District Proposed Plan
Temporary Campus – The temporary portables are estimated to cost $15M and will be bordered on one side by a large demolition and construction site, on another side by the smelly sewage treatment plant, and on the two remaining sides by drainage channels that are prone to chronic flooding and which are the subject of an existing Notice of Violation for exposed hazardous dump materials. Just what every parent looks for in a school, right?!
Permanent Campus – The current MVMS will be demolished, and a new permanent building will be constructed on top of roughly that same area with a projected overall budget: $130M Hard Cost + $60M Soft Cost + $20M Hard & Soft Cost for Modernizations = $210M ($7M budgeted to to remove toxic soils) out of the total $194M bonds. See page 10 of the February 7, 2024 Board Meeting. The full plan is further counting on $20M of state funding from proposition 51 that is not currently available. At the July 18th, 2024 Board Meeting the District explained that they did not have the budget to support the Steering Committee Recommendations and would have to downsize the scope to not include the renovation of the Multi Purpose room and elimination of the arts buildings and further value engineering is continuing (see slides 23 and 25).
You can see the proximity of the construction site and temporary campus in the aerial image.
Financial planning to date indicates ~$36 million shortfall - maybe more?
Since passing the Bond, the District has learned of significant issues with the current site from a budget, environmental risk, and permitting standpoint. Despite this, it has:
Already spent or committed over $4.3M to the current Middle School site plan as was disclosed during the June 17, 2024 Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) meeting (pg. 48). There has still been no annual audit done by the CBOC or detailed disclosure on where these funds were committed.
Decided to pursue a risky construction site without the necessary funds. The Mill Valley taxpayers and bond rating could be severely impacted if the project runs over budget or has trouble finding insurance with all the potential liabilities at the site. The projected overall budget for the current plan is: $130M Hard Cost + $60M Soft Cost + $20M Hard & Soft Cost for Modernizations = $210M ($7M budgeted to to remove toxic soils) out of the total $194M bonds intended to support the middle school AND five elementary school modernizations (See page 10 of the February 7, 2024 Board Meeting).
It is extremely rare for a school to be built atop a former burn dump Superfund site and our district is likely way underbudgeting what the likely cost for soil removal will be. Let’s see how things have gone for other landfill-based schools. Ninyo and Moore, the consultants the District hired, list the following schools on their “Landfill Experience” client list:
o Bell Jr. High – This is a San Diego Unified school built on top of a former landfill in 1967. In 1989, the school had to abruptly close its playground because of leaking methane gas. The SDUSD Safety Coordinator admitted, “If the levels become high enough, yes, it can explode.” In 2010, SDUSD paid $155,000 to wrap up a complaint about its failure to monitor groundwater near the landfill. In 2022, SDUSD sued two cities seeking financial contributions for ongoing clean up and monitoring of the landfill.
o Noah Webster Elementary – Another SDUSD school built on top of a burn dump in 1955. This site is actually easier than the one proposed for MVMS, because this site is not in a seismic liquefaction zone nor in a flood plain with shallow groundwater. In 2023, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSE”) disapproved of Ninyo & Moore’s excavation and drilling plan, as this intrusive work “may pose risk to school and surrounding community.” Then, in February 2024, DTSE disapproved Ninyo & Moore’s Removal Action Workplan saying the District must either retain the existing soil cap or must remove all of the contaminated soil from the site. The estimated cost for removal is over $33 million…in 2013 dollars.
o Our District has only budgeted $7.8 million for soil mitigation. If our District, like SDUSD, has to remove all the toxic soils at the current site, it will likely be much more than $33 million. This is a material budget concern, and the District needs to do soil samples and talk to DTSE about this as soon as possible, to avoid wasting bond funds in furtherance of a project that may not be economically viable as presently planned. The District received the following from DTSE on July 25, 2024, DTSE Comments on NOP. The DTSE warns, “we recommend the District consider that conservative remedial option may be necessary for evaluation in the EIR.” Also sobering to read, “DTSE believes that piers were likely used to support the current school building foundations. These foundation piers…[create] a preferential pathway for landfill leachate to infiltrate the groundwater.” The statement about a “conservative remedial option” is telling because DTSE recently insisted on complete soil removal at Noah Webster in San Diego. DTSE said that SDUSD could either leave the soil cap intact and put in place monitoring of the landfill materials, or it would have to remove all the soil. The situation at SDUSD is still unfolding, but here’s the latest DTSE letter about it, from Feb 13, 2024, where they say the soil has to come out. The environmental consultant managing that project is the same one our District has hired (Ninyo and Moore).
The District is looking to solve the shortfall with “Value Engineering,” which further disadvantages students at the temporary site and will mean the permanent site can’t afford all the desired upgrades (see slide 23 and 25 of the July 18, 2024 Board Meeting)