What is the latest estimate of when construction will begin?

As of September 2025, the District estimates that construction will begin in June 2026 with completion in December 2028.

What are the key dates and milestones between now and then?

The following is the current set of dates, as of September 2025, but the project has already been pushed back twice, so this could all shift again.

• September 2, 2025: Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) posted

• September 2 - October 17, 2025: Public comment period on draft EIR

• September 10, 2025: School Board meeting to accept comments on Draft EIR.

• October 2025: Public comment period for Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA)

• December 2025: Final PEA and Final EIR certification and project selection

• February 2026: Mitigation plan based on alternative selected

• March 2026: Public comment on mitigation plan

• April 2026: Final mitigation plan approved

• June 2026: Start construction and implement mitigation plan

What are the regulators and experts saying about the current MVMS site?

As the CEQA process continues, various independent experts are starting to weigh in with serious concerns about seismic hazards and soil contamination.

The EIR says everything is fine at the current site, so why are you still worried?

That is not what the EIR says. Even though the rebuild plan has been discarded, 87% of the Draft EIR focuses on this infeasible project (242 pages), while allocating relatively few pages to the alternatives now under consideration (5.5 pages for Dual Schools at Edna and 3.5 pages for Renovation option). The EIR does not say what mitigation will be required, nor how much it will cost, and thus whether it is even financially feasible. That needs to come from the Preliminary Endangerment Assessment, which is still pending Department of Toxic Substances Control review and approval. Soil vapor samples are not yet even complete. Lots of things can be mitigated, but the question is how much it will cost. The District has vastly underestimated those costs before, and we are concerned they are doing so again. Read more about the open questions in the EIR, on our EIR information page.

Isn’t this group suing MVSD, which is causing project delays and cost escalations?

That is misinformation. Our group of concerned parents has not filed any lawsuit.

The project is delayed because the District proposed a half-baked idea without adequate due diligence. The site is inherently problematic, and the District refuses to acknowledge the scope of the problem. State regulators have an obligation to keep our kids safe. The Department of Toxic Substances Control is not yet satisfied with the environmental sampling of this sensitive site, which is still underway. Also underway is review by the Division of State Architect and California Geological Survey to determine if seismic upgrades can be waived to keep the renovation within budget, despite the known liquefaction zone. We do not set the timeline for these regulatory reviews. You can see the recent data gaps that DTSC identified on our Soil Test Results page and the open seismic questions on our Seismic Page.

The District has spent millions on consultants but still doesn’t have a feasible proposal. We have repeatedly asked the District to reduce those expenditures to preserve bond funds until feasible plans are identified. We warned that soil mitigation for the original rebuild plan could cost $33M, not the mere ~$7M the District budgeted. They didn’t listen, and instead proceeded to draw up costly architectural plans for a rebuild that could never work. Our cost estimate was almost exactly correct—soil mitigation turned out to cost $32.4M, which rendered the project infeasible. As a consequence, the District has now spent a lot of money on unusable plans and an expensive 700+ page EIR about a project they already abandoned. It continues to spend money on detailed plans for the elementary schools, when it might need the money for the Middle School after all. Rather than systematically identifying threshold issues to address before spending significant amounts of money, the District has proceeded in a haphazard rush. Rather than scapegoating parents, the District must finally face the facts, take responsibility, and propose a workable solution.

I am tired of how long this is taking. I want the District to just decide already.

We are sure they would love to do that, but they are legally not allowed to decide before the environmental, health, and safety reviews are complete. Some people think there is too much regulation in California, but regulatory safety reviews related to toxic substances, liquefaction zones, and school children is surely not the place for short-cuts or end-runs.

Won’t we lose the bond funds if the District doesn’t decide soon?

No, that is misinformation. Please read the Bond Parameters page for details.

Where are people getting the idea that the soil is toxic?

From well-documented site history and soil samples taken under the supervision of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, a neutral state regulator. We provide links to the primary source material on our Soil Sample page. Please read these reports.

Is the renovation option seismically sound?

Unclear. There are two options. First, the District could retrofit the foundation to make it seismically sound. That sounds good, but they likely can’t afford this, as it will involve soil mixing and removal, which are the costs that killed the rebuild option. Second, the District could leave the 1970s foundation as-is, but is that wise, approvable, and insurable? Would we seriously spend nearly $100M on a project that leaves our children on this aging foundation for the next 50+ years? Would the regulators really allow that? The District has not presented a fully scoped plan that addresses any of this.

Sea level rise is a problem for the whole city and the world to solve. Our District can’t solve that alone.

