welcome everyone um this is the um uh Berto review board hearing um we just started recording this meeting so if you would like to stay off the recording please stay on mute and turn your camera off um so good afternoon my name is Hannah Payne I'm the director of carbon neutrality in the city of Boston's environment Department um the review board does not currently have an appointed chair so I will lead the board in a vote for an acting chair does anybody want to make a nomination for an acting chair I nominate sorry I'll second that great I will now lead uh the board in a vote um so how do you vote for the motion to nominate board member Matt sua to serve as acting chair uh board member Boyd in favor um I'm just trying to see do we have uh board member coleta councelor Keta are you on maybe not yet I am it's good to be with you thank you uh thank you for joining uh how do you vote um to uh on the motion to nominate Ward member matsua as acting chair um I agree yes great board member Ellis is not here board member Jacobs in favor board member Latimore I uh board member Matt sua favor uh board member Nelson I board member om Ali I wonderful so the eyes have it and I will now hand the uh meeting over to acting chair Matt sua right thanks Santa and Good afternoon everyone um happy solar eclipse day um I'm calling this public hearing to order at 4:37 p.m. uh in accordance with the building emissions reduction uh and disclosure ordinance regulations adopted pursuant to the building emissions reduction and disclosure ordinance Boston city code ordinances section 72.2 the Berto review board uh will hold a virtual public hearing at 4:30 p.m. on April 8th to review the following Topics in regard the reduction of greenhouse gases from the building energy production and consum consumption so as to promote the Public Health and Welfare of Boston residence uh in accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts executive order suspending certain Provisions uh of the open meeting law we are conducting this public meeting online uh to ensure public access to the deliberations of the Berto review board the public May access this call through telephone and video conferencing uh members of the public will have an opportunity to ask questions and provide public comment to do so please uh raise your hand or type in the chat in the application via the zoom meeting platform uh if you are calling in and cannot use the platform you can raise your hand by pressing star9 you can also send your questions to staff via email at Berto review boardall onword boston.gov um so for the record I am Lee matua acting chair of the board I'll now conduct a roll call board members um so board members please uh just say your name in the order that they appear on the slide rashita Boyd Gabriella Keta levette Jacobs lore liat Jack Nelson Matt Ali great and welcome uh counselor Keta great to have you have you join us um uh we'll have our our staff join now introduce themselves yeah good afternoon Hannah Payne director of carbon neutrality in the city of Boston's environment Department good afternoon I am ziki chin I'm the new BTO review boort assistant I'm a recent graduate of BC and I just came over from beia Technical Solutions nice to meet you awesome fantastic welcome welcome Ziggy great to have you um so we're going to put up on the slide the agenda for today's meeting um as we typically do we start with the approval of meeting minutes um uh the environment staff will then present some updates on the Equitable emission investment emissions investment fund excuse me and then we'll get some administrative updates and adjourn so um let's move to our first agenda item please um so first on the agenda is to approve our previous meeting minutes from March 11th um before we take a vote are there any just questions or comments regarding the meeting minutes okay hearing none um is there a motion to approve the minutes motion to approve I thanks liette for a second uh so for all the uh board members in favor you can say I or or raise your hand I I are there any board members that uh abstain okay any uh board members uh oppos you can say nay all right I think the eyes have it um so we'll make sure that those uh notes from the last meeting are made publicly available on the website and uh we'll move on to our second agenda item uh so now uh we're going to uh hear from the environment Department they're going to provide an update on some of the public feedback um on the fund and we'll also get some updates regarding um you know some of the the limitations of having having like seated funding from the operated budget right I think we've talked about this in the past about where some of these resources are coming from and there have been some questions so really appreciate the team kind of looking into it and um I think we'll start with you Hannah great thank you and apologies and Advance with how I'm sharing my screen my slides are over here so apologies for the weird eye contact uh so just a quick update on the um Equitable admissions investment fund um eval project evaluation form um we have shared out the uh draft project evaluation form that the board has reviewed um as well as proposed application outlin and we are um and we have a survey up about the acual emissions investment fund where we're collecting feedback um we've shared these items with uh in a number of spaces um we've shared them with our various newsletters in the environment Department the Berto newsletter the review board newsletter and our large environment Department newsletter we've shared them with all of the review board members members of our community Advisory Group which advised on the um Berto regulations process um and our commercial real estate working group um so uh we are accepting feedback until Friday April 12th so that is this Friday um and so far we've received five responses to the survey um so hoping to get some more by the end of the week on that um so as we have shared with the board previously um the initial seating of the Equitable emissions investment fund has been made with operating dollars from the city budget um future investments in the equital missions investment fund will be coming from alternative compliance payments and the rules on how we can spend that money are different than when we're looking at City operating funds um because City operating funds come from taxpayers so there are a few different requirements that we have to be aware of and in how we're looking at expend our ability to expend These funds so two uh two laws to be aware of when we're looking at how the city can spend operating dollars um the first is Massachusetts anti-a Amendment um so this stipulates that expenditures of taxpayer funds must Advance a public interest um and has restrictions on how funds can be spent um on public entities sorry private entities it has to be for a public interest um then uh mgl 30b which is about procurement and how we can procure things from the city um dictates that local public funds distributed via a grant agreement must go to nonprofit organizations so um I'll get into these in a little bit more detail but these are kind of the some of the parameters that we have to look at when we are looking at being able to spend the operating funds which is what we have for this first application cycle for the equital emissions investment fund um the uh fund is a public benef has a public benefit so that is good in terms of being able to clear the first hurdle for the anti-a amend Amendment um so the money in the fund sh uh shall be expended for the support implementation and administration of local building carbon abatement projects that Aid the city of Boston in reaching its carbon neutrality goals and help improve air quality for the residents across the city so this is a clear public benefit of the Equitable emissions investment fund but there are some other things that we need to keep in mind to um stay within the bounds of the anti-a amendment so we have in talking to our um Law Department and procurement team we've identified two options for how we could um disperse funds from