ultimately will need to complete the contract. that's a question on which i would like to follow up with them. let me just check my notes that i had coming in here. i think that's it. >> chairwoman: questions? >> there are two different bond program managers, and i'm not sure if any of the ones you have questions about are the subject of the m.t.a. bond, but i know mr. lee from the m.t.a. program is here. sorry, public works. so let me back up a step and say, congratulations, mr. lurkin, you're the first deliverer of a liason report in the format we talked about for this fiscal year. there has been a little bit of confusion about how to deliver this content,

but i think -- our conversation, when we were developing the work plan with you for the current fiscal year, was that each bond program would appear before you twice in a year. once you would have a formal report from the bond program managers of the type that was just given on the public health bond. in the opposite six month point and the calendar, you would have a liason report, like mr. lurkin gave, and the advantage would be the forcing function of having the liason have an opportunity to anticipate that item, set up a meeting with bond program managers, ask any questions they had, so that the content could be focused on things that are of most of interest to goback. and there was a concern you would get detailed reports and pretty pictures, but not much of a chance to focus on issues that are of concern for you. the liason focus was a

test. i should have also reminded the m.t.a. program manager that having that program manager appear during the agenda item would be an expectation so that any questions could be answered. so sorry if that was my miss. but that's sort of my expectation for how it would go. >> oh, sorry. i was going to say there is a familiar-looking guy over there. >> chairwoman: i don't know all of the personnel, so sorry about that. >> and before you go on, i was going to say, yeah, this is a misunderstanding, then, on my part that the new format was going to not include as much a presentation as we had had before. i'll say a misunderstanding to make it sound better than i just forgot. >> chairwoman: again, you can change it, it is certainly your purview. our hope was we would have the opportunity for the

liason to ask questions that are at the level of interest of the community. sorry for my not knowing all of the folks here, but the bond program manager can and should be here for you. >> the thing i would have done differently is followed up with the staff before we came into this meeting. we did have this liason meeting, but that was some three weeks ago. i could have got these questions answered by going to the staff out of the venue that we're having here. so what i'll do then, if we can't get things answered -- if we can't get them answered today, is follow up later and at the next meeting, i'll just give a report on that and it wouldn't take more than just a few minutes. we can put it under new business or whatever. >> before you're there to answer some of the questions that were raised, i was also at the meeting with brian larkin, and i just wanted to

supplement part of what we discussed. and my concerns going into the meeting, every time i meet with the m.t.a., tends to be more on the macro financial level. so i just wanted to share what i discussed with staff, is that since -- i was keying in on the two presentations, the two tables, they have on page 13 and 14, which actually shows the projects and the funds under the first issuance. and on the page next to it, the second bond issuance. and my purpose, also, is to really probe staff. i'm fairly comfortable to have them comment on the spend of the first issuance. it is pretty all gone. there is less than $2 million there. according to their plans, there is a timeline to spend it down. in the second issuance,

they are almost half way there. and we had some discussion on their expectation and how happy they are proceeding with the spend-down because they are kind of really looking forward to a third issuance early next year. so that was the type of discussion i had, and i walked away very comfortable that they have a pretty good handle on how they control their spend because prior to the second issuance, there is some discussion and concerns as to the pace of the spend after the first issuance. so i think they've addressed that, and i feel comfortable on the financial overall management. they seem to be on top of things. i just want to supplement them. >> chairwoman: thank you. we're not looking for a presentation today. in the interest of time, i would like to take brian up on his offer to address this between now and the next meeting.

but thank you, guys, for doing this and for getting into the weeds on this one. do any other members have any questions or comments? >> so the next liason report, are you expecting to have the bond manager have a presentation? >> chairman: yeah, it's in the march timeframe. >> all right. >> but, again, you would have two different types of events for each bond program. one would be a formal presentation of the type that you saw for public health. >> uh-huh. >> and one would be a lie yeas son report, with content of the type that came from mr. larkin and ms. mcnullty. you can have the bond program manager attend the meeting so they could answer any questions that

came up or comment on your meeting, but not a formal presentation. >> so that formal presentation in is march, and it includes the second bond, the 2011road repaving. and if you look at this long sheet in our package, there is only $10 million unspent out of $250 million. >> could i just have it on record, because the item actually calls for a liason report on that repaving bond. on a housekeeping issue, that there is currently no liason on that bond. >> yes. >> that's why there is no liason report. but i think that chair chu has indicated very clearly that this is essentially spent, and i think that it's safe to forego a

