I <br /> j ` These projects have originated from long-range master plans and/or City Council goals and <br /> policies, or have a high priority based on City operational needs. <br /> It should be noted that the costs given for unfunded projects are only preliminary budget <br /> planning costs and are, for the most part, not based on detailed design cost estimates. <br /> <br /> I Funding <br /> For the last several years, the City's General Fund has-been the primary source of funding for <br /> Building Facilities and Park Site Renovations. Since General Fund revenues have not kept up <br /> with service and capital requirements, the Building and Park Facilities have been consistently <br /> underfunded. <br /> In November 1999, the Budget Committee adopted a new General Capital Budget strategy <br /> when it approved the General Fund's Six-Year Financial Forecast as the basis of the <br /> development of the FY01 General Fund .budget. The strategy to fund building repair and <br /> reconstruction includes implementation of three approaches: <br /> 1. Budget $1.7 million in the FY01 General Capital Budget and increase the budgeted <br /> amount by $100,000 per year in successive years throughout the six-year forecast. <br /> period; <br /> 2. Dedicate up to $900,000 in end-of--year General Fund balances to facilities <br /> maintenance; <br /> 3. Refer a series of general obligation bonds to voters to pay for major reconstruction or <br /> improvements to City facilities. <br /> C. In 1995, the City Council adopted a Facility Condition Report (FCR) process, which establishes <br /> baseline data about the condition of facilities supported by the General Fund through a <br /> detailed, structured inspection process. All capital building and facility projects in the General <br /> ~ Fund are assessed and prioritized on the basis of this report. The 1997 FCR .noted <br /> ' improvements in those facilities with moderate deficiencies, and little change in those facilities <br /> that were in either good or poor condition. The current level of .funding is not closing the <br /> deferred maintenance gap for General Fund facilities. <br /> The FCR process found not only a substantial deferred maintenance backlog, but that several <br /> facilities-particularly recreation facilities-need substantial upgrades to meet current service <br /> demands. Increases in building inventory over the next few years (911 center, new library) <br /> suggest that capital budget reinvestment in facilities will need to .increase simply to <br /> ~ accommodate these increases in square footage. Increased funding to meet these needs would <br /> still not address the backlog of deferred maintenance. <br /> ~ ~ City of Eugene 2002-2007 Capital Improvement Program <br /> Page 26 <br /> I, <br /> <br />