the Equitable emissions Investments fund this cycle the first option would be to have a uh a Grant application so we would have a grant agreement um and this would be available to nonprofit organizations that provide Building decarbonization Services so those are the entities that could apply for um grant funding from the fund um this would be in this context the review board would open a application cycle where only nonprofits um that provide these Services could um apply and receive the money so really the idea of these kind of Grant funds or grant opportunities is to fund nonprofits in expanding the work that they're already doing in community that provide a uh a benefit um they would this nonprofit could not receive the money for their own buildings that's kind of a restriction that we've we've we've come to learn um so they'd have to be doing this work in in buildings in Boston um some of the positives of this would be um that any building owner could be eligible to receive the services from the nonprofit um the nonprofit could limit those services in some way um but in general it could be eligible the end recipient of these Services could be private owners nonprofit owners um and condo owners um really there's no restrictions there um and the services could be all all-encompassing so they could provide uh scoping planning engineering design and implementation and construction dollars um the cons would be that um the pool of potential direct applicants would be quite limited because the people the entities that could apply directly to uh be the to receive the grant would have to be a nonprofit doing this work um and then the second piece that could be a con would be to that the um review board would have less say in the end recipients so the review board would select the entity to to Grant the money to that would be the nonprofit doing these services but then the nonprofit would go into the community and and do this work and find the building owners to work with the review board wouldn't necessarily be selecting those end building owners um we could add conditions to the grant such as subrecipients who would need uh would need to uh sorry we could add conditions to the grant such as that this the uh subrecipients or the people the nonprofit is working with would have to be located in environmental justice communities um or other uh considerations that the review board would take on but um we wouldn't necessarily be able to say we you know the board wouldn't be able to say we want to support building a but not Building B um you'd have to write uh rules for the the grant agreement uh that would kind of cover the broad categories that you'd want to support option two um is a we would go through a city procurement process um and so this would be the uh City and would go through a request for proposal process or an RFP um so that would be a contract between the city and vendors to provide services as scoped by the review board um this would be um so in this case the review board the environment Department would secure a contract with a vendor this could be a private or nonprofit vendor that provides decarbonization services um with a stipulation that recipients of the services meet the review board standards and criteria set out for who should receive those end services from this contract um in this case the review board would have more control over the uh who the recipients of the services are so you could have more say over the review board is actually going to select the buildings that can get these services from the vendor providing them the uh downside of this option is that it can only be used for scoping planning designing or engineering it it cannot be used for actual construction projects in buildings that's kind of where we uh start to run into anti- a Amendment challenges um so I know there's a lot here these are kind of the two options that we have um scoped out and before jump to Q&A I'll just say that I think that you know this is we are we are hopeful that like this money can be used for a lot of really good building decarbonization work that advances the goals of the um the Equitable emissions investment fund and I think either of these options could work well and the and I think we could do one or both of them to try you know try out a few different things but really want to hear from you all in terms of if there are some things that you would really like to see prioritized in this first round of funding um and I would also just like to say that there are a few other funding sources and um initiatives in place so just for your own awareness of other things kind of in the mix um one is the city of Boston our team received uh uh just under 660 ,000 for the Equitable emiss NOP that sorry wrong acronym the Energy Efficiency conservation block grant um which we'll be using to help Berto buildings develop zero overtime plans and their decarbonization strategy so kind of really high level planning for the most part for that um the mayor's office of housing has um programs specifically for affordable housing both for um decarbonization planning and then also implementation money um they've had that's through the through arpa funding um then Massachusetts clean energy center has what they're calling the beta program um and they are also have uh are supporting decarbonization um studies for different building types in Massachusetts um so there are some things in this space already but I there is definitely a need for more um but just wanted to share those as kind of some other things that are in the mix and we could definitely look to for examples from the the scoping um and and design and planning side of things so I that is what I had to present I know you probably have a lot of questions on that so happy to uh take take questions from the board all right thanks thanks for all of that Hannah um so I think we'll just uh go down the list um Council Keta often what we do is I just go down our our list of board members and we'll ask folks if you have any questions or comments you'd like to make um often we'll have time you know maybe to to come Circle back if need be and then always want to make sure we have uh time for public comments as well so I'm just gonna in this case just go down uh the list starting with uh board member Boyd and then we'll make our way down the list and uh and then see if anyone needs any more time after that so uh yeah board member Boyd any uh comments or questions that you have um on this topic around the Equitable Miss missions fund priorities just questions about everything that the options that kind of hand hand off um no not right now I just want to I want to read it to see just want to read the details so I can know what we can do and what we can't do when it comes to this have to look into a littleit um how about uh you councelor kto we'll go to you next thank you so much chair and I just want to thank everybody so much for their work already it's an honor to be here in my capacity as chair of environmental justice rilian San Parks uh committee and I want to thank the team for your work on this we are a model municipality when it comes to these organizations so just kudos to to what you're doing and it's um implementation or ramp up to implementation implementation stages um my first question when I saw option one was how many nonprofits uh provide this work I I just don't know um and I'm leaning towards that option just because I see the value in any economic investment in community based nonprofits uh that will go beyond these decarbonization efforts although I don't know how many there are what their staff capacity is um I am always a a fan of um investing in in these sort of organizations rather than going sort of the the private route but I just would love to know more of um how many orgs do we know of that that does this work and I really look forward to the conversation too I'm happy to be here and still getting educated on everything yeah thanks for that question um counselor I we do not know how many um nonprofits there are doing this um in the area I think it would be a quite limited number