liason report really pending a closeout procedure for this bond. >> chairman: that's what i was getting at. thank you. >> good. >> chairman: any other comments? >> just a question for peg. the format will allow us then, after my followup, to clear up or close out the items that i brought up at our next meeting? >> chairman: sure, we can add it to the next committee agenda meeting. >> it shen shouldn't take more than 10 minutes. >> chairman: thank you. public comment? >> good morning, my name is jerry dratler. i think the new presentation format is a very good idea. i suggest the second presentation format be more formalized with specific required content, like change order report,

current budget versus original budget, expected variance from original budget, and a statement by the liason. i ask for your level of comfort whether the project will remain on budget. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. just so we have an agenda item that might be appropriate for mr. dratler's comments later on. so this would be appropriate. call the next item. >> item seven, presentation from the city service auditor regarding the 2015 affordable housing bond expenditure audit report and possible action in response to such presentation. >> good morning, chair, vice chair, committee members. mark delarosa.

today we will give you a very quick overview of the results of our audit of the 2015 affordable housing bond. we specifically looked at the expenditures ensuring that the bond funds are actually expended per the bond measure. i'm joined today by simon wattsworth from construction management, which sa firm that has been helping us in completing all of these expenditure audits. very quickly, i'll give you a background. we started this audit program back in 2015. in 2016 was the first time we actually completed one of the audits that we have before you. so far we have completed eight. the affordable bond one is the last one we issued back in july. as you know, this is a very focused audit. it is really a compliance audit to ensure that the bond funds that we

reviewed were actually in compliance with the bond measure, and that there were no administrative or overhead costs that were expended that are prohibited by the bond measure. i'll actually turn it over to simon, who will give you a very brief overview of this, since this is the first time many of you are probably hearing from us, as well as the results for audit. >> good morning. i'm sim mo simon wattsworth. as mark mentioned, we have completed eight audits. similar bonds, we've completed bond audits for the l.a. community college district, unified school district, as well as numerous construction orders for private owners and developers.

we'll quickly move on. so the audit scope, we looked at expenditures for the program through june 30th, 2018. the expenditures for bonds totalled $54.4 million, and the total expenditure was $7.5 million, for a total of $61.9million that was expended against the bond. we tested approximately 75% of that value, which was 46.3. 4.3 million for bond sale. which was 57 particulars. 557%.we wanted to make sure that the first test covered there was no operating or government or overhead expenditures billed against the bond, and that they were under the legal setting of the bond. we collected various documents to review, such as change orders,

construction contracts, reimbursement requests, and also below market rate, review and analysis rate, which looks at loans given and down payment assistance. in review of all of the expenditures we got, 99% of it tested as approved and were in accordance with the bond measure. we did find unauthorized expenditures of $269.4 million. the 269 is broken into two separate findings. finding weren't wha of what we d as overhead expenditures. $60,000 was spend on relocations. they were agreed and

reviewed with the city attorney. the second finding, totaling $75,615 was for expenditures that were outside of the bond requirement. the bond was specific that there couldn't be any expenditures before the 60 days. so these were expenditures that were prior to the september 4th cutoff date, 2015. these findings were reviewed with m.r.h.c.d., and were agreed upon. as a result we came up with two recommendations. one is that they should establish training with approvals, that have notable funding. and they should have established pre-bond reimbursement guidelines for ap improvement procedures. they have committed to implementing these recommendations by october 31st. >> chairman >> just to quickly note,

benjamin mccloski is here to answer any questions that you have. i just wanted to reiterate how much we are grateful and thankful for the department for their collaboration and cooperation in providing us with the information. i know that part of this is really the implementation of the recommendations, and i know they have been working diligently with their staff, as well as with the city attorney, in terms of ensuring they provide the right tools for their project managers and staff moving forward, given that we have other affordable housing bonds before us. as simon mentioned, we are completing our 2016 public health audit, and hopefully we will have that in the next couple of months, so that it is ready for your january meeting. and we're available to answer any questions that you have. >> chairman: questions? >> not really a question.