Sea level rise is indeed a community-wide concern. However, the ball is squarely in the District’s court to determine how to react to the unique risks of the current MVMS site. That site is in a flood plain that is expected to grow much worse. The Preliminary Endangerment Assessment showed images of how the site is predicted to look in the coming 50 years (approx. useful life of a new building). That building will resemble an island, surrounded by water! The District’s solution? Elevating the school, but they admit this does nothing to ensure the school is accessible via the soon-to-be flooded roadways. Perhaps the kids can canoe instead of bike? It gets worse. That floodwater, which will inundate the school at its current site, will be full of an increasing amount of toxins leaching up from the underground dump. This is already happening, and it will get worse as the water table rises. The District cannot control sea level rise, but it can control whether it makes an affirmative decision to spend over $100M to place a school in a location that is terribly unsustainable and which will make city planning decisions harder in the future.

All construction projects have things to mitigate. This kind of project happens all the time in California. The experts will handle it.

There is only one former burn dump site in Mill Valley. It is directly under the current site. No other construction project in the area has anything approaching this risk profile. Schools are also subject to stricter rules than other construction projects. However, the experts are indeed handling it—via rigorous soil sampling and analysis. 

I am really opposed to putting two schools at the Edna site. The only other option is the renovation option.

We agree that putting the permanent MVMS campus alongside Edna Elementary is not a good idea. We think that option is a straw man, designed to fail and cause community opposition. We continue to oppose housing children next door to a toxic construction zone, and we continue to have serious concerns about the safety of the current site and wisdom of spending that much money on a non-sustainable building. We have a better idea, one that avoids any children learning in a construction zone and which reduces the crowding concern of the dual-schools at Edna option.

How did Mill Valley build the Community Center then? Why is this different?

At the August 2025 School Board meeting, the School Board members asked this exact question to the District’s environmental and geological experts. The answer was that the Community Center was built over twenty years ago, when standards and technologies were different, and in any event, schools are subject to stricter requirements.

The School District is clearly in a difficult position. What are the options from here?

• District’s proposed alternatives

• Our other ideas

Some people think this website is an insult to the women who worked hard to pass Measure G.

We appreciate all the work women do to support our schools! We all voted in favor of Measure G. However, at the time, none of us knew about the underlying dump, toxic soils, or seismic hazards. It is perfectly understandable to have questions and concerns when troubling new information comes to light. Nevertheless, we are grateful the District has the opportunity to modernize the Middle School with these bond funds. We want to ensure the bond funds are deployed prudently towards a sustainable site that students and staff can enjoy for decades to come. We will not give up and accept a bad plan simply out of deference to the hard work of others. We are working hard for the benefit of our children and community too. We are also a group of dedicated women. We are working alongside dads too, as all parents should of course feel included in this important conversation impacting our children. For that matter, all taxpayers have a stake in this as well. We need to discuss the substance of the issues.

What is the full story with the Superfund site?

• This is a bit complicated, so bear with us. We are learning as we go too! First, MVMS and the Mill Valley Dump are included on the EPA’s Superfund Site Information list and the site has an assigned EPA ID Number (CAN0000905996).

• That website then labels it an NFRAP-Site that does not qualify for the NPL based on existing information. Let’s unpack those acronyms and the Superfund process.

• First, a concerned agency can petition the EPA for an assessment.  In this case, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) identified the Mill Valley Dump as a hazardous waste site due to hazardous substances and landfill gasses. The EPA then requested a Preliminary Assessment, which DTSC completed for the Mill Valley Dump on March 25, 2003.

• The Preliminary Assessment evaluates the Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) factors. If a site’s HRS factors warrant it, the site will be added to the National Priorities List (NPL). Sites that are not added to the NPL are added to the No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) list. That is the designation the Mill Valley Dump received. But, it’s important to understand why the site was placed in that category.

• The Preliminary Assessment, which DTSC completed for the Mill Valley Dump on March 25, 2003, acknowledges the presence of heavy metals, other chemicals of concern, and landfill gases. Nevertheless, the EPA determined that the following pertinent Hazardous Ranking System factors are associated with the MVMS site: “The entire surface is covered with pavement, buildings or soil cap of 2-3 feet of sandy-clay. The metal contamination is below 2 feet, found at dept 7.5 to 13.5 bgs.” The Remedial Site Assessment Decision included in the report describes the rationale for the NFRAP listing as, “The site is covered by pavement, buildings and 2-3 feet cap of sandy-clayey soil. The high concentrations of metals (lead, copper, zinc) are buried 7.5 to 13.5 feet below ground surface.”

• So, if construction disrupts the soil cap, as it could do, even with the new renovation alternative, the entire basis for the NFRAP listing disappears and the EPA may need to reconsider how the site is categorized under the Superfund program.

• Regardless of how this site is classified, it needs to be closely monitored via the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This is why DTSC is monitoring this site and paying such close attention.