um but we were just been focused on trying to get the like understand the parameters of what we can do um but we can try to we can try to find out um do some research to understand that um certainly would be an estimate unless we went forward with doing like an RFI a request for information of some sort but that could prolong then doing the um Grant uh application so um we can we can try to do a little bit of digging and and bring that back to the board so but Hannah that would be for for nonprofits who are doing engineering and um zero overtime type plans putting plans together or doing implementation of energy conservation measures or electrification projects correct correct um I think there could be some that are doing uh Workforce training in the space as well as long as they're doing actual projects because they do have to be building decarbonization projects there's at least one that I know of I think there may be more um but there are not that many that is definitely a constraint wow yeah I I don't know of one yeah wow that's that's gonna be a challenge good question oh go on sorry rash go ahead and just before we go on I think there's a request um from the chat can we just pull back up option one so just everyone can see we're talking about it and then uh please boy go ahead no the company I work for like like new ecology they do they verify they have ratings and stuff but it's only one company like you said it's a lot of work out there and it's a nonprofit he call you right downtown and they do all verifying the engineers they do everything you know they they they do everything but it's one company and and there's not a lot of Raiders and people are so I I might look into it and see if I can find some other companies but because I know it's we're about to be swamped in this area so all right that's all I wanted to say yeah thanks Council boy um Council lore do you have a comment specific to this because I think it's fine if you want to do that and then we'll continue with the list yes just real quick I agree with um uh board member um Boyd about new ecology um but I do know there are other organizations that may not do Soup To Nuts but that um are used to and there are nonprofits that are focused on and um energy and decarbonization that while they may not directly have all the suite of services have likely will have the ability to subcontract so that's a question about how that might work with the city's you know um rules you know for this you know can they actually subcontract I think about the lisks Lisk local initial support operations I think about resonant energy perhaps I think about Allin Energy power options I think they're all if I'm not mistaken they're all nonprofits new ecology is an excellent example um so that's that's what I wanted to add to the discussion thank you board member lad um I'm gonna go to board member Elis is not with us so board member Jacobs hello everybody good afternoon um thank you to the board members for you know always putting together these slides and keeping us up to speed if we could go to uh slide number eight apologies I don't have the number is this the correct slide okay I'm sorry so slide number eight says um updates and discussions it is option one option one great uh where it talks about the um the pros and the cons um I guess I'm leaning more towards uh I don't know I think that's probably like one of the Diplomatic things about me I just I'm for it but I guess I want to know um our like what is the proposal for us to decide like percentage wise on how that split for the funds is going to happen I remember it was about maybe a meeting or two ago where we were uh you know really honing in on how um some of the some of the uh less fortunate smaller tenant like tenants that own buildings they're going to need funding for the um the scoping in and planning so I wanted to know like what's the implementations like how are we're going to go about dividing up those funds because why I do feel like the nonprofit organizations obviously they need it as well but I'm I'm still like reverting back to that that percentage wise because I don't want it to be where like you know there's a nonprofit organization that's just substantially large and you know they take up a nice portion of funding versus us being able to divide it amongst you know I don't know possibly five maybe six smaller entities so that's what I have a question I I'm not even sure if I worded the question right but that's my concern is what I should say so yeah so I I I don't know if this is answering your question concern fully but I think we could the board could start with issuing a grant like to request or a grant opportunity and see what comes in and and then decide if you you know if you do want to move forward with a um Grant option option one to start like and then seeing like what sort of interest there is and who they're serving and could also then look at doing you know at a later date this is just proposal could go either way um a r P that would be the like procuring a vendor um and and delivering really Direct Services so for contacts that's what we'll be doing with um the um with our eecbg money um and we've done with some other uh procurements that the Berto team has done has been uh doing like a procurement process where the city selects a vendor and then that vendor is then serving Berto buildings um but there is definitely um and then the other piece I would say is around the uh total $3 million I would think we uh it may be it may be a smart idea to not release all of that right now um and and do a smaller portion now so that you can then learn from it and then uh uh board member Jacobs to your point around saving some for kind of future buildings that may not be as on top of it may not know about funding now to be able to take advantage of that as well in the future so there are there are many ways to kind of break this up and a lot of different options that could be considered okay yeah thanks you did a great job of answering my question sorry it was a little all over the place there was a lot going through my head at once right thank you board member Jacobs um I thought it was very clear so I'm following you um board member Latimore Let's go back to you any just other questions or comments you have yes thank you so you know I I think um option one is is for me probably the the more comprehensive one in terms of the ability to do a range of things a range of uses of the funds I am concerned however about um even though I know there are different nonprofits um that may be able to serve in the capacity to do this to act as kind of administr administrator of the fund I'm concerned that it's such a small pot to begin with at least and so I want to and then paying for someone to do it you know takes away from the C you know that's already small pot and it probably be a be a relatively significant portion of the three million so that's one issue and and but before I give a potential third option which may or may not really makes sense um wanted to ask about the additional funds you talked about additional 600 60,000 from in Opera is that is that already included in the 3 million or is that on top of all the things sorry um didn't mean to interrupt you the um go ahead I just want to and I'll have another part to the question but go ahead everything that I mentioned was in addition to the uh three plus million that's in the Equitable emissions investment fund those are separate not in the Equitable emissions investment F they're different of funding that can access okay so the arpa money is in the city's control but the other pieces are not are things that are are separate from the city like the mass CC money Etc not coming into the fund but just separate opportunities for people correct so yes so the the environment Department my team is administer or is receiving the the EBG funds um so those that's the $660,000 that won't be going into the Equitable emissions investment fund but it will be uh serving Berto building so serving a similar purpose uh the mayor's office of housing has their affordable housing programs