i'm a liason, and i just wanted to thank you for the work on this. i didn't have a ton of time to followup on this, but i did read through everything. i think these are sound recommendations, and i'm happy to see that it doesn't seem like there is a lot of extreme findings, and m.r.i.c.d. is going to move forward with the recommendations. i think this was a good report, and i just want to thank everybody for their work on that. >> thank you, simon, for walking us through that. i started my professional life as a public account tantaccountant, so i may understand some of the audit methodology. but i think it would be helpful if you could just explain a little to my fellow members, in your audit methodology, you tested 75%.

so, for example, how -- did you discuss it a little bit, some of the considerations that you had in your mind before you decided on why 75% or not why 65? is it a function of the fact that these have never been audited? is it a function of the fact of the dollar amountsieamountsize? i think it would be helpful to get an understanding of how you selected those statistics to be audited. >> the 75% is something we came up from the full download of expenditures that we got. we typically look through every one of those expenditures to see what is -- to see what those items are and what the descriptions are. that's how we come up with that. if we see potential red flags in the description, that's our sample. we then review that sample with the controller's office which pretty much sets that 75%.

it is not a standard thing. some projects we've done have been 90%, and some have been less than that. it just depends on the expenditures and what we see in the report. >> thank you. >> chairman: yeah. i'm thrilled with this information, and particularly at this level. thank you. it is really helpful. and understanding the process better is actually really helpful. but since you've got a wealth of experience at other institutions, can i ask a couple of questions about that? >> yes. >> chairman: what are common findings that you see in other bond programs in other cities? and what should we be looking for? >> i think we tailored this more to what you're looking for. i think the overhead is always a key one that gets put through on the bonds. that was the majority of the findings in this one. so that's really kind of what we looked and focused on. it is similar to other

bonds. we see similar findings. >> chairman: can you explain what overhead is? >> um...is there a definition? sorry. >> yes. so we basically used the definition that is in the bond language itself. so basically anything that is -- that's salaries for regular staff for the department that are overseeing the bond, is part of the overhead. and anything that is general administrative-type of costs that are not necessarily or directly related to the administration of the bond. what we have found in completing eight audits so far is that departments are very diligent in terms of ensuring that the folks that are actually working on those bond funds, that those bond programs are actually dedicated to them, so there is no mixing of the regular

day-to-day operational stuff that departments are tasked with, on top of the ones that are specific to the bond. so that's generally how we defined it. >> chairman: any other questions or comments? thank you. is there any public comment? >> hi, i'm jerry dratler. i think it is laudable the progress that seago has made in terms of retaining an outside firm to do audibondexpenditure audits. they have been around since 2002, and we're finally getting to it. that's not very good. i would like to see the report include a summary of total bond costs, broken down into what are called hard costs, and

commissioner larkin can explain that in soft costs, which are architects, consultants, and project management. and hard costs should be broken down to include change orders and other meaningful subcategories. as you can see from the bond expenditure audit, soft costs are an area for potential abuse, as confirmed by the firm representative. and city departments benefit when they're able to shift items out of their operating budget into the capital expenditure. so that requires a little higher level of oversight. thank you. >> chairman: this is our audit, so if there is any thing you what like to see, now is the time. call the next item. >> item number eight, opportunity for community members to comment or take action on any matters

within the committee's jurisdiction. one is 2019to 2020 seago initiative. two, other committee business, seago fiscal year 2018 to 2019 report. "b," 2019 to 2020 draft port plan. >> i and your staff person will speak on these y'alls, but beforitems,but befor chu, do you want to speak on these items or should i just go ahead? >> chairman: i have some comments on the second two at the bottom. so the standardized templates, i think we've agreed that we're going to -- this is something we've been thinking about working on for a long time, and we haven't.

and peg is now going to staff someone on this from her department. i'm happy to take that on, if anybody else has any interest, please let me know. and certainly we need to get the public included in that. that's where we're at with that one. >> and then the expenditures audit, we have the calendar that is in your work plan that reflects when the audit department expects to issue the construction expenditure audit, the work that cummings is doing. we'll have them on your agenda as soon as they become available. public finance, upcoming bond issues, anna vendegna is here, who is the head of our office of public finance. she provides a memo, which is something you've had with your forward debt calendar, and tells you what upcoming bond issues are. i'll ask her to comment or see if you had any

questions on that item. >> chairman: thank you. peg. >> so we are currently working on a few general obligation bond issues. the next two that we see coming in the coming months here or the 2019 sea bonds for clean and safe neighborhood parks in the amount of $2.1 million, and about $93million worth of bonds for affordable housing. after that, additional influences that are planned are for the sea wall and public health and potentially transportation, as well, following that. i'd be happy to answer any questions on our schedule. >> chairman: so what, generally, is spring 2020? what month? >> it's -- the exact schedule is still t.b.d., but could be around march.

