Shoreline on state’s list for new academic building

A new Allied Health, Science and Manufacturing building may be in the future for the students at Shoreline Community College.

On Monday, April 21, 2014, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges released a ranked list of recommended projects for addition to the system’s 2015-17 capital budget request.

Shoreline’s proposal and nine other projects would be added to the system’s funding pipeline so they could be constructed in priority order. The list must be approved by the state board members, who are scheduled to consider it at their May 7-8, 2014 meeting.

If approved, the funding would begin the design phase of a building that would house new science labs and other classrooms, the nursing and dental hygiene programs as well as the manufacturing, or CNC machining, program.  The new building would replace some existing buildings on the north end of the campus.

“This is a huge step forward,” Interim President Daryl Campbell said at the April 23, college Board of Trustees meeting. “The fact that this is now in Shoreline’s future is great.”

The list was announced by Marty Brown, Executive Director at the State Board. “Every college has real and compelling capital needs, but this list prioritizes those needs across the entire system for advancement in our system’s 2015-17 capital budget request,” Brown said.

There were 19 proposals, but only the top 10 listed for funding. The proposals were scored and ranked according to criteria developed by our system and adopted by the State Board in 2013. The criteria are intended to balance the need to renovate or replace existing space – or add new space – with the project’s likelihood of success, its cost, the level of community support and the system’s preference for taking care of existing buildings.

“We expect state appropriations of no more than $400 million in the 2015-17 and 2017-19 capital budgets,” Brown said. “That leaves room for the 10 new top-ranked projects to enter the pipeline in 2015-17. Adding more projects would lead to gaps between design and construction funding.”