um their green energy retrofit programs that they've been running so those that's a city initiative but with arpa money and then the Massachusetts clean energy center has their program that and they're a um state agency Quai state agency and that's not money that mass cc is giving to the city it's money that people apply separately to mass C they are giving technical assistance to building owners yeah so they're giving money to building owners right kind of thank you I appreciate the respones Hannah it kind of goes back to the on the one hand it's really helpful to have an entity that can help manage the process and the funds on the other hand there's a cost to that and I'm wondering if there's a third option which probably is just as costly probably to have the money stay with the city and be managed that way but that might also be another additional staff person needed for that so it may end up being just as costly if not but that was just the third thing I wanted to understand if that was at all an option um so in response to that I I think that the opt that what you described to be closest to option two with the city kind of holding the contract with a vendor so that vendor could be a nonprofit that vendor could be a private entity um but they would be doing a scope of service that would have a public benefit um so that and then the they could be serving building so a scope could be develop um do energy Audits and develop uh burto compliance decarbonization plans and the city would Define that scope and then say you will do this for building owners that the review board selects okay I'm sorry I that would be option too no that's I read the contract with the vendor as an administering contract it's the city administering it and just leasing out a a vendor to do the actual decarbonization corre analysis okay got it got it and that I like um but that's very limited in terms of the the scope of work that can be done so I guess that those are my only comments I I can't give you a preference right now but that's those are my comments thank you thank you boy M lore um I have I have a bunch of thoughts on I mean I guess just to take a step back I mean um one thing that would maybe you've already shared this and I just forgot but is there a timeline on the um when we actually need to spend and these dollars um no there's no um well there is a timeline of we have a commitment that the board will open applications for uh the Equitable emissions investment fund so release a round of funding um in this calendar here um but there's no obligation to expend the funds by a given time okay and it doesn't and this calendar year does not need to be for all of the available funds okay good so if we don't choose to spend or aren't able to get it all out the door by the end of the calendar year or the end of the fiscal year even it's okay all right that's important um and then I think the other question I have I mean I think I also lean towards trying to figure out um how to make option one work uh you know the other thought I'm having here is like I don't know if we say we know how much like I my assumption is implementation eats up a huge amount of of of resources right and I'm not saying that that's not important to do I'm just saying I wonder if at this stage we um we focus on getting you know resources to uh you know buildings in EJ communities uh to make sure that they have the right resources to scope out exactly what's needed um for their buildings and so just trying to figure out how to how to make effective use of this I'm I'm even open to considering like a hybrid approach of of the of the options but a lot what's in my mind right now is just like how much are we talking about for this first year this first go round I'm I'm I'm eager to do it and I also uh you know limited resources so I want to make sure we do it do it well um so I'm definitely leaning towards option one but I'm open to even considering you know maybe there is one contract that's there that's operating at the same time and we can see what kind of support that offers and and and you know I don't see why we wouldn't also have some very clear requirements about what neighborhoods and communities and buildings that that's serving so um in any case I I think I'm I'm open to both I'm interested to kind of think more through that um and I guess at a certain point we don't have to make this decision sounds like as a board now but soon about kind of how much are we thinking for this first go round and is it is it just one of the other option are we open to to entertaining kind of trying out a couple of these different things to see uh what actually gets um you know our buildings and our communities and EJ these EJ populations kind of the this the the results so um yeah I I think that's I'll stop there right now thank you uh board member Nelson thank you Lee yes so continuing on that discussion I think option two gives us the most control how we apply the funds towards um ultimately the buildings or owners uh that will benefit from it um as long as it's for studies and Engineering work it can't be for implementation correct Hannah but here we could we go out in the street for rfps for for-profit and not for-profit entities who could do this type of work and then pick five contractors who then we can choose for different um efforts and have them as the five preferred vendors to do that work I believe yes I personally have not done a Contracting process we're we're hiring multiple but I believe there's a way to do that okay so then we could we would um review applications um and then we could select the owner or building where that work would be conducted and then we select the engineer who would do that work one of the five if we're allowed to pick five is that correct I believe that would work the way that I had been thinking about it that I think I'm just not sure about the five but in taking that same example and if we had selected one vendor one firm to do that then the board could then review applications of people who wanted those services and then assign that work for those buildings to that vendor to complete b as long as it's within the scope of work and budget that was a set out at the beginning of the RFP procurement process okay all right and that way there wouldn't be a middleman between us and that entity doing the work um under this option where on one option one there potentially could be a an entity in the middle I believe there could be but it wouldn't necessarily be um right y yeah okay and under um and there's no way that a not for-profit building owner can apply for these funds directly a healthare entity or a housing entity that's not for profit to do work on their building like let's say a community health center applied to replace their HVAC system right exactly yes and they were uh they had you know they got the the plans were done they had it bid and they had it all you know shovel ready and they were applying directly for the funds they wouldn't be able to receive that those funds directly we so this is that's like the biggest gray area I will say I think in some cases it may be eligible and others it may not be and that's where that line is tricky for like that it would have to be on a case-by Case basis um so in most cases we likely would not be able to payer that with operating dollars unfortunately so um that's where we were kind of steering away from that because I think that's the most likely to have a a conflict but there may be some cases where they could be eligible but we'd probably want to be clear upfront in our application processes and that's why we were not including that option okay are you going to flush that out a little bit further before um this be all becomes uh you know official the the potential for a not for-profit owner to receive those funds directly so this is this is why we did not include that as an option because we think it is not likely to be allow um but there may be cases so like that we could do that in the in the future but it's the trickiest one to do um and have have work so that's why we did not include it as an option