The board debated the merits and potential pitfalls of releasing up to $750,000 for the first application cycle of the Equitable Emissions Investment Fund (EIF) as a grant agreement. This approach was considered to allow time for learning and identifying potential gaps in the funding. The proposed timeline for the application cycle was suggested to be in June or July, which would align with other upcoming deadlines related to compliance plans.

A significant portion of the discussion revolved around the effectiveness and efficiency of the two funding options. There was concern over the long-term availability of funds and the need for a procurement process in the future. The potential impact of the grant agreement approach was weighed against the implications of providing funding to a nonprofit to bolster existing programming. Board members expressed differing views on whether the allocated $3.5 million would sufficiently address the decarbonization needs of the city’s buildings.

The board also considered the potential costs and oversight associated with each option, including the differential in costs for hiring a nonprofit versus a private firm. Questions were raised about the level of oversight and accountability under the grant agreement approach if the services were subcontracted. The possibility of selecting a vendor for the project with a preference for supporting a Boston-based business was also discussed.

Another topic was the EIF application process and the board’s desire to keep it open for at least 30 days to ensure adequate participation. The estimated timeline for the city procurement process, which would take about three months, was mentioned should the board pursue contracting with a service provider. The board deliberated on establishing an application process for interested parties and how to vote on the projects that receive the services.

Board members raised concerns regarding the capacity of nonprofit organizations to handle the decarbonization work and the availability of suitable nonprofit entities to carry out the necessary tasks. The discussion touched on the residency requirement for potential vendors, with disappointment expressed over the absence of such a requirement.

Administrative updates were provided during the meeting, including the nomination of a new board member, the approval of updated regulations by the Air Pollution Control Commission, and the contract timeline with RDH Building Science. The possibility of moving or canceling the next meeting due to Memorial Day was also mentioned.

Additionally, the board acknowledged the updates made to the application based on feedback from potential applicants. Changes included format revisions, separation of short-term and long-term applications, an eligibility checklist, clarifying instructions, and a case summary section. The updated application was made available on the board’s website, and communication plans to disseminate the updates were outlined. Deadlines for the submission of long-term and short-term applications were set for July 1st and October 1st, respectively