>> chairman: my only concern with that is that we're not in our march meeting hearing about transportation bonds, and theoretically in march, that they're going out for 150, so i'm not sure how to solve that. do you think it will happen? it says t.b.d. >> it is t.b.d., and mr. letty is here and could probably add additional on the schedule, but we can certainly wait until after the march meeting -- >> are you running out of money? >> chairman: good question. >> so our -- the only thing that we can really do if a bond is going off the rails is to stop a bond issuance. i don't know if you can say that better than i can, but that's -- what i would like to know before something is issued, is if we feel comfortable where it is? i've got no concerns,

actually. i'm just trying to line it up so that we actually get as much information before it goes out. and $150 million, as you can see with the other ones, there must be something upcoming that you need $150 million in one issuance. >> yeah. we work with the project managers to see what their expenditure needs are that they forecast. and before we finally size and prepare the issuance of the bond, we have to make sure that they have a reasonable plan of expenditure for those funds within three years. that's our standard practice. so -- we also attempt to try to group the bond sales together with multiple programs issuing. for example, the upcoming sale that director vandegna mentioned was for affordable housing and clean and safe neighborhood parks and the goal is to group them together to minimize the cost of issuance, and to

get multiple programs resofd. resolved. typically i'll reach out to the program managers when we know there is a bond broken, and try to see if there are other programs that also have needs. the plan would be to reach out and validate that. >> chairman: i get the process.

-- that's an estimated amount and we find the issuance amount further based on the projected expenditure schedule. and that's a bookmarked amount that i assume would be needed and so we'll get that further.

>> chairman: good. sounds good. >> so that was item c, the bond issuances. and item d, public reception survey, again, for a couple new members, you might recall that during the last fiscal year we worked with you and for you on a survey to test the public knowledge of and the approval for and the impressions of two built bond projects. one parks bond project and one street improvement bond project. and we had a lot of good learning out of that and i think that it's a really positive experience for you and for our team and the conversation was to do another public perception survey of that same type during fiscal year 2019-2020. i think that at your last meeting or the one before you agreed that you'd like to do that test on housing -- subject to the housing bond.

and the -- the user population, the voter population, the way that those bonds were pitched to the public is different than parks or streets. so what we're doing right now is taking some time to understand those dynamics of how those bonds were presented and think what type of questions we'd be asking, what user groups we would be testing. how you would test citizen and voter understanding of it since it's not as strong a public perception probably as either a park or a street use. and so we're hoping -- if we can bring a choice to you before your next meeting and i could do it through the liaison or through the chair, then we might do that. but if we -- at the latest we would bring you options at your next meeting. so we would choose a couple of built projects from the affordable housing bond and bring them to you for discussion and choice about which one you'd

like to survey on and you could discuss the merits of the different approaches and the choices at your next meeting. that's where i hope to be. and, again, the way we do this is we write a scope of work, we issue it to a pool of providers that we have who are experts in public opinion testing and surveying of a couple of different kinds and let them respond to us, giving us their expertise with sample size, approach, what tools they would use. we'd develop a small contract. they do the work. they deliver us and we help them with analyticals and a report. >> i would think that the -- that the population would track, based on the bond, the -- the areas, low-income and middle-income housing, you know, those broad categories that we allocated those dollars to from the total bond. i'm just thinking out loud.

>> okay. um, if there's no other comments on that i'll move on to the next item. so other committee business, a, 2-6r7b a is your annual report. and so this is a report that is issued from the committee that speaks to the work that you completed during fiscal year 2018-2019. you've received a draft and i have submissions from several of you as bond liaisons or program liaisons. content was drafted from my staff to reflect some of your other work. the survey report we just mentioned, the update to your website. you had a draft of this in your packet for your review. there's a couple of pieces that still need to be corrected, and i'll just list them out loud. the road repaving and street safety -- sorry, road repaving and bond and the transportation bond, and the text in your draft is still the last year's text. so we need an updated paragraph