because in most cases it it would not be allowed under the anti-a amendment okay okay so do we have to pick a are we voting on this today or are we just talking about it I don't think we have to vote on this today although we will have to come back to this uh I'm assuming in our next meeting flush this out a little bit more have some more clarity on you know um some of the some of the options that we might actually be voting on in the future so I I I think I don't think there's expectation we vote on this today though okay all right thank you yeah thank you uh board M Nelson I see your hand of board member ladimore uh I'll let you go ahead and then we'll get to you of course board mem M next thanks for your consideration um I I just wanted to make sure I understand that question and and that uh discourse that just happened between Jack and um Hannah am I understanding when I read option one maybe I'm totally not getting this because when I read it prior to this meeting I thought option one was that nonprofits the nonprofit who was the administrator could not apply for the money but am I hearing something different that nonprofits would not be eligible in general for the money I I I just I want to clarify what what that discourse was about sure happy to help clarify so a nonprofit organization would need to uh be the grant recipient in option one um and they would need to be doing these Services um uh if they were doing those services for another nonprofit like in a nonprofits building that would be eligible what what would likely not be eligible would be a nonprofit uh like the example I gave a community health center saying I have this building decarbonization project I want $500,000 from the Equitable emissions investment fund to install heat pumps in my community health center that would likely not be covered but if it was a nonprofit that is doing decarbonization work and doing energy audits they could then go do that energy audit in that Health Center um and do and complete some projects on behalf of them this is that's the guidance we've been given okay I'm still scratching my head I'm sorry um you you've chosen a say for example um uh new ecology let's just do hypothetical chosen new new ecology to provide these services to constituents and they're a nonprofit they've been choke this I I want to make sure I understand this and cin Square comes and says we got a similar project that you just described hey new ecology we want to apply we would not be eligible to apply to new ecology no you would be able to get those services from the nonprofit doing those services but you as Codman Square could not apply to the review board you could not have a grant agreement with the review board saying we're going we want this money for our building you could then you could request those services from an entity like new acology doing that one has the agreement it wouldn't just be a direct Grant agreement all Grant agreements would go through new ecology regardless of who the cons who the uh um entity is that is requesting the funding all end recipient yes so the the the agreement on who on the the fund agreement would be between the board the environment department and the nonprofit providing the decarbonization services and there would be not as much oversight over the the next level of that which would be the the decarbonization services for those entities okay so it's more an issue of like where the money flows of money always Flows In this case just hypothetically to new ecology always and they do the work on behalf of the the entities that are requesting the money okay I think I understand thank you and apologies for holding up councel M's turn I just want to make sure I understood this yeah thanks for being patient uh councelor M please or U board member m please go ahead yeah no no this is a great great conversation to have so happy to happy to hear these voices and board member lore I Echo a lot of your questions I want to continue that then I'll get to my comments is that the issue with this hypothetical under option one is that the review board and the city would have no um uh oversight of how that nonprofit vendor decides to invest their money that we would award is that that is that the right read Hannah I there would be there would certainly be oversight but there would be um it would be more along the lines of in the grant agreement saying what types of buildings the nonprofit should be serving so probably something along the lines of the nonprofit will identify Berto buildings in in these census tracks just as an example um to provide these services to and then the nonprofit would go and work to find those buildings and give them those services in option two the review board could have more direct say in the building so maybe it would be the same scope we are going to serve buildings in Berto buildings in these census tracks but we're going to evaluate their need on a number of criteria and the review board would actually select building a and building but not Building B because they didn't meet the criteria and and you're sure that we could get that specific under option one to include I I get having EJ populations Etc but we could we could we could it would be legal and lawful to include census track as the criteria of what we'd like to see I am not positive on that I could try I could get that specifically answered but I understand that there could be parameters put on yeah that that would be important to know um and and just to back things up a little bit um it's a little concerning that we've only had five uh responses to the uh the the survey that was put out and that's not at all an indictment on the environment Department you guys have done amazing work in the fact that we and you all put such a um comprehensive survey out there I'm wondering if and I will take this upon myself to offer I'm happy to get it out into my networks more to try to Jin up more support is there some language that um the environment Department can share with board members so we could publicize this on you know LinkedIn on you know some of the other social media sites where I think we could get some more response because I'd hate I'd hate us to end and have seven people actually weigh in on this when you know this is such an important issue um so that would be helpful I'm happy to publicize it later this week if I get some verbiage from the environment Department um and then to be clear the issue about the anti-a amendment and the uniform procurement Act that's because this is operating dollars will these uh stipulations exist when we when it's an ACP funded pool um no the the acps are not taxpayer dollars and so the the anti-a amendment would not apply if the city were to be procuring services on behalf of the city then we would still have to follow the procurement rule but um for Grant agreements uh sorry the the anti-id amendment would not apply for the um alternative compliance payment funding okay so we'll have a little bit more flexibility so just to be clear we're talking about a very generous pool of money from the mayor um and I'm just curious when we did the Berto ordinance and I believe it's section g that lays out the Equitable investment fund the last bullet point says something along the line there's sort of a rundown of what the money will be used for and it's decarbonization and job training Etc and then it says any other environmental initiative we specifically chose that language to allow some flexibility can that be applied there or I'm assuming the Corporation Council and and the other the environment Department attorneys are saying No this has to be this is a lock solid sort of definition and interpretation of what public benefit is um I don't know that I'm understanding the question exactly are you looking for if if it could be broader or let me ask this we we wanted we wanted flexibility in the Equitable investment fund so that if again well we're playing in hypotheticals here if there was a nonprofit that could plant 5,000 Street trees in a neighborhood that doesn't have much coverage that would be considered a a a a that would