City Manager Eddie Manfro: I’d like to expand on that a little, with some brief background. At our first meeting in March, I presented to the Council the reality that our general fund reserves were significantly lower than we had previously believed — a difference of over $10 million. That was followed by completion of our annual audit and presentation of the ACFR, which also identified a $2.9 million accounting error. During that discussion, the Council directed me to look further into these matters, and we retained Grant Thornton to conduct an independent review of the situation — that is the presentation you’ll see in a few minutes. Other than producing information requested by the auditors, staff have had no input into the presentation of this material, its conclusions, or its recommendations. This is their independent work, and I wanted to make that clear.

Ann Lane, Director at Grant Thornton: This engagement is what we’ve labeled Task One. This presentation supplements a written report that will also be provided, which goes into more detail on some of the accounting issues; that report will be received separately as well.

As the City Manager mentioned, we were engaged to analyze specific accounting transactions and budget items — assessing whether transactions were conducted at arm’s length, whether they were aligned with generally accepted accounting principles, whether they followed city policies, and whether they supported a legitimate and reasonable city purpose. We were not retained to conduct an investigation or a fraud examination. We looked at two specific areas related to the city’s finances: a $2.9 million prior-period adjustment tied to accounting errors, and the depletion of $10 million in unassigned fund balance.

I’ll summarize the key takeaways here, and then we’ll go into more detail.

First, the $2.9 million adjustment reflects accounting errors in how a transaction was recorded in the city’s books and records. We did not see any underlying issues with the transaction itself or its purpose. There was also a $10 million decline in unassigned fund balance, primarily driven by a planned budget deficit, transfers, accounting adjustments, and changes in fund balance classifications. Based on our work, we did not find any indicators of fraud or intentional misconduct, and all of the issues we identified were related to financial policy, accounting presentation, accounting errors, and governance over the finance process. The primary issues we identified relate to a lack of clear governance structure for finance, clear reconciliations, and a clear understanding of how transactions should be recorded and presented — all of which have limited the City Council’s ability to understand the city’s financial position.

We’ll start with the $2.9 million accounting adjustment. This amount was related to a property and how that property was recorded in the city’s books and records. The property was purchased in 2004 by the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency. As I’m sure people here are aware, in 2012, the State of California dissolved all redevelopment agencies and created what is known as a successor agency, which is a fund of the city. As the Council is aware, the city’s government-wide financial statements comprise multiple funds, one of which is the General Fund.

The General Fund captures the activity of all city operations. There are additional funds that are part of the city’s overall financial picture — some relate to utilities such as water, some relate to capital projects, and some relate to roads. One of those funds is the successor agency. When the redevelopment agency was dissolved, the successor agency became a fund within the city’s financial statements, meaning the city became responsible for the successor agency’s financial reporting. The same property was later sold in 2022, in what appears to have been an arm’s-length transaction. It was presented to and approved by the Council.

[An arm’s-length transaction is a business deal where the buyer and seller act independently, have no prior relationship, and are solely motivated by their own self-interest. This ensures the sale is conducted fairly and accurately reflects the item’s true fair market value.]

We don’t have any issue with the purchase or sale of the property itself. Where we run into issues is how some of that was accounted for in the city’s books and records.

In 2020, while the city was undergoing an audit, the auditors asked the Administrative Services department about this property, which was included in the successor agency fund as an asset held for resale, and whether there was a plan to dispose of it for eventual sale. Administrative Services reached out to other city employees to inquire about its status at the time by email.

The response was that the property was supposed to have been titled to the city before a particular employee left. Administrative Services took the position that the property should be recorded in the General Fund rather than the successor agency fund, and that the transfer was recorded at the end of 2020. This email requested the transfer of the land from the successor agency fund to the General Fund.

In governmental accounting, each fund has to balance independently — all debits must equal all credits, so that each fund nets to zero. When you transfer between funds, you can’t simply debit one fund and credit the other, because then the funds won’t zero out. What’s needed in between is an offsetting entry. In the General Fund, that should have been a debit to assets held for resale (since the asset is being recorded) and a credit to an interfund account — a “due to” or “due from” another fund — with the opposing entry recorded in the successor agency fund. That is not what happened.

