Keeland is rebutting the state:
He says it is predictable that in Public Act 4 and other challenges . I would predict if this action leads to an appointment of emergency financial manager it will lead to a flurry of lawsuits which will delay things and he doesn’t want the city to suffer as a result. The agreement with the state has not lapsed, I would suggest introducing an emergency manager will lead to more litigation and still more problems and delays.
Irvin Corley’s turn: we have thrown in low hanging fruit in ways to cut and reduce spending. We’re going to have full year savings now from union contract changes. In regard to interest rate swaps the downgrade last November is a potential triggering event. Why ad an additional layer of trouble with an emergency manager? The city has sufficient revenue coming in to cover bonds, a continual revenue stream that is coming in and has been on the books for years.
Whitaker said: I guess in my neighborhood where I grew up we were taught a deal is a deal. You probably heard the same thing.
The deal is not over, keep the current deal you have in place. It can grandfather in and the law is clear on that regard. If there are more milestones that need to be added, we can incorporate more. No document is perfect. The truth is everything can be improved and to the degree that financial stability is on the table. I would have to disagree that the city council is not cooperating. The contract is working.
You’re getting the information that you contracted for and you are getting the information that can get more revenue up.
The plan in place gets us where we want to be, instead of the displacement of public officials which I believe is beyond undemocratic. I say stay the course!