be considered a a legitimate expenditure that's clearly not building decarbonization uh is and that's why we had that little bit of flexibility in that's why we included that line so that we wouldn't be hamstrung we wouldn't be in a situation where we couldn't spend the money on worthwhile projects I wonder if if that is something that we should put on hold until the funds included are ACP funds and there's more flexibility and then if operating budget that's why this is a little bit more narrowly tailored to building a carbon abatement projects specifically retrofits you know yeah so I believe and I need to I was trying to find the ordinance language on my desk um but I believe that the way that it is written is that it needs to be for building decarbonization projects that can have additional environmental benefits so there would have to be a core component of the project and the um that would be supporting building decarbonization but there could be additional Environmental benefits included in that so like a Workforce Development component a um additional air quality improvement in uh component of a project but my read of the ordinance is that it would need to be there would need to be an element of building decarbonization so just tree planting alone would likely not be eligible okay but it could be part of sort of a portfolio application think as long as there is like a the the funding is being used for that primary purpose that kind of the the overarching piece of it yeah yeah no I understand okay um well I don't want to take up too much more time I know we've more to get to I would say you know and my question is what is a realistic time where we need to decide if if I had to vote today I would vote very strongly on option two uh I think that it gives us a lot more o um oversight and Direction um I think it's more of what we had entailed the uh Berto board to play an active role in how we expend um ACP and and in this case Capital funds uh I think as it relates to you know there's clearly the con is not insignificant that it can only be for scoping planning or design engineering I've been around enough large SC decarbonization projects that that's always a significant upfront cost and and I think most of uh the the particular recipients that we'd be looking at uh would welcome what that would uh what that would look like and uh um I think you know I can be convinced otherwise um I I see a lot of um utility in option one um but I do worry that we wouldn't have control and I worry that the uh pool of potential nonprofits um I'm not I'm to reiterate some points that have made before I'm not sure how big that universe is so I think option to would clearly be a little more more work on our end but I think it's a it's a a more prudent approach for us to take at least initially that's that's awesome thank you thank you as always Hannah and team and thank you Mr chair no thank you um well I think we should I mean I'm trying to remember now maybe you could help me with this Hannah but we had kind of talked through a a general outline of a of a timeline on like how you know when do we kind of need to decide this in order to hold some process right that that would allow for folks to actually apply for these resources so um can we go back to that and then you know I think there I think um one other strand that I I think I would I would recommend is like maybe we should consider extending the deadline for public comments I I I share uh your concern um uh board member Ali about like just not a lot of responses right and so be interesting to know if we could just extend that um but I think it ties into this whole conversation about kind of our timeline so maybe we can just kind of go through that a little bit about um you know when we were when we were imagining this uh I feel like a couple I don't have in front of me a couple meetings ago we talked about what it might look like to get to you know rolling this out sometime in the summer I thought we were talking about but I can't remember and I have to apologize I do not remember either and apologies for Diana not being here on me being not as an effective uh substitute for her um but I do not recall at the top of my head what the I the exact timeline we had laid out was um I think we are wanting to collect the feedback from the survey integrate that finalize the um applica like the evaluation either of these options our team would need to draft the um scope of work kind of for either the grant the grant opportunity WR the Grant application or the scope of work for the RFP um I think likely like and the those processes will take some time and we'll need to come back to the board to get feedback on that sure that we're you moving in the right direction and responding to your input so I know we had believe di had said like ideally trying to get this out in the summer I think that's still doable but we can come back with a an update to the board on timeline um and maybe map out some of the different options I think that would be great if we could yeah come to our next meeting um with yeah I just lined out a little bit more about some of the key steps here I think we're going to have to come back to the question about um the amounts and then it does it does I I would appreciate also just making sure that we understand you know a number of the comments were just about uh why can't um some of the nonprofits just get the direct funding to do some of the work and so just want to make sure we we get that ruling and understanded a little bit but it sounds like that's pretty clear but I just want to make sure um and I I also had similar just one last thing on my end similar questions about the definition of um the public benefit of the fund on slide seven um that I I think uh you know board member Al was referencing is just I I had also uh thought there was a bit of a broader interpretation that we were allowed but um in any case uh I think it's helpful just to talk about timeline and then we can get back to the details um and it sounds like we're going to need to do that as soon as our our next meeting uh what I guess my question about extending the deadline for um public comments on the forums given we've got five responses deadline uh currently is this Friday I believe right the 12th is what we said so just curious if that's something that um we would be interested in extending uh and if so like you know would we do it for a couple more weeks I think is the question um that might be what I would propose is is give us an additional couple weeks and then um and then come back to our next meeting with a a little bit more thought out on the timeline and um and then we can dig back into this conversation around some of the other specifics curious yeah maybe we could just uh get any other comments or questions from board members and see what yall think about extending the the deadline for public comments um board member lmore thank you I'm fine with extending a couple of weeks the deadline if it if it aligns with the overall process that uh the city had for this getting this um activating this fund I had a um a question or or a comment about getting more feedback because I agree it would be great to have more feedback and that is I think the city's done a great job at different categories of who you've asked or put this to and I would ask um or wonder if it makes sense to um put this to and maybe it's included in some of these subcategories that you had listed but put this to all people all entities that have commented already on any aspect of Berto um like you know putting it in front like I don't know how exactly but maybe is there way to anyone that's commented on any aspect of bero putting this issue to them that's that's my comment Y Hannah could we could the city send an email directly to members of the different working groups and ask them for their input if we put a button right in front of them it might be easier than expecting them to check the websites and stuff uh yes we can certainly send this to the working group members um I believe it's been sent to at least the commercial real estate working