The journal entries as recorded show that in the General Fund, the property was recorded, but the offsetting side of the entry went to “claims on cash,” which should not have happened, since no cash actually changed hands. A second entry was then posted that reduced claims on cash, essentially zeroing out that balance and recording it to fund balance instead — again, not what should have occurred. It should have gone to an interfund account on the balance sheet, not to fund balance.

Two years later, it was determined that the property should not have been recorded in the General Fund and should instead be in the successor agency fund. A journal entry was recorded to reverse the transfer, but it didn’t capture the entire original entry. The reversing entry hit claims on cash, even though there was no remaining balance in that account, and assets held for resale, but there was no journal entry to correct the amount in the fund balance. That is the $2.9 million audit adjustment recorded during the fiscal year 2025 audit. From 2020 forward, and after the 2022 adjustment, the General Fund’s fund balance was overstated by that $2.9 million. That’s the explanation for the $2.9 million: it was an accounting error. It was recorded incorrectly, caught by your auditor, and has now been corrected.

With that, we’ll move on to a trickier topic: the depletion of $10 million in unassigned fund balance.

As I mentioned, the city has multiple funds, each with its own fund balance. Fund balance is what’s left over after you take the city’s assets and subtract its liabilities. For those more familiar with private-sector accounting, that’s the equivalent of equity in a private company; in government, we call it fund balance.

Fund balance can be categorized in several ways. There are five categories of fund balance in governmental accounting. The first is “non-spendable,” which includes anything that cannot easily be converted to cash — think inventory, capital assets, or prepaid expenses. For example, if the city pays for insurance in advance, that prepaid asset is considered non-spendable. The next category is “restricted” — resources provided to the city by someone else who dictates what that money can be used for.

An example is federal grant money: if you receive federal funds for a specific purpose, that’s a restricted fund balance, because you cannot spend it on anything else. Then there’s “committed” fund balance, which is reserved for a specific purpose through an official action of the governing body — when the Council votes to allocate certain funds to a specific purpose. “Assigned” fund balance can be designated by staff, based on the city’s historical practices, or by the City Council, and is set aside for a specific purpose; the contingency reserve sits in assigned fund balance. Finally, there is “unassigned” fund balance, which is essentially the catch-all — whatever doesn’t fit into the other four categories.

Beginning in 2022, the city had about $4 million in unassigned fund balance, which increased to just over $10 million in 2023 and 2024. Then, in 2025, that fund balance was completely depleted. The depletion occurred through the operations of the city.

In plain language, there was a $7.4 million operating deficit in fiscal year 2025 — meaning expenditures were $7.4 million higher than revenues. There were also transfers — money moving from one city fund to another, such as from the General Fund to the capital projects fund, the IT fund, or the water department. These transfers between funds are common in city government. This year, transfers out totaled $4.5 million; net transfers in and out of the General Fund were a net outflow of $4.5 million. We then add back what we’ve labeled “other financing sources.” To be clear, this was not additional money coming into the city — much of it relates to adjustments to the financial statements based onaccounting rules and standards, which aren’t always intuitive. A good example is depreciation: when you purchase an asset and expense it over, say, a ten-year period, depending on the asset. Of the $6.2 million in this category, much relates to how leases and subscriptions are accounted for under Governmental Accounting Standards Board rules — it’s fairly complicated, so I won’t go into the weeds, but we reviewed it, and that balance appeared reasonable.

Then there’s the reduction for the $2.9 million we just discussed. In addition, there was a reclassification of $2.7 million from unassigned fund balance into assigned, committed, or restricted categories — we reviewed those amounts and determined which should be assigned, committed, or restricted, based on the nature of the underlying transactions. When all was said and done, the city had an unassigned fund balance of negative $1.2 million. $1.2 million from the contingency reserve was used to offset that deficit, and we were unable to locate an additional $290.

As we noted, part of why this occurred was a planned budget deficit. The budget presented to Council during the study session on April 20, 2024, showed a net operating surplus/deficit column with a deficit of $9.36 million. The approved budget for fiscal year 2025, adopted on June 4, 2024, showed a deficit of $9.42 million and was passed by the City Council on a 4–1 vote. That meant it was known from the outset that fund balance would be affected, because the budget itself showed a deficit.

