Many of you have wondered why we have instituted a number of cost-saving measures over the last couple of years and I'd like to take a few minutes to explain our actions. Please bear with me because I think we need to go back into the past to fully understand our current situation. The City of Milledgeville and Baldwin County have what is called a Service Delivery Agreement that lays out exactly who is responsible for certain shared services. Under the prior Service Delivery Agreement, we were funded entirely by the City while the County took on other agencies. In 2008, the prior Service Delivery Agreement expired and the City decided that the time was ripe for some changes to be made in in the new version. In a letter sent to County Manager Joan Minton on January 4, 2008, City Manager E. Scott Wood said: "By pointing out the existence of various prior agreements you help clarify the history of the City having funded the local operational subsidy for the library. However, our position is that those agreements are are now just that -- history. For over a quarter of a century the City has complied with them fully, but we are not aware of any obligation -- contractual or moral -- which dictates that the City must continue to fund library operations "ad infinitum."

At this point, the library became a political tool to force the County into action. The City informed us that if the County did not step forward and assume part of the funding for the library, the City was prepared to cut our budget by 20%. Because this would jeopardize our state funding (state rules say that our local funding must remain EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR or else we lose all state monies), we immediately launched a media offensive, informing people what would happen if we lost our state funding: mainly, the closing of our branch location, the loss of our Internet service (paid for by the state) and the loss of personnel. What spurred the City to take this action? Was it simply a feeling that the old agreement was unfair? Or was it the loss of nearly half a million dollars in revenue from the closing of Concord Fabrics? The City Manger informed me that it was his desire for the county to assume all of our funding -- our local funding being approximately half a million dollars. So, the city loses half a million in revenue and would, coincidentally, no longer have to pay an expense in the same amount? What a coincidence!

The County did step forward and a Service Delivery Agreement was set forth. Unfortunately, no one bothered to ask the Library for any input! If they had, we would have pointed out what an incredibly UNFAIR document it is.

The current Service Delivery Agreement says: "City and County shall jointly agree upon the amount to be funded for that fiscal year. In the event the parties are unable to agree upon the funding amount, then the funding amount provided shall be the amount agreed upon by City and County for the previous fiscal year."

What this means is that we have to get the City and the County to AGREE on something. Anybody know how hard that is? Virtually impossible, especially when it comes to money.

That first year of the Service Delivery Agreement, the City and County gave the library a $19,000 increase -- OUR FIRST AND ONLY INCREASE IN THE LAST TEN YEARS. We had asked for slightly over $30,000. Since then, no increases have come and none are likely in the near future because of the financial hole that the County is currently in. The City is not in great shape either but they seemed to be weathering things a bit better. The County has elected to change its fiscal year to a calendar year, unfortunately, which means that when we eventually ask for a budget increase to the county, it will be at the midpoint of the city's fiscal year (they, like most agencies, run on a July 1 - June 30 calendar). What's the likelihood of the City agreeing (remember, they have to AGREE) on an increase in the middle of their fiscal year for the *next* fiscal year? Not bloody likely.

Of course, the county has told us that they're not giving us an increase for 2010 anyway. Or 2011. Which means that I can't even ask the city (who is doing a bit better than the county) for a small increase because the county would never agree to it. By forcing us to get both parties to agree, they have shackled us to the same shriveling budget we've had for far too long.

What does this mean for you? It means reduced services, hours and opportunities. At a time when our usage numbers are climbing... at a time when free access to information and resources is vitally crucial to people who need to find jobs or look for ways to simply survive... the city and county have basically told us that "it's tough to be you."

Just thought you should know.