Glendale Community College
Throughout 2013, pages on this site will be moved to our new website.
If you can't find the information you need: Please call (623) 845-3333 for help with enrollment,
or email Helpdesk@gccaz.edu to report web site issues.
Locations | Class Schedule | Library | A-Z Index | Contact |
My.Maricopa.Edu Apply, register for classes, grades, transcripts & more!

Master Planning Updates

06/17/03: Master Planning Update #1

Master Planning-Bond 2004

By now, most of you are aware that the Maricopa Community College District Governing Board is considering a possible Bond Initiative for November 2004. At present, a $950 million bond is envisioned. As planning proceeds toward that date, GCC has been involved in a number of actions to articulate its needs and gain its share of resources. This and future updates are intended to keep you informed of our progress. As you receive information, from whatever source, please remember: numbers will change, and nothing is cast in concrete at this stage.

What Is The GCC Share?

Following presentation of all college Master Plans to the Governing Board and Capital Planning Advisory Committee (CPAC) in April, Governing Board members and the Chancellor's Executive Committee (CEC) proposed a formula to allocate bond funds to District-wide initiatives and the colleges. At this time, GCC's share is roughly $60 million for the main campus and an additional $20 million for GCC North. Additionally, some portion of $70 million set aside for occupational program capital needs, and $4.5 million for major maintenance are ours to work with. District will also be able to assist the College with some regulatory and energy issues and $8 million has been allocated to purchase land for a Peoria-Surprise campus, although no college has been designated as the lead on this project.

June 4-5 Master Planning Retreat

Though GCC's Master Plan paints a wonderful picture, bond resources will not fund everything. To move from the ideal to real world requires considered decisions, backed by hard data. To that end, GCC staff and faculty leaders and District Facilities Development personnel met for a two-day planning retreat in early June. During this retreat, we addressed a number of topics to refine our plan. These topics included:

  • GCC Instructional Programs and Trends: FTSE change, average class size, number of sections, FTSE to FTTE ratios, budget history, as well as information from the Program Review Process and anecdotal information from the Dean of Instruction, helped planners visualize future needs. Interestingly enough, though we reviewed more data than that used by our Master Plan architects, the new construction and renovations proposed in the Master Plan remained valid.

  • Renovation Projects: Ours is the second oldest college in Maricopa, dating back to 1965. All of our buildings probably require some level of renovation, but again, we can't afford it all. Following a presentation on age and condition of facilities, the planning team categorized renovation needs. The group focused on those facilities classified in "fair" to "poor" condition (with some exceptions), and then determined the level of renovation necessary. Renovations were divided into three levels, each progressively more expensive:

    • Major: essentially this means gutting the building and redesigning/reconstructing the facility for more modern or different uses. An example would be the GCC Library Media Center, completed in 2000. GCC facilities requiring major renovation include: Automotive, Business & IT, Grounds and Maintenance Compound (possible relocation), Men's PE, Student Union, T1,2 &3, and Women's PE Bldgs.
    • Minor: involves some major interior renovation, such as removing walls. An example would be the present work in the Center for Learning. Facilities requiring minor renovation include: Administration of Justice, Agriculture, both High Tech Ctrs., and Life Science Bldgs.
    • Minimal: involves painting, recarpeting or the retrofitting of an existing system. An example would be this summer's planned refreshment of the HTA classrooms. Facilities requiring minimal renovation include: O-1,2,3 and 4, P-1 and 2 (if not demolished), and the Stadium (leveling the steps).

  • Technology: Unlike the 1994 bond, in which technology costs were absorbed by the District, technology and technology replacements/upgrades will become the responsibility of the College for 2004. Some exceptions, such as the New Student System and telephone system, will be funded by a District technology set-aside. Following a discussion on technology needs, the planning team agreed to tentatively fence $10 million for basic technology needs and include $7.22 per square foot in all new construction and major renovation calculations.

  • New Construction: New construction was intentionally discussed at the end of the planning retreat, in order that participants gain an appreciation for renovation and technology needs. Despite wanting to adhere to the Master Plan, team members recognized that new facilities add little to a campus if the rest of the infrastructure is substandard. Drawing on information gained from earlier presentations and discussions, the team proposed: constructing the North Bldg., a multi-floor facility with general purpose classrooms, life science labs and offices, and a scaled down NW Bldg. with general purpose classrooms and offices.

  • Safety and Parking: The entrance at Vogel and 59th Avenue is always busy. Working with the City of Glendale, we believe a new entrance can be constructed that will provide two dedicated left turn lanes, a cross over lane and two dedicated right turn lanes. Coupled with some median construction on 59th Avenue, safe access to and from the campus can be significantly improved. New construction will displace some parking, so additional parking must be added and we still need to improve traffic flow and parking in the SE portion of the campus. Lastly, working with the City of Glendale, we would like to complete the greenbelt along the east side of the campus.

Future Steps

As you digest the information in the above paragraphs, you will notice that numbers of rooms, costs and project priorities have not yet been determined. Defining each project and estimating costs will occur in June and July and a draft priority assigned after discussion with the planning team. The College must submit a draft Project List to District by July 31st.

In August, Dr. Randolph will present the draft Project List as part of the Fall Convocation Program and engage in discussions with the College thereafter. At that time, projects will be reviewed, re-costed and priorities adjusted, based on College feedback and other factors. The College must submit a final Project List to District by September 26th. The Governing Board and CEC are scheduled to meet in October to review projects and make a final decision concerning a 2004 Bond.

Let me close by stating that we are in the early stages of the planning process. District has provided us with a series of Helpful Hints Newsletters and some great worksheets to design space and develop accurate cost estimates. These worksheets automatically account for single and multi-level building configurations, required administrative spaces (closets, elevators, restrooms...), basic furniture-fixtures and equipment, and even factor in inflation through 2008. These tools were not available in 1994. Your comments and ideas will also drive changes. Please stay engaged. Despite limited funds, we can build and maintain quality facilities, and continue the College's reputation for quality, cutting edge instruction and student support.

Charles Jeffery
Construction Liaison


In this site:

Planning for the Future
Downloadable PDF
 /

We welcome feedback.

Content revised 9/21/12