD's ongoing claims of money problems is the disproportion between their compensation (pay and benefits) and the combined effect of enrollment changes and inflation.
The high point of District enrollment was the 2017-18 school year, with 32,504 students. The number now, in 2025-26, is 27,985. That represents a loss of 4,519 students, = 13.90% of 2017-18's enrollment. But during 2025-26, the Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) count has lessened by only 1.44%.
To equal the student-loss percentage, SRVUSD would have to lower their 2017-18 FTE count by 387 employees now. At an approximate compensation (salary & benefit) average cost of $130,000, that would represent a savings of just over $50 Million dollars per year (in current dollars).
SRVUSD did act on February 24th to lay off 53 FTE positions for 2026-27. Last hired, first fired rules applied, not employee quality — a war[ed requirement driven by union control of education.
But enrollment in 2026-27 is expected to drop to 27,282. That will be a reduction of 16.07% from 2017-18. A same-percentage FTE employee decrease in 2026-27 would be 447 fewer than in 2017-18.
Be sure to visit the Personnel page also. SRVUSD's claimed financial problems are of their own making. Employee numbers and compensation increases have both been grossly disproportionate with the combined effects of inflation (increases yes, but...), accompanied since 2017-18 by severely declining enrollment.
Part of the reason for such dollar disproportions is that SRVUSD has more employees now than it did 10 years ago, when the District had 3400 fewer students — yet performed better on CAASPP tests.
And for the 2025-2026 school year, SRVUSD expects to have 4,502 fewer students than they had in 2015-2016, but still to have more employees than then, even after their projected "reduction in force" layoffs.
We've heard lately that some SRVUSD teachers have been complaining that their compensation has [allegedly] not kept pace with inflation since 2019. But the reality is summarized below. Note that raises have been retroactive to the previous July, and that in addition to the raises with asterisks, "one-time" 1% amounts were also supplied.
Essentially: SRVUSD's out-of-proportion compensation increases over time have themselves become a local inflationary effect.
Nevertheless, SRVUSD tax promoters were able to convince enough voters in a second go-round on 2024's parcel-tax renewal campaign (Measure Q) — despite an 8.5 % retroactive raise in late 2022 and another 6.0% raise in February 2024 (both with an extra 1% "one-time" bonus addition — that they've been able to continue the existing parcel tax (netting about $7 Million annually).
The District itself spent over $300,000 in taxpayer funds for campaign consultants and promotional mailings in pushing (a) failed measures E and F (with E including a sneaky inflation escalator clause, F a straight up addition) and (b) Measure Q's simple renewal.
The failed Measure E & F SPECIAL election in May of 2024 cost them over $1.1 Million in County Election Office expenses for mailing and processing the ballots involved. Their Measure Q Election cost (their second parcel-tax renewal attempt, this time without a sneaky inflation escalator or a flat increase) was much less, a little under $188,000. That was because they consolidated that election effort with the November 2024 General Election.
​
In addition to SRVUSD's own election maneuvering, their tax-exempt PTAs and some of their existing and/or prospective vendors of goods and services contributed significant sums to their "private" 2024 parcel-tax campaigns. See the table below. The numbers shown are believed to be accurate, based on Election Office posted records.
Realize what this means: tax-exempt entities spent large sums to add nine more years of parcel taxes.
And to us, the additional contributions by SRVUSD vendors smell like shakedowns and (at least potential) kickbacks, though direct quid pro quo connections are difficult or impossible to establish.