There are ways the budget presentation could be improved to better clarify the city’s financial status. First, the beginning fund balance — specifically for the adopted FY23-24 and FY24-25 budgets — should tie to the audited financial statements. You want to start from results you know are accurate and build the budget forward from there. In this case, the beginning fund balance does not tie to the audited financial statements; there’s a difference of about $468,000. That’s not a huge number, but it’s not insignificant either. Also, the beginning and ending fund balance figures in the budget presentation reflect only the unassigned fund balance and the contingency reserve — they don’t show anything classified as restricted, committed, or otherwise assigned. The city’s total fund balance is actually far higher than the roughly $29 million shown, once you include all assigned, committed, and restricted fund balances. I’ll explain why that matters in a moment.

Second, the net operating surplus/deficit figure combines operating results — revenues less expenditures — with transfers, making it difficult to isolate the city’s actual operational results. A clearer presentation would separate revenues, expenditures, and operating surplus or deficit from transfers, so that Council and the public can see whether operations are in the black or the red before transfers are applied — information that can affect fiscal policy decisions.

Third, there is the matter of the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) reserve. In reviewing the budget documents and listening to the relevant meetings, we found that an amount was set aside for road maintenance matching funds tied to a county program. In 2024, that amount should have been moved from unassigned fund balance to assigned fund balance, but that move never occurred — it remained in unassigned fund balance. As a result, the $10 million in unassigned fund balance at the end of 2024 should actually have been about $5 million, had that transfer occurred. So, when the proposed 2025 budget showed a $9.4 million deficit and then added back $5 million, that $5 million was never actually available to add back, because it had never been moved out in the first place, which would have changed the ending result of the budget.

Finally, regarding ending fund balance: again, only the contingency reserve and unassigned fund balance are shown. Thismatters because assigned and committed fund balances are not fixed — they’re not set in stone. Staff and Council candecide that an amount previously assigned for one purpose should instead be reallocated, particularly during a year with an operating deficit. A better presentation would show a full breakout of how everything is classified within fund balance, so the Council can see what’s set aside for various assignments and commitments and decide whether those amounts should be moved.

In conclusion, we identified no indicators of fraud or intentional misconduct based on the procedures we performed. We did identify issues related to financial governance and oversight, accounting treatment, financial reporting, and budget presentation. The decline in unassigned fund balance was driven by operating results, including a planned budget deficit, and the factors contributing to that decline were not clearly reconciled or presented, which limited the City Council’s ability to understand the city’s financial position.

Based on our work, we have several recommendations.

Our first recommendation is to improve financial governance and oversight at the City of Fullerton, with two specific components. First, hire a Chief Financial Officer with significant experience in governmental accounting — ideally a CPA with substantial governmental experience, since, as you’ve heard, this area is neither simple nor intuitive. Second, establish a Finance Committee — a standing committee that spends more time on the details of the city’s finances and can help ensure that approvals, presentations, and error-catching happen consistently.

Another recommendation is to standardize accounting practices for recording interfund transactions, ensuring accounting staff understand how transactions should be recorded, that they’re recorded consistently, and that they post to the correct general ledger accounts. We would also recommend improving budget presentation and transparency — reconciling the beginning budget figures to audited financial statements as soon as those numbers are available, and ensuring fund balance classifications are clearly presented, with actual operating results segregated from transfers, so the picture is clearer for decision-makers.

Finally, as part of our procedures, we reviewed the city’s financial policy, which could use improvement. There isn’t much operational guidance for how things should be recorded or what the processes are. Some of the language is aspirational — “we strive to do this,” “we want to do this” — when policy should instead describe what the city’s actual process is. We recommend that the financial policy be revisited and revised in a way that helps prevent future issues. With that, I’ll take questions.

Council Questions and Discussion

Mayor Fred Jung: Thank you for your in-depth presentation. I’m sure this Council will support implementing your recommendations. In your experience, the CFO role you mentioned — is that not typically the department head for finance? With the municipalities you’ve worked with, is that not a carryover into their duties, or are cities outsourcing this? How does that usually work?

Director Lane: It depends somewhat on the size of the city, but in cities I’ve worked with previously, you’ll have a Chief Financial Officer who oversees the budget process, the accounting process, and usually the procurement process. Underneath that person, you’ll typically have a head of accounting, a head of budget, and a head of procurement — they oversee all of the financial functions, with subject-matter experts beneath them who understand how those functions actually work. What I’d expect from a CFO is someone with a strong finance and accounting background, ideally a CPA with significant governmental experience.