on that. and the text on public safety is still last year's text. since there isn't a current liaison assignment, to that we could just draft a couple bullet points based on the content that was presented to you during the year and leave it at that. that's one suggestion. >> which one are talking about? >> the public health. >> the 2016? i think that i provided that. >> did you update that one? >> yeah, yeah, i didn't change that a lot. >> okay. i'll check again. >> okay, if not, i can make something work. >> okay. and then, lastly, member mcnuty had sent me an updated text on the whistleblower program which i neglected to include, i'm sorry about that. so i'll have to switch out with

the updated text. and there's a couple items, just line items, that we wanted to put the total amount of bond expenditures under oversight and you have to confirm that number. and there's a couple of links that need to be added. and then, of course, any comments or reflections that you have from your review on it that you want us to change or update, content that you'd like to add, edits, please feel free to give me those now and we will work to finalize this report in the next couple weeks. >> so the draft is completed, but i just want -- given what i have heard today to make a few changes and i'll have it to you by the end of the week. >> okay. >> okay, just an editorial comment in the -- in the page that is behind the cover page, when you're listing the

committee members, miss mckew is listed twice. >> i also know that there's a place where the fob font changeo it needs to be proofed and, you know, fixed in that way. >> chairman: any other member comments? >> no. i followed up and i spotted a couple typos in my own report that i just want to clear up with you. >> great. >> thank you for your diligence and the text that you provided is really helpful and interesting. >> so it sounds like, kevin, can you do -- or brian, sorry -- can you do the (indiscernible) -- the paragraph on the road repaving? >> repaving? >> the 2014. >> of course. >> okay. thank you. he's assigned that.

and peg will do the whistleblower program and general edits. and then we're done. so we can do one of two things. we can either make those edits and bring it back here and then vote on it. but can we vote today, assuming that those five changes -- or four changes are going to be made? >> clerk: absolutely. absolutely. you can -- >> chairman: i don't want to force anyone into anything. >> clerk: you can direct the staff to make these changes and then approve it out. >> chairman: okay. you guys feel comfortable voting that today? >> i don't. i think we should see the final report before we approve it. i'd rather see the final -- >> chairman: okay. okay. >> i don't know if the suggestion was that you delegate that, if that's possible, to somebody on the committee. so that it doesn't have to come

back to the full committee. is that the idea? >> chairman: would you be comfortable with that? >> i would not. i would like all members to read the final report before it goes public and to approve it. i'm sorry, that's a public document. and, you know, some of us still have to get our reports in and, you know, peg has some things she needs to do. can we cannot approve it at the october meeting? >> chairman: that's fine, it's completely up to you. >> yeah, i'm looking to the chair as the punish who would give it the final read. but that we're only really see something that the chair and the staff feel is pristine and ready to go but i'm not comfortable having to go public until we all read it. >> chairman: all right. so we will do that. >> if i haven't received the content that i am promised i'll shoot you a reminder -- >> whatever you need. >> the second friday in september at the absolute latest. >> great. >> chairman: thank you. >> okay. so -- and again this is to

remind folks that we attached this report, our long report, which is on 18 months bond expenditures which has full information and scope and budget and schedule on all of the programs. so members of the public who are looking to review this subject matter would have, you know, your report in the front and then the long text at the back which is all of the details. >> chairman: i'm sorry, can you say that again? >> we include our report as an attachment to yours. >> chairman: yes, yes. >> 2b, your draft work plans. so also including in your packet is the draft work plan that we discussed at the last couple of meetings. and, again, just to remind folks, we set up a calendar of five meetings during the fiscal year and we set up to have a formal bond program presentation at one meeting and then in the opposite as much as possible six-month mark to that meeting you would have a liaison report

on that same bond. so that's the way that the schedule is set up. and we slotted in the whistleblower program twice. the c.s.a. program twice. the city capital plan at your march meeting. and so, again, the floor is open or chair chu or vice chair post might have conditions reflecting on the things that have been presented in the last couple months, suggestions that you would like to make on this. >> i do. i'd like to add the liaison report to the may calendar. presuming that this calendar will be adopted annually, this will be the set schedule. that's not on here at all. it needs to go on -- >> yes. >> i propose not voting on this with the set schedule because it tends to -- for planning. >> that's where it belongs, right. >> and i'd also like to request specific meeting days, if it's the third or the fourth monday of the months listed on the

