A TALK WITH CHARLES GEORGE: FACILITIES DIRECTOR’S VISION ON THE BOND

Last May, Mt. Hood Community College (MHCC) voters approved a $131 million facilities bond measure, the college’s first successful bond effort in more than 50 years.

The measure funds necessary campus upgrades, including $23.3 million for repairing old infrastructure and $28.5 million for accessibility and community improvements.

With bond-funded projects now beginning to take shape – including repaving of several parking lots, a new surface for Mt. Hood’s running track, and construction of the Aquatics Center swim pool retractable roof – Director of Facilities Charles George shared insights with The Advocat e into the planning process, lessons learned, and his vision for MHCC’s future.

Q: Can you walk us through your journey at MHCC, and what initially drew you to community college infrastructure work?

A: I was hired in 2015 to direct Facilities for MHCC. I was in the U.S. Navy Nuclear Power program from 1989-1997, gaining engineering and skills for operating and maintaining facilities. After I got out, I finished my master’s degree and ran facilities organizations for Intel, Nike, ServiceMaster, Westfield Malls, ServiceMaster, and the Agua Caliente Casino.

A lot of my undergrad work was at community colleges, and it drew me to MHCC to support community colleges and the students.

Q: In your role, what are the most critical aspects of overseeing MHCC’s three campuses (Gresham, Maywood Park, and the Oregon Transfer Center)? For example, how do you balance routine maintenance – like HVAC and electrical systems – with long-term planning for student safety and accessibility?

A: Some of the factors that have helped my teams maintain these locations is preventative maintenance, responding to work orders, and accurately tracking repair and capital needs for future funding. We were able to put a lot of these types of projects into the Facilities and  Campus Plan that was finished in 2024, and most of these were adopted by the bond creation committee and applied to the bond ask.

Q: What was your direct involvement in developing the bond proposal? Specifically, how did you contribute to prioritizing projects like the $23.3 million for repairing aging facilities or the $28.5 million for community upgrades, such as accessibility improvements and wayfinding?

A: My team partnered with various teams on campus during the 2023-24 Facilities and Campus Plan creation. This is a 10-year plan needed for the college and includes deferred maintenance items and needs. It was shared with the bond development team and incorporated into a majority of the bond ask.

While not everything made it into the bond plan due to the projected successful [amount requested], a majority of the concepts and projects were.

Q: MHCC hadn’t passed a bond in over 50 years, with recent failures in 2016 and 2017. From a facilities perspective, what were the most pressing challenges [over time], like deferred maintenance on 1970s-era buildings, that made those earlier efforts feel urgent yet unattainable? 

A: We were very disappointed with the previous bond failures but worked with our leadership team and [District] Board to pursue state grants and additional funding to help pursue repair initiatives. We prioritized the grant funding, aligned with the college plans, and targeted the most urgent projects.

Q: Engaging a broad district including rural areas like Sandy and urban spots like Gresham can be tough for facilities-focused pitches. What resistance did you encounter when explaining complex needs (e.g., electrical overhauls or seismic retrofits) to voters [especially those worried about additional taxes]?

A: One of the things that I felt the college did well, was in the communications that went out to the community, as well as tours that we held on campus to see actual conditions. Our President’s cabinet and leadership teams gave many presentations to city councils, Chamber of Commerce groups, community partners, and key stakeholders to show the need and share information. I really feel like that was key to our success in this most recent bond.

The bond committee hired a consulting team to help in the size and selection of bond-related project costs to get critical and future projects funded, to keep the financial ask as reasonable as possible.

[That said], the bond will not fund every project that we have wanted or fix all of the deferred maintenance items, but it was a good balance of affordability and updating the college to improve the experience for the students, staff, and community.

Q: Looking back, what one facilities-related lesson from the pre-approval struggles will you carry into bond implementation, such as overseeing the 21-year repayment or ensuring audits for projects like the Aquatic Center improvements? How has this process changed your vision for MHCC’s future infrastructure?

A: The biggest lesson and driving vision for this was to gather as much input as we could from students, staff, and community.

While we have started some of the pre-planned bond projects, we are excited to include students and faculty in feedback and work groups over the next few years to help drive the prioritization and project design.

Q: Any final words or thoughts?

A: MHCC is gearing up for a lot of improvements over the next five years. While it is taking us a little bit of time organizing properly now, and ensuring that we include input into the processes, we will ensure that we do the right things thoughtfully and carefully with a lot of input from students, staff, and the community.

Over the next year, especially, there will be opportunities to provide input on projects and priorities. When students see the call for input on design and prioritizing, we encourage them to come and join us for those projects that are near and dear to them.