Mayor Jung: Beyond the recommendations you’ve disclosed today, are there any actions this Council can take to optimize the accounting process so something like this doesn’t happen again?

Director Lane: I’d suggest a thorough review of the processes related to finance — for example, how journal entries are recorded, what the approval process looks like, and whether the people approving journal entries have the knowledge to recognize and correct errors. It’s about making sure there’s enough review, approval, and reconciliation happening that issues get caught in a timely way.

City Council Member Dr. Ahmad Zahra: Thank you for this work — I think it’s very important, and I agree with all of the recommendations and that we need to improve our processes. I do have a question: you mentioned that you weren’t retained to investigate any specific allegations of fraud or misconduct, yet you’re confident there are no indicators of fraud or intentionality. If you weren’t investigating, how did you reach that conclusion?

Director Lane: That conclusion is based on the procedures we performed — review of underlying documentation, review of communications (some of which you saw in the presentation), and discussions with City Council and city staff. We didn’t see anything specifically related to those two transactions — the property transaction and the depletion of fund balance — that would indicate fraud. That conclusion covers those two transactions and the budget presentations from April 23, 2024 and June 4, 2024 specifically, not the broader issue of governance you mentioned.

Dr. Zahra: Is it possible — and I assume you’re applying the legal definition of fraud and misconduct — that this could be a case where a budget was presented as a “feel-good” budget, politically motivated to make things look better than they were?

Director Lane: What I can say is that I didn’t find any indicators of fraud as defined under the standards we apply. I can’t speak to any additional motivations.

Dr. Zahra: On the $2.9 million — it wasn’t detected until 2025. Do you know why, or whether it could have been caughtearlier?

Director Lane: I don’t know why it wasn’t detected sooner. It was identified in 2025 as part of the financial statement audit, and I can’t speak to why it wasn’t caught before that.

Dr. Zahra: Did you look at the prior annual audits? I believe there were at least a couple during that period.

Director Lane: The city has been audited every year going back to 2021, as far as I reviewed, and this issue was not addressed in any communication I saw related to those audits — including the audit reports themselves and any related communications to those charged with governance. The prior auditors, in their annual audits, did not detect this either. It was not included in any prior audit or in any communication from the auditors to those charged with governance.

Dr. Zahra: Can you explain how these annual audits are conducted?

Director Lane: I can’t speak to the specific procedures performed by your prior auditors. Generally, audits are performedusing risk-based auditing procedures. I don’t know what risk assessment process your prior auditors used, what they looked at, or how they made their determinations, so I can’t explain why this wasn’t caught previously.

Dr. Zahra: I was speaking with another city manager who said these audit reports tend to be directed by staff themselves — that is, staff tells the auditors what to look at, rather than the auditors performing a fully independent review. Is that accurate in any way? Also, some of these recommendations will cost money to implement — do you think this is something we can manage, given our current financial situation? I know you’ll get into Phase 2 recommendations on budgeting and revenue, but did you consider our current financial circumstances when making these recommendations?

Director Lane: We did look at the financial implications of our recommendations. As we considered bringing in a CFO with municipal and fund-accounting background and a CPA — since your current interim CFO doesn’t have that background, and this is a complicated area requiring more expertise — we discussed with city staff a possible amendment to Task 2.

Shawn Stewart, a partner with Grant Thornton, Rather than proceeding with Task 2 as originally scoped, we thought it would be more prudent to let you hire the right CFO, who could then go back through the city’s accounting processes and internal controls in more depth than we could. If we did that work ourselves, it would likely cost more, since we’re consultants, and the right CFO could do that work more thoroughly and at a better price point — that’s their job. So what we’ve discussed with management is redirecting the funding you’d otherwise spend on consultants toward hiring the right CFO, and using that person to correct the city’s accounting processes, which is a better use of public funds. We’ve also looked at the economic development component of the original engagement.

Typically, when we go into a city, an economic development plan has already been developed in some detail. In comparison to other nearby cities we’ve worked with, Fullerton doesn’t yet have that level of detailed analysis. We think the city would be better served starting with a deep, dedicated economic development analysis from a firm that specializes in that work, rather than having us continue with the originally scoped local economic development task — that would likely give you greater value than what we would provide.