back, august, october, i would like a set day of the third or fourth monday. >> yes, they have been scheduled and the room reservations have been made, right, mary? >> that's correct. it was made based on five meetings. >> right now, do you have them at your fingertips? >> yeah, if i can have mary read out the dates. >> so we have october 21st, january 27th, march 16th, and may 18th. >> thank you. >> i have a question about the whistleblower scheduling. it looks like there's the program reports and the liaison reports for both dates. are we just doing liaison reports on one or both? >> i think that the process that peg laid out was for bonds. >> okay. >> we have -- the whistleblower is so important to us that i wanted to have it on there twice

if that's okay? >> oh, yeah, sure. >> it's such a rare opportunity for someone to have governance over that particular program. >> (indiscernible). >> october 21st. >> we'll make sure that you guys get the invitation as well. >> so regarding the work plan, a couple of housekeeping things. peter is going to take on the capital plan. so we are going to have the liaison for the capital plan. and peter an will transition the whistleblower program from brenda which was very important. we still don't have anyone for the 2011 road paving. again, i'm not too concerned about that because everything has been spent, or almost everything. and then all we have left is the

park bond. iis anyone willing to meet with the park bond people between now and october? because they really are the meat of our october meeting. anyone? anyone? anyone? okay, thank you. and i also see the seawall in our next meeting and the seawall -- can you explain the status of the seawall? >> ann might know more than i do. i'm not much in the meetings on this so if i could ask her to tell us what she knows about the status. >> the seawall bond has been delayed temporarily due to litigation. >> you kind of drifted off there -- location? >> litigation. >> litigation. >> so it hasn't been issued, right? >> correct. >> it hasn't been issued and so the projects can't start. >> correct.

>> how much notice will we have in the issuance -- it takes a few months to get this stuff going, right, after the litigation is over? >> exactly, yes. >> so we'll know, we'll know that it's coming. awesome. and then, finally, one other housekeeping question -- and this is if you guys are comfortable -- our packets include for every bond two things, like the short one that's presented to us and then the big report. are you guys comfortable with that going out as a link and not being printed for us? but i have to say that brenda did reference it today and so it obviously was useful to have this in the packet. >> oh, a hard copy versus electronic? >> yes, thank you. >> it's useful to me as i look at the presentation charts, is

there something that i would like to see in more detail, and then i go to the quarterly reports. but, peg, tell us -- i thought that most of these departments issue quarterly reports anyway. so they're not specifically doing it for this? >> i think they do. i'm not 100% sure on that. we need to check on the standard oversight reporting of each bond program. but many, if not most of them, do something for commission, for example. and so our thought here, again is that rather than to include a hard copy of every report we'd give you a link and you could review it, save paper, you know, on everybody's end. certainly, as a practical matter at your meeting we could have a hard copy of the latest report if one was wanted. >> i think that in the distribution packet, i think that mary at least reached out to me to ask if i would prefer a link or a report and i said i

wanted a printed report. so you could still have other committee members who would not prefer the printed copy to get the link so they can go and to read the detailed quarterly reports. >> is that too much work for staff? i'd like to suggest then that we all have electronic copies of the report and only have the staff to print and prepare the shorter summaries. would it really be an inconvenience for us on our computers to refer to the electronic copies? not saying that we don't want the quarterly reports, the thick ones, with all of the detail. but i think that the electronic copy is sufficient. >> i don't think that is a matter that we need to vote on. so, mary, can you just take this under advisement when you put these things together? >> and our materials are posted online and i do plan to eventually, if it's comfortable, to move some that are not printed basically. we're trying to save paper. and so if there's a way that

folks are comfortable with using some electronic version, that would be helpful in the production world. >> chairman: great. awesome. >> that's all for the other committee business. >> chairman: any further comments? members? wow. meeting adjourned. >> we made it. >> chairman: are we adjourned? >> yes. >> okay, thanks. (♪)

>> san francisco and oakland are challenging each other in a battle for the bay. >> two cities. >> one bay. >> san francisco versus oakland. are you ready to get in on the action? >> i'm london breed. >> and i am oakland mayor libby schaff. >> who will have the cleanest city? >> we will protect our bay by making our neighborhoods shine. >> join us on september 21st as a battle for the bay. >> which city has more volunteer spirit? which city can clean more neighborhoods? the city with the most volunteers wins. sign-up to be a bay protector

and a neighborhood cleaner. go to battle fofofofofofofofofoo