group group and I need to confirm with Diana if it's been sent to the hospitals if not we will um and uh thank you for that suggestion uh board member ladimore we will take a look at that I think we've probably reached almost everyone who's commented through are various newsletters that people are signed up for but we can we can check that and um look at that option as well um do we do you know Hannah if we need a formal vote to extend the the deadline you know if it were two more weeks we talk be talking about April 26th um is that as a formal vote of this board required I don't believe so because I think it's an informal comment period oh that's right it is you're exactly right okay are there any other just concerns about extending it or any other just ments specific to that I I I would like to at least agree on that and then um um see if there's any other closing comments and then I know um I want to make sure we we get back to public comments on this as well the folks who are still with us all right just a straw poll are people okay with extending it a couple more weeks give give like a hands up or something yeah yeah I would suggest we extend extend it till the end of the month because we've got school vacation next week um and then I and I and I think we'll all do a good job I think sending out something to list with just the survey language um will hopefully yield more more uh more responses and then maybe that can help dictate a little bit of how we move forward on either option one or option two uh relative to the um uh the first trench of uh operating budget funds that we can help disperse sounds good okay then I think what I would like to move to um unless there's any other burning comments or questions from the board members I'd love to go to the public comment period okay let's do it so uh we will now open the meeting to public comment as a reminder members of the public to provide public comment you can raise your hand or type in the chat uh in the application via the zoom meeting platform um if you're calling in and can't use the platform you can raise your hand by pressing start R9 you can also send your questions to staff via email at Berto review board boston.gov um you know as a reminder let's try to to keep our comments um to three minutes if possible so we make sure everyone has a chance I don't think we've had a problem with this in the past but um just be aware of that and then um obviously please introduce yourself your organization the neighborhood you're in would love to know that so uh let's uh let's ask members of the public any anyone like to join uh join us and make a public comment ask a question we would really appreciate it and I I know there are comments already in the chat so um might go to that as well specifically but if if there's someone who' like to speak um uh we'd love to hear hear from you okay um I did see a question I don't know if anyone uh Hannah or others have a response to this but there was a question from EV Tori is it similar to the Mass Save model using technical assistance providers are are any of you all familiar with this I I I am not um I oh no I I I was trying to understand the question I don't know where he's coming from but no you can go you can go yeah I am not exactly sure if if is if Eve is still on and you remember where this what you were referencing um I think it has to do with the comment that I was making about um you know when we were talking about how people get to the money like a nonprofit they have to go to um the the O like Codman for example hypothetically go to that that nonprofit that the city would hire in option one I think it was I think that's when she's she's not here you know here or she is here so I'll let them represent themselves um yeah thank you so I was just um I can't remember honestly it was a little while ago um but it was more to do with that um the review board would have oversight of which nonprofit the money was going to and then the nonprofit would then select the projects and my understanding is that that's a bit the way massave works with its technical assistance providers that they get x amount of funding and then you know work with directly with the projects so I was just wondering if it was a if we were talking about something parallel or not and whether that may may or may not be a useful model to look at thank you for that any other um members of the public just have any questions or comments you'd like to you'd like to bring in again love to hear your voice and and and jump on but you can also email folks um email our staff which whichever I have I can comment make one other comment about we um we did bring up the um the three aspects of the Equitable emissions investment fund at uh the recent um commercial real estate bero group and um asked for comments we haven't had any um and we did also email a lot of the folks we have worked on bero comments with a lot and haven't had any either um from where I sit I just think everybody is massively burnt out honestly um and it's just a really it's really becoming increasingly difficult um to get um useful information when they've kind of been doing this for two years and I I'm just finding it harder from my point of view um to get really useful um feedback so I don't I'm not sure it's because we're not not reaching the right people I think it's just I'm not sure the people who are the right people have a lot of capacity that's my take I definitely I definitely hear that you thank you um yeah it's it's uh I think it's been very intentional the process right to engage both through the working groups through other formations of like really solicit as much feedback as possible and I think um we're we're creating a lot of stuff here that you maybe doesn't really exist in the same way in in a lot of other scenarios so anyway I I uh I think we're just gonna have to keep keep trying and I also recognize that like there yeah there might be a certain level of fatigue that also sets in at a certain point so we're going to do our best I think to keep you know both the materials engaging figure out ways to um keep engaging folks in in uh in the best way possible so I think it's I think we're all eager to get get the implementation but we're we got we got some stuff to figure out um all right any other uh and yeah thank you for for continuing to try to get those comments um and public comments back any other just uh last member members of the public would like to make any uh offer any comments or questions okay if not I think we are uh ready to move on to our uh third agenda item so we will close the public comment period thank you again thanks all for for being on uh members of the public we're going to move on to uh agenda item number three and so we're going to um here's some administrative updates and um Hannah I think we're we're going back to you yes thank you um so just a few updates to share um one the city has contracted with RDH um to provide technical capacity bu building for the review board so I believe they've already reached out to the uh review board members uh with a survey so if you have not yet taken that survey board members please do that by the end of the day on Wednesday um RDH estimates that it will take around 30 minutes um and the int of this is to gauge current um understanding of different um technical topics related to Berto and building decarbonization and this will inform some of the next steps that they will be taking um so their work is to provide um training and capacity building to the review board um as well as providing on call technical services to the board um specifically around reviewing um flexibility applications but other things that that make up um and then preparing accessible materials on compliance options for building owners and the public um so we're really excited to have RDH on board they H bring a lot of um great experience in building Engineering Building science as well as technical writing and communication um so they um uh you'll be hearing from them more um at at Future meetings um and engaging with them more as we uh really dig into this Pro