So our recommendation would be to modify Task 2 to redirect funding toward acquiring the right CFO, allowing that person to scrutinize the accounting processes in detail, assess staffing needs, and evaluate the internal control environment to ensure transactions are properly detected and corrected going forward — consistent with the recommendations discussed earlier — and to redirect the economic development portion to firms that specialize in that work. I’m probably not a very good salesperson, since I’d typically be trying to sell you more consulting work, but we think the city would benefit more from that other direction. We’re trying to recommend what’s right for the city, not just sell more consulting hours.

Dr. Zahra: I appreciate that — it does answer my question, and you went further into it than I expected. That brings me to my last question, on a potential Phase 3 of the audit.

Director Stewart: We don’t see a reason to recommend that at this time. To remind everyone, a potential Task 3 would be a forensic investigation of potential issues in the city. Based on the procedures we performed for Task 1 and the results of those procedures for these transactions, we would not recommend it at this time.

Dr. Zahra: All right, I don’t have further questions, but I do have one for our City Manager — how would we implement these recommendations, and what would the next steps be for Council to move forward?

Mayor Pro Tem Nicholas Dunlap: It’s always nice to have a consultant come up here and turn down money — usually we get paid out left and right, so thank you for that. First, with respect to the report — I know it was an internal review focused mostly on internal controls — did you also look at the outflow of capital specifically related to these redevelopment transactions?

Director Lane: We looked at the $2.9 million property purchase, as covered in the presentation — when it occurred, when the sale was recorded, and we also reviewed video footage of the presentation and approval of the property sale to confirm that it occurred and was approved. That was the extent of our review of that transaction.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: So, nothing looked at how those funds were accounted for once they were disbursed to the taxing entities, essentially the successor agency?

Director Lane: I did review an agreed-upon procedures report performed by the same firm that does the financial statement audit, completed in 2025, and my understanding at the time was that those funds were still being held by either the city or the successor agency in anticipation of disbursement.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: So those funds haven’t yet been disbursed?

Director Lane: That was my understanding at the time.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: Director Thomas, is that still accurate?

Sunayana Thomas, Community and Economic Development Director: No, we recently released the amounts required for the taxing entities. We took this to the Oversight Board in 2025, after the discrepancy was identified in a prior-year ACFR, and we’ve now received Department of Finance clearance as well, since those funds were tied to recognized obligations of the successor agency. The Department of Finance approved the successor agency’s obligations back in 2012, so our role is to make sure those obligations are being executed. The funds that needed to be remitted were the proceeds from the Fox Block project as well as another partner project, and those were just recently remitted. As a result of the Oversight Board action, there are no other potential liabilities on our books related to the successor agency that we’re aware of.

We took this to the Department of Finance because the funds available under the successor agency relate to bond repayments we’re required to make, and the Department of Finance releases a certain amount of funds each year based on our reporting. We were short due to this misclassification issue. When we identified other properties affected and recognized that in 2025, we brought it to the Oversight Board, brought it again in 2026, and completed a meet-and-confer with the Department of Finance. We received clearance, and those funds will be released in time for us to meet our 2026 bond payment obligations, with sufficient funds for at least one more year as well.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: Thank you. I did want to raise one more comment — about establishing a Finance Committee. I think that’s important. I also think, in the weeks and months since this situation began, a lot of people have asked me about the city’s finances and what we, as Council members, actually receive. What we typically get is an expense register of checks paid to various vendors or employees. I think we could do a much better job presenting our financials, perhaps in the form of a budget-variance report — since we set the budget once a year, agree to expenditures, and project revenue at that time, but the extent of what we currently receive is an occasional staff update and a monthly expense register, which doesn’t actually tell us how we’re performing against budget. That would be one recommendation — I don’t know whether our financial software supports that, which might be a question for our Finance Director, but I think it would be very helpful, both for the many informed members of the public who follow along and for me. That’s very much in line with what you’d see in the private sector for any kind of investment or income property.

Steven Avalos, The Interim Director of Administrative Services: We’ll look into our financial system. We do have other, more extensive reports that we can work with the City Manager’s office to provide in the future.

Council Member Dr. Shana Charles: Thank you — and as the Mayor pointed out, this is the first time we’re seeing this, and we haven’t yet read the full report, so I’ll just ask about some things that might be in it. I appreciate the comments from my colleagues, who covered many of the questions I would have asked. In the report, you mentioned greater classification detail in the overall budget presentation. Do you have an example of what the FY23-24 or FY24-25 budget would have looked like if those procedures had been applied, so we have a sense of what we should be looking for?

Director Lane: Yes — the report includes a detailed table showing transfers broken out separately from operating results, and the contingency fund amount. For an example of how fund balance is broken out more fully, Note 17 to the financial statements in the ACFR shows it broken out by assigned, unassigned, committed, and so on. I didn’t include that note in our report, but that’s where it’s located.

Dr. Charles: That ACFR note might be something worth publicizing more than it has been — usually it’s published and not discussed much. I think a clearer presentation of that would be helpful going forward. My other question is for the City Manager: you’re recommending we hire someone, and today is June 16th — our new budget year starts July 1st, although adoption is being pushed into July this year. Hiring takes months. Do we have any ability to implement any of these recommendations for this budget cycle, even in the absence of a CFO?

Mayor Jung: I want to make sure I understand the last part of the question — are you asking whether the new budget presentation, coming on July 14, will reflect the kind of breakout discussed tonight, rather than what we saw at the prior budget study session?

Dr. Charles: Yes — members of the public have repeatedly asked for exactly this kind of detail in public comment, saying they aren’t getting enough information about the operating budget. Can we do a more detailed presentation for the upcoming budget, or do we need to wait until a CFO is hired?

Mayor Jung: I think you’re correct that all of the recommendations Grant Thornton presented this evening are within our purview and scope, and I’d expect them to be incorporated as we go through the budget process — with the exception ofthe CFO hire itself, which is a city manager, HR, and Council hiring matter rather than something this body would administer directly.

City Manager Manfro: To the extent that today is June 16th and we’re hoping to adopt a budget by July 21st, I can’t promise a complete overhaul of the budget document by then. What I can say is that, through this audit, we now know our starting position is accurate. It will take some time for me and for this Council to fully digest this report and determine the best path forward. I think many of the recommendations are ones we can begin incorporating into our current budget process to be as transparent as possible, particularly in the presentation that ultimately comes before you. Personnel-related recommendations take more time and require discussion with my team about how best to address them. This is important, useful, and eye-opening information, and I’ll take it to heart and put it into motion — but I can’t say with certainty how different the budget document will look between now and July 21.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: I did have one other question, probably for the City Manager. We had talked initially about going back to the prior auditor, who signed off on multiple years of audits, indicating everything was fine, to seek some kind of recompense for services or to notify them of a potential claim. Where do things stand on that?

City Manager Manfro: Our Finance Director has had some communications with the prior auditor; they haven’t committed to anything in particular. As a follow-up to tonight, I’ll want to talk further with Grant Thornton to see if they have observations about the prior auditors’ work and whether there’s any potential recourse.

Mayor Pro Tem Dunlap: Maybe that can be addressed a bit more this evening — these annual audits, in addition to reviewing basic fund balance numbers, perform tests on particular areas of the budget to look for vulnerabilities or inconsistencies. The question I keep hearing is: why wasn’t the $2.9 million transaction identified by the prior auditors?

Director Lane: I don’t know the answer to that. If they weren’t specifically testing successor agency transactions, that simply may never have been part of the scope of a given year’s audit work. We can only repeat what I said earlier: audit procedures are risk-based — the auditor assesses where the risks are and tests accordingly. Without being part of those audits and without knowing what those procedures or risk assessments were, I really can’t speak to why this wasn’t discovered earlier.

Council Member Jamie Valencia: Thank you, and given our limited time tonight, thank you so much for all of your recommendations. What are the next steps? What would you propose finance look at first, in the meantime, before the budget comes back?

Director Lane: As far as prioritizing the five recommendations in the report, while hiring a CFO is certainly a high priority, it takes time. I think some of the budget clarification recommendations are things staff could begin implementing sooner, particularly around how information is presented. As the City Manager mentioned, it will depend on timing, since the supporting documentation behind the budget presentation is fairly robust, and you don’t want to rush changes and introduce errors. I’d say: do it quickly and accurately, and if it needs more time to be accurate, take the time.

Mayor Jung: Thank you. All right, moving on — we have two public hearings. We’ll go to the first one.