project um just a quick overview of the estimated project timeline um this is all subject to change but the the first piece around technical um training and capacity building for the board we're really trying to do this in the spring and summer um so uh hitting the ground running with these um with the survey that's out now and then they're scheduling interviews with um board members to try to get some more information from you all um so if you are more of a person who would rather take the time to talk to someone and answer questions um that can be you can do more of that in the interview if you're someone who likes to write really in-depth responses you can spend more of your time in the survey so there are kind of those two two options for you but please um try to complete the survey as well um then the on call technical services this is really going to ramp up we think in starting in June as we begin to get more of those applications in um and running through the remainder of the cend calendar year um accessible materials we're also trying to frontload that so there's more resources for the board as well as um members of the public sooner than later um and then we'll continue to engage with them and kind of address uh or scope their time and support for the board as needed so please reach out to Diana if you have questions about this um contract the scope of work or if there are specific things that you um would want to see uh and are not seeing in this and I also will note I did share in the board's folder um a copy of the uh request for uh proposals um that is the public RFP call for um uh request for proposals from vendors and how we selected the vendor um just an update that again the review board or nominations for the review board um open seat uh those nominations closed on March 8th uh the mayor is um we hopefully we'll be making an announcement soon on sending a nominee one of the selected nominees to the council for approval but I don't have a public update on that yet and then finally on the um meeting schedule the we wanted to just flag that there is uh a meeting that falls on uh May 27th which is Memorial Day um so a proposal for the board is that if there are applications queued up by May 17th uh which is when we would need to post that agenda so if we have received um applications for flexibility by then that we would propose moving the meeting to Tuesday May 28th and if there were not applications um then uh proposing cancelling that meeting um but open to other suggestions as well just a starting point for how to handle that um so uh chair Matt sua I don't know if you want to gauge interest on that uh or we can follow up off offline I that sounds great um we'll just work backwards I mean members of the board are there just any uh comments to about the proposal for the May 27th meeting um any any reactions to that or other ideas I think I think this those options make sense to me yeah I I I would just say I will actually be looking at a 40 megawatt heat pump in sburg Denmark on May 27th so I will not be able to uh make this meeting probably either way um but uh I I think that's a good good approach Hannah um potentially move it or cancel it sounds like an awesome trip we love to be happy to sh when I get back and great oh sorry go ahead no just I'm just curious to make sure we we'll have Quorum obviously we're going to need that um but um yeah if there any other major you know issues that are going to pop up that particular week wouldd be good to know and then obviously offline we have other board members aren't with us that we need to hear from but yeah uh count uh board member lore please thank you um no I agree the May 27th meeting needs to be adjusted so and I think I have availability if it's the 28th but I'll double check I did comment on the RDH survey about June I'm pretty much out of the country for much of June which is you know so I have to double check there may be one meeting I can make in June but I know that's not the question but I just want to make that statement and I made it in the survey um I I I will respond to this uh definitively but I think I may also have a conflict on the 28th uh the Tuesday evening so I will just confirm that um and uh uh if not I think um happy to happy to meet then or if if need if no applications I I agree we can cancel it great um if there's nothing else on these the meeting schedule we can come back to the review board nominees um I did see the comment in the in the chat here um I I thought Hassan was one of the names that we had got in um I know one of person I think there were three yes who did receive this correct Hanah yes so if I may jump H this so apologies I did not I did not see this go to the council so um I think something must have just gotten lost uh in Translation last week but yes uh it is now public then that the uh mayor has um put forth Hanan farooqi as the nominee for um the review board seat um so that will be I don't know if the council voted on it last week or if they're reviewing it um apologies for not having perhaps councelor Keta has an answer on that I'm happy to provide an answer it uh yeah it was referred to the to the committee my committee um happy to have a a Expeditions hearing to review um and look forward to um the conversation but Hassan is is incredible individual and I look forward to his uh potential Passage thank you and I was apologies that was just me not uh being in the loop on everything not trying to hide anything from the board of course yeah um and then just I think we should get back to RDH it sounds like some of us have already filled out the surve I have not I gotta fill out the survey by Wednesday um I have responded to the the interviews but um hopefully this this scope of work looks good to folks I know in in my case I'm really interested I would even love to see samples of like what accessible materials mean to them um because I feel like we're in desperate need of of good materials that help break break down what tends to be pretty overwhelming and and and uh confusing to some so in any case uh I'm yeah I'm I'm eager to get this rolling and uh um hopefully they they do some good work here um but any other just comments from members of the board about RDH I think everyone should have those interviews on your calendar that you need to respond to the surveys as well but any other just comments about the scope of work anything else around RDH okay excellent um is there anything else around the administrative updates if not shair I have just one last thing um you uh likely saw an email from Diana about um Berto regulations and just noting that there is going to be an Air Pollution Control Commission hearing next week um and part of that agenda is to um review and vote on um updates to the regulations that are just correcting typos and clarifying edits if you uh you should have received um the redline edit from Diana and that is also online so if you would like to review it more than welcome to and that will be um discussed and reviewed by the Air Pollution Control Commission on um next Wednesday at their meeting at 2:30 p.m um but just wanted to make sure that the board was aware of that the if you've looked at the changes they are very minor and just correcting a few typos and small clarification edits thanks thanks for that and so it it uh as as you Shar in the calendar our next meeting looks like it's going to be on the is that Earth Day 22nd of April um and uh obviously as always people should just respond respond make sure we have Quorum so we'll we'll make sure people just respond to the calendar invite there but I think I believe we're finished uh with with agenda item three and can and can move on does that sound good members of the board yes okay uh so we get to the stage now very simple is there a motion to adjourn so moved seconded excellent uh so as before all all board members in FA you can raise your hand or say I I I I any opposed nay okay I think the eyes have it uh the motion passes um the meeting is adjourned at 5:55 pm thank you everyone you all have a great